What characteristics of modernism are there in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place"?

Literary modernism in the early 20th century, as exemplified by the works of Ernest Hemingway, was a reaction to the chaos and confusion of the era brought on by factors such as World War I. It broke with traditional romantic styles of writing and embraced experimentation, stream of consciousness, and psychological complexity. It manifested in characteristics such as realistic details, fragmented or internalized perspectives, irony, blatant sexuality, and anti-heroism.

The so-called Lost Generation of American writers, who chose to live abroad in the wake of World War I, included Hemingway. These writers used modernism as a means to make sense of their confusing world. Hemingway's modernism took the form of paring away all extraneous language and using extremely simple sentences. His characters also appear simple on the surface, but the reader catches glimpses of underlying complexity and psychological intensity.

First published in 1933, the famous short story "A Clean Well Lighted Place" is a classic example of Hemingway's modernistic approach. The language is simple and basic, without any frills. The story is a truncated set piece, seemingly without a beginning or an ending. The action that takes place is rudimentary; all that appears to happen is that an old man has a few drinks at a cafe, the waiters talk about him and about their lives, and then the old man and the waiters go home. And yet beneath the surface, there is significant psychological impact. The old man has recently tried to commit suicide, and the old waiter suffers from insomnia. Each of them sees great value in the clean, quiet, well-lit cafe that offers them relief from the confusion and isolation of their empty lives.

Very few modernists were avowed nihilists, but in challenging prevailing ideas they often gave that impression. It's not so much that modernists didn't believe in anything, more that they believed that the old certainties had been swept away in the post-war cultural malaise and that new ideas needed to take their place.
To some extent, the older waiter is a representative of the modernist attitude in miniature. His mocking invocation of the Lord's Prayer, with its refrain of "nada," or nothing, pithily expresses the sense of crisis and disillusionment which descended upon Hemingway and the other members of the so-called Lost Generation. Like a whole generation of modernist artists, the old waiter doesn't really belong in the modern world; he has no "clean, well-lighted" place to call home. He's cut adrift from his fellow man, forced back on his own resources to find his own truth in the midst of an alienating world where everything suddenly seems to have lost all meaning.

Modernist short story writers such as Hemingway often abandoned traditional structures in their writing. Modernism in the literary and visual arts sought to communicate the feelings of fragmentation and disenchantment with traditional ways of thinking and valuing in the wake of World War I. Modern writers would sometimes omit exposition and conclusion, putting more responsibility on the reader to construct meaning.
In "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," from 1933, Hemingway explores his "iceberg theory" of writing, indicating that what is above the surface, or seen explicitly, is a small expression of larger issues looming beneath.
Because of the lack of exposition, readers know next to nothing about the two waiters, the old man who visits the cafe, the reason for his apparent despair, or the political or social situation of the area they inhabit. Readers must be willing to accept that they are more or less dropped into a situation that they will have to figure out themselves. The lack of information about the men other than the opposing attitudes of the waiters is an expression of the encounters of modern life. They can be fleeting and fragmentary, leaving us to assign our own meaning to them.
The story also lacks a conclusion. The two waiters close the cafe. The old man presumably goes home, but the older waiter reflects on the meaningless nature of life, including religious practices, and has a small drink. He heads home knowing that insomnia awaits, speculating that others have it as well. Hemingway doesn't offer any resolution or overtly assign meaning, and like the older waiter, readers are left to only to observe and exist separately from others who construct their own meanings.

In what state of mind did Adam and Eve leave paradise in Milton’s Paradise Lost?

Having brazenly defied God by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve are much more hopeful of the future than perhaps they have a right to be. The Archangel Michael has already provided Adam with a terrifying glimpse of humankind's future—the appalling horror, violence, and bloodshed that will mark human existence from here on now that he and Eve have transgressed against the Almighty.
Yet despite this grim insight into the future, Adam knows that he and Eve got off quite lightly, all things considered, because, as Michael explains to them, just before they leave Paradise, though fallen from grace, they can still lead fruitful lives. If they live by the seven tenets of temperance, virtue, obedience, faith, patience, love, and charity, then they will have the chance to create a Paradise within to replace the external Paradise from which they're about to be expelled.
As they leave behind the gates of Paradise for the very last time, Adam and Eve are understandably upset. At the same time, they realize that theirs has been a fortunate fall in that it is only by virtue of their sinfulness that God is now in a position to show man his forgiveness and bestow upon him the gift of Jesus Christ, his only begotten son.

What is the Moral Dilemma in "The Ballad of Huck and Miguel"?

The Ballad of Huck and Miguel was written by Tim DeRoche and illustrated by Daniel Gonzales. The plot shares some striking similarities to Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (even though it is not an imitation work at all), but because the story takes place over a century after Mark Twain's famous work, the scenes are, of course, much different, especially since the setting is in a modern West Coast environment. Huck and Miguel's adventures occur along the Los Angeles River, a big city version of the Mississippi River. The scenes show tall skyscrapers and evoke an almost opposite world compared to the world that Mark Twain described in the 1800s.
At the outset, Huck and his Pap decide to head west to Los Angeles. Pap does not have much luck getting acclimated and assimilating in the big city, and Huck goes his own way. As Huck struggles to survive, he is able to get some food from Mexican immigrants. Afterward, Pap rants about the government letting illegal Mexican immigrants enter the country to take away Americans' jobs, money, and food. Pap complains that the plant where he used to work hired a Mexican immigrant to take over his job that he left. Pap is too prideful and would be too ashamed to ask for his job back from someone who hires a Mexican immigrant.
In a fit of jealousy and rage, Pap uses bungee-cords to tie Huck to their camper, but Huck manages to escape. Huck later meets Tom Sawyer, who is African American in this version of the story. They later witness Pap who is involved in a drug deal. During the exchange, Huck and Tom wind up saving Pap from the incident, in which the dealer murders an undercover cop. The case goes to court, and Huck and Tom receive a $200,000 reward for their efforts. Pap later becomes extremely angry when he learns that Huck has been learning to read and educating himself. And in another fit of jealousy and rage, Pap wants the reward money. Pap attacks Huck with a knife, and Miguel, a Mexican immigrant, defends Huck. They both get away.
Pap continually reappears throughout the story like a cockroach that won't die, and he later shows up on a bridge and shoots at Huck and Miguel as they sail down the Los Angeles River. Huck later discovers that his Pap has stabbed Miss Watson and Ms. Douglas, two ladies who allow Huck to live with them after he arrived in Los Angeles. Based on prejudicial attitudes, the police believe Miguel committed the crime and has kidnapped Huck, given the circumstances. In response, Huck and Miguel arrive at Aunt Polly's law office where Pap reappears (again) and takes Huck, Miguel, and Aunt Polly hostage. They manage to escape (again).
Near the end of the book, we learn that a judge—knowing that Pap was responsible for the crimes blamed on Miguel and that Miguel saved Huck's life when he defended him against Pap's attack—arranges to allow Miguel to remain in the country where he can be reunited with his family. Thus, the great moral dilemma in the story is quite relevant to the political times of today. Miguel, who is honorable, trustworthy, and loyal, and also someone who saved the life of an American, is also seen by many as someone who is part of a larger group that takes away jobs, money, and food from hard-working Americans. So there is a conflict between those who prefer to deport people like Miguel and those who see people like Miguel as how the model American citizen should behave and add value to American society. Miguel is an example of someone who undermines the theory that Mexican immigrants are not good people who can't contribute anything of value to American society.
Miguel is an example of someone who is actually the opposite of the kind of person that Pap believes is an accurate representation of immigrants. The story undeniably has a political theme that challenges the convictions of those readers who have reservations about letting Mexican immigrants into the country. In this way, it presents a moral dilemma for some of the readers of the story and not just the characters within it. Therefore, the story is truly a modern masterpiece that calls attention to the immigration issues of our time.

What is the significance of Clare Benecke's character?

Tom Benecke's wife Clare appears only very briefly at the beginning of the story, already on her way out of their apartment, and she does not reappear at the end. It might have been more practical for Tom to wait for her at home after he had succeeded in getting back inside. Finding her at Loew's theater among an audience that could have numbered 1,500 people would have been difficult. In those days an usherette would have had to accompany him up and down the dark aisles with her flashlight. They would have been annoying all the other patrons while the movie was in progress. Even if he found his wife, he probably would not have been able to sit beside her because the seats would all be taken. Clare is very much a minor character. She is described as the following:
a slender, very pretty girl with light brown, almost blonde hair—her prettiness emphasized by the pleasant nature that showed in her face.
The city has everything to offer in the way of entertainment, recreation, and cultural enrichment. Tom realizes that he has been sacrificing everything in his pursuit of the American Dream. The author probably did not want to place undue emphasis on Tom's relationship with Clare because he wanted to express a more universal message.
Tom is not a unique individual. There are millions like him who become "workaholics" because they are so absorbed in achieving more and more status—and more and more money—that they neglect everything. If they have wives, they neglect them. If they have children, they wake up someday to realize that their children have grown up without them. If they have artistic or intellectual interests, they realize they never took the time to cultivate them. Tom must see all this when he realizes that he is on the point of sacrificing his life for a yellow sheet of paper with some notes intended to impress someone higher up the corporate ladder who would not even recognize him on the elevator. He is giving away the time that should be his to enjoy, to relax, to share with his young wife. He works hard enough at the office. Why should he be working late at night too? Perhaps he dreams about work in his sleep. Being out on that ledge was the worst thing and the best thing that ever happened to Tom:
We then recognize that the best the world has to offer is a painless, quiet, and tolerable existence to which we restrict our claims in order to be the more certain of making them good. For the surest way not to become very unhappy is for us not to expect to be very happy. Merck, the friend of Goethe's youth, recognized this truth for he wrote: 'Everything in this world is ruined by the excessive pretension to happiness and indeed in a measure that corresponds to our dreams. Whoever is able to get rid of this and desires nothing but what he has in hand can get along in the world.'
Arthur Schopenhauer

Compare and contrast how Mary Warren's character represents being honest and truthful, while Abigail Williams is represented as the devil in The Crucible.

Certainly, Mary Warren seems more comfortable with the truth than lies, while Abigail possesses an "endless capacity for dissembling," as Miller tells us in her introduction in act 1. Mary tells Abigail and Mercy, "[...] we've got to tell. Witchery's a hangin' error [...]. We must tell the truth [...]!" However, Abigail threatens Mary, and her own cousin, Betty, with a violent death should they "breathe a word, or the edge of a word" about what really went on in the woods the night before. She promises to visit them in the middle of some dark night with "a pointy reckoning" to "make [them] wish [they] had never seen the sun go down!" By the end of the act, Abigail has not only accused Tituba (it seems, in order to deflect negative attention from herself), but she has also "open[ed] [her]self" to Reverend Hale, claiming that she wants to return to Jesus. She seems to have quickly grasped the power of such a claim, and she accuses six other women of witchcraft before the curtain falls on act 1 alone.
In act 3, Mary arrives at the court with John Proctor and his friends, charged to tell the truth to the magistrates: that she did not see spirits or other evidence of witches before, and that the other girls were and still are lying now. She has come to speak the truth, but, ironically, she will not be believed. Instead, Abigail—with her wild tales of a yellow bird she calls "Mary," a bird who she says wants to "tear [her] face" out of envy—will impress the court; Danforth and Hathorne believe her, though she lies. While I wouldn't call her the devil, she certainly seems capable of incredible evil; the more she accuses, the more people are condemned, and the more people die as a result of her lies. In the end of this act, however, Mary is not brave enough to continue to stand up to Abigail, and she turns on John Proctor instead.

Which of the following is an example of a good sociological research question? a. Will I make an A in this class? b. Can mass shootings be stopped? c. How does sports participation affect students' grades? d. Is American capitalism the best type of economic system?

Sociology is a social science which studies social and societal organization and behavior. Since sociology is a science, a good research question is one that can be reasonably tested. Out of the questions you have listed, the question "How does sports participation affect students' grades?" is the best sociological research question, because it includes two variables (sports participation and students' grades), and the relationship between the two can be tested. You could research the answer to this question by collecting a sample of students and tracking data about whether or not each student participates in sports, and what type of grades they earn. From this data, you could draw conclusions and attempt to answer your question.
"Will I make an A in this class?" is not a good sociological research question because it is about an individual student and their grade and not about larger patterns in society or groups of people. "Can mass shootings be stopped?" might be a sociological question, but to be a good research question it would have to be more specific and testable, for example: "Do anti-bullying programs reduce the likelihood of school shootings?" The question "Is American capitalism the best type of economic system?" is not a testable research question, partly because what it means for an economic system to be "the best" is not defined. A better sociological research question could be something like, "How do levels of employment and well-being of people living under American capitalism compare to those of people living in other economic systems?"
https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/Writing/sociology/question.html

Why does the speaker use, "he" instead of giving any name to the slave?

One possible reason that the speaker of the poem only calls the slave by the pronoun "he," rather than giving him a name, is that the speaker wishes to describe a more universal slave experience, rather than the specific experience of one slave. By keeping the slave unnamed, this experience could be any slave's, all slaves', experiences; if he were named, then it becomes particular rather than universal. Any slave might have dreams of being in Africa, where he could be free and powerful. The narrator says that this slave dreams of "forests, with their myriad tongues, / [That] Shouted of liberty," making the man smile in his sleep. Then, he dies, leaving his body behind like "A worn-out fetter, that the soul / Had broken and thrown away!" Longfellow draws attention to the slave's humanity and human desire for freedom, contrasting it with the way slave-owning society has rendered his very body an instrument of torture, chaining him to a life of powerlessness and pain, and this draws attention to another possible reason the slave might be unnamed: white society does not see him as human, has tried to strip him of humanity, and refusing to name him could draw attention to this cruelty as well.

Which one of the Ten Commandments is hard to obey?

When asked "What was the greatest commandment," Jesus summarized all ten in two parts:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
(Matthew 22:34-40)
Jesus never singled out one commandment as being harder or more important - He placed emphasis upon the overall objective of the commandments in these two statements.

The Ten Commandments were meant to be a set of principles governing both worship and general ethics. However, they also directly address many flaws that humans lean towards depending on their upbringing and lot in life. Each commandment thus presents its own difficulties in terms of following it.
In the present day, Christians face temptations and opportunities to break nearly every commandment in many situations. For example, taking the Lord's name in vain warned against using God's name in oaths and interjections. In current speech, it's quite common to say "I swear to God" even if the meaning is facetious. How often are you tempted to lie about someone else? That would be bearing false witness against your neighbor. Stealing could be as simple as taking a stray grape from a grocery store produce display since it isn't your grape and you haven't paid for it. The commandment not to have any other gods means not to put anything above God in your life. Money, clothes, music groups, and even celebrities could all end up as "gods" if you spend more time and energy on them than God.
The difficulty in following the Ten Commandments largely varies from person to person and may also depend on the culture and historical period. The hardest one to follow for a given individual is likely the one that they do without even thinking about it.

In the teachings of the Bible, every one of God's Ten Commandments is supposed to be intrinsically hard for humans to obey. They stand in direct, equal opposition to mankind's primary flaws, which date back to the first two humans, Adam and Eve. The couple was expelled from the Garden of Eden after committing the first act of disobedience against God: eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In committing the act, Adam and Eve gave all humans thereafter the desire to disobey God.
In real life (outside the Biblical abstraction), any of the Ten Commandments might be harder to obey than the others. Acts of deviance from defined rules, whether religious in nature or otherwise, vary according to the personality, history, and inclinations of each individual.

Discuss the epic characteristics in The Wanderer.

To some extent, the epic elements in "The Wanderer" are subtly undermined and subverted by the overall elegiac structure of the poem. Elegy is used here primarily to lament the loss of the heroic-epic values of Anglo-Saxon culture. As he reflects ruefully on his past life, the wanderer comes to understand time's corrosive effects on all those cherished aspects of Anglo-Saxon life he'd previously venerated, which are celebrated in countless poems and songs.
As a brave warrior, the wanderer conquered nature—this is a common theme of epic. But now the roles have been completely reversed; for now it is the wanderer who's under the lash of the forces of nature as he navigates the stormy seas.
Unlike the elegy, the epic is a social mode of story-telling which deals with the community as a whole. Traces of epic are to be found in the wanderer's memories of the life he's left behind, such as the pleasures of the mead-hall. The close bonds that once bound the wanderer to his lord also have a certain epic quality to them. The lord was a brave warrior who displayed immense courage in battle as an epic hero was expected to. But now that the wanderer's liege-lord lies dead, those bonds have been severed forever.
The wanderer, like his late master, has been brought low by a higher power, whether it's fate or the gods. As in an epic, supernatural forces have inserted themselves into the action, determining not just the wanderer's past and present, but also his future.
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=text&id=Wdr

What is one direct quotation and explanation from Beowulf for each monster (Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon) that shows why the monster is so fearful?

Grendel is a monster in Beowulf. He is a cursed individual and is haunted by the singing he hears from the mead hall and the warriors. When he is unable to hear the singing anymore, he attacks Heorot and the people inside. He continues this for twelve years until the mead hall is unusable. What makes Grendel so strong against the warriors in the mead hall is that he has a charm that protects him from any weapon:

All of Beowulf's band had jumped from their beds, ancestral swords raised and ready. Determined to protect their prince if they could. Their courage was great but all wasted, they could hack at Grendel from every side, trying to open a path for his evil soul, but their points could not hurt him. The sharpest and hardest iron could not scratch his skin, for that skin stained demon had bewitched all men's weapons, laid spells that blunted every mortal man's blade.

Grendel's mother is another cursed individual in Beowulf. She seeks revenge for Grendel's death. While Beowulf and Grendel's mother's fight is well matched, Beowulf ultimately wins and defeats her using a sword in her lair. The most fearful aspect of Grendel's mother is her outward demeanor and the distance to her lair. She lives under a large lake that takes Beowulf a day to reach. She is also a mother mourning her son:

She'd brooded on her loss, misery had brewed. In her heart, that female horror, Grendel's Mother, living in the murky cold lake assigned her since Cain had killed his only brother, slain his father's son with an angry sword.

The dragon is the third monster that Beowulf encounters in the poem. Beowulf encounters the dragon almost fifty years after Grendel and Grendel's mother. While Grendel and Grendel's mother are feared due to their size, appearance, and strength, the dragon is feared because of the destruction he has leveled on the Geats. Beowulf is only able to defeat the dragon at the cost of his own life:

So the king of the Geats raised his hand and struck hard at the enamelled scales, but scarcely cut through. The blade flashed and slashed yet the blow was far less powerful than the hard-pressed king had need of at that moment. The mound-keeper went into a spasm and spouted deadly flames, when he felt the stroke, battle-fire billowed and spewed.

How can "The Masque of the Red Death" be read as a political statement?

One way to look at this from a political framework is to acknowledge that Poe is making a statement about the decadence of the wealthy classes and how that decadence is a way of being in denial about death. The people attending the party at the prince's palace think they are safe from the plague that is ravaging the kingdom because they enjoy lives of luxury. There is a bit of truth inspiring the plot of the story, however.
Indeed, in medieval times in Europe, some wealthy people were somewhat safer from the plague than the lower classes because of the basic differences in living conditions. The bubonic plague was spread by fleas living on rats, and the poor were more likely to live in areas where there were rats due to poor hygiene and crowded conditions. Wealthy people also had better access to facilities for bathing and cleanliness and took to wearing pomanders, which were containers filled with essential oils and herbs, which provided some small amount of immunity and protection due to the antibiotic properties of the plants. Access to such materials was as a result of wealth and literacy, and both can be seen as political issues, since the poorer classes lacked both money and education. There was also the accompanying stigma associated with the greater prevalence of the plague in crowded living areas where the poor were disproportionately affected.
The fancy costumes and elaborately decorated chambers in the castle are a sort of commentary on the difference in lifestyles between rich and poor, as if the clean, bright colored rooms and clothes could somehow protect residents from sickness, simply by virtue of their conferring wealthy status on those present. But as the story shows, even sequestering oneself away in a castle is not a protection against this sickness, which is highly contagious and works very quickly to kill those infected. Once a visitor (dressed like classical images of the Grim Reaper, but in red) arrives, the sickness is brought to the gathering and all of those present fall ill and die: "and the Red Death held sway over all!" The story's ultimate message is that wealth and comfort are only delaying the inevitable truth that death comes for everyone eventually, regardless of social status.

Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Masque of the Red Death" can be read as a political statement. The aristocrats prior to the French Revolution tried to cloister themselves in utopian settings such as Versailles, where all was peace and plenty, harmony and happiness. Unfortunately for the nobles, the hungry masses broke in, and the Napoleonic era changed Western thinking forever. The common people never felt the same about the aristocracy again, and the aristocracy never felt so confident and secure. God was no longer on their side.
In Poe's world there is no security. Everything changes. Nothing is known for sure. Poe was a revolutionary in spirit. He was actually a contemporary of Napoleon briefly. Napoleon died at Saint Helena in 1821, and Poe was born in 1809. So Poe would have been twelve years old when Napoleon died. They were that close together in time, although it seems as if Poe was living in an entirely different era.
In "The Masque of the Red Death" there are many commoners dying outside the walls, but the focus is on what is happening to the aristocrats who are sequestered inside, trying to pretend that their lives are going on as usual. Characteristically, they care nothing about the lower classes, and they divert themselves with their traditional frivolous pleasures and consumption. Poe had once been an insider, but now he was an outsider. He shows not a grain of pity for the aristocratic ladies and gentlemen being murdered by Death. It seems likely that Poe would have had no pity for those ladies and gentlemen who suffered from the French Revolution and its Napoleonic aftermath.

Miller has said that tragedy springs from the individual's quest for a proper place in the world and from his or her readiness "to lay down . . . life, if need be, to secure [a] sense of personal dignity." Does this apply to all, or only American tragedies? Or, should America teach us there is no "proper place,"—or that we can define our own, thus avoiding tragedy altogether?

The notion of American tragedy as a specific sub-genre of tragedy is an interesting one that can be explored alongside the notion of the American dream. Truly tragic stories in American literature are tragedies that echo strains of the dramatic formula of the ancient Greek playwrights who created and perfected this literary form; these American tragedies often concern the negative outcomes that come of pursuing the American dream. The pursuit of that elusive dream, for many, does in fact involve an expectation of security and personal dignity that Miller mentions, making the American tragedy something truly unique in literature.
The tragedies of the ancient Greeks concerned a tragic hero with a tragic flaw, and the tragic heroes of many American tragedies stumble and fall while in search of their version of the American dream. Their tragic flaw is often hope, which can sometimes manifest as blindness, naivety, and even overly optimistic arrogance. Miller's own aging American salesman, Willy Loman, for example, has a dream of middle-class success that drifts away from him as he gets older and less useful to his profession. His mistake is to place too much value on the wrong things in his life and to rely too much on his sense of being popular with others as a source of personal dignity, which wanes as he ages. Willy Loman's dream evaporates, much like the dreams of many Americans who are told that they can be secure and make themselves into anyone they want to be in the land of the free and hard-working.
Americans of all kinds face the kind of tragedy that Miller's Willy Loman faces, and their suffering is exacerbated by the fact that they believe the American dream is within reach. Many immigrant stories meet this description: a lot of American immigrants endure great hardship to come to America and to settle where the dream promises liberty, happiness, and health. Stephen Crane's Maggie: A Girl of the Streets depicts the problems many Irish immigrants faced at the turn of the twentieth century, while more recently, writers such as T.C. Boyle write about the plight of Mexican immigrants in works such as Tortilla Curtain. These Americans, or aspiring Americans, come to tragic ends because they believe in the idea of a proper place for them, a place where they can experience personal dignity; the unfortunate reality takes effect when the dream lets them down, and their versions of the American dream shatter. It is difficult to imagine an America without this kind of tragedy, as the American dream persists as a value and a fantasy, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Why was it so important for America to intervene in the Korean War?

America intervened in the Korean War (1950–1953) for a number of reasons.
First, the US had adopted a policy of containment for Communism in the late 1940s. Containment was the reason for America's decision to give economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey. The policy of helping countries facing Communist aggression was also known as the Truman Doctrine. These policies would serve as the linchpin of America's strategy throughout the Cold War.
Second, American leaders did not want to repeat the mistake of appeasement made by the west in the 1930s. For example, when German troops marched into Austria in 1938, the west did nothing. Appeasement encouraged further aggression, which eventually led to World War II. President Harry S. Truman and his advisers were determined to halt Communist expansion. Failure to act would lead to further Communist attacks against Japan or Europe.
Third, the United Nations condemned the invasion and asked its members to provide forces to repel the invasion. The UN forces were placed under American command.
America went to war in Korea for these reasons.

Was the Progressive Era truly "progressive"? Or was it conservative? Did the Progressive movements expand or limit democracy? Defend your answer with specific examples.

This is a fascinating collection of questions that ultimately boil down to a deeper question: What was the Progressive Movement actually about? In answer to that question, I sincerely doubt that there was anything truly conservative in the Progressive Movement. At its core, Progressivism can be summed up by the word in its name: it's about progress. The Progressives were very much pragmatists at their core: they looked to identify various political and social problems within the United States and use the powers of government to address them, all in order to create a better future.
I would note, first of all, that there are certainly elements to the Progressive Movement which were deeply democratic. The Progressives were critical in pushing the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed the populace to elect senators directly, and they also supported the cause of women's suffrage. Additionally, one can point towards political reforms such as the recall, as well as initiatives and referendums, which greatly increased the scope of American democracy and the influence of citizens within it.
However, at the same time, the Progressives were not shy about restricting democracy if it was in the service of progress to do so. Centralization of executive power is essentially the opposite of a truly democratic principle, and this is one of Progressivism's critical themes, as was most famously the case with Theodore Roosevelt. Do note, however, that this isn't necessarily a criticism. Roosevelt did a lot of good through those interventions: for example, prosecuting trusts which were seen as threatening to the public good, pushing through the Pure Food and Drug Act, and instituting conservationist policies. Nevertheless, even when it was to the benefit of the public welfare, it remains what it is: centralization of the executive branch.
Finally, while we focus on the positive impacts of the Progressives, we should be aware that not everything they supported and called for should be held in high esteem. Their vision of social progress had its shortcomings, as well as a very real dark side. Be aware, the Progressives supported Prohibition as well (and this can be, at best, labeled a well-intentioned mistake). Even worse was the connection between Progressivism and eugenics. Progressivism had, at its core, a belief in the importance of human progress, and in the eugenics movement, we see that same vision manifested in a particularly horrifying fashion. Furthermore, note that the eugenics movement grew across the Progressive Era before reaching its peak in the 1920s and 1930s. If we are to celebrate the achievements and advancements of Progressivism, then, we should be aware that it also included elements (most notably with regard to eugenics) which have been rightly condemned by history.

What do you know about Huck's parents in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Huck's mother does not play a part in the story. However, Huck's father is one of the most evil and malevolent characters in the book. He is first mentioned in chapter 3. Huck recalls that he hasn't seen him in over a year, but he's glad of it because his father would beat him whenever he was sober enough to catch him. When a man turns up drowned in the river, the townspeople assume that it is Huck's father, who Huck refers to as Pap, but Huck doesn't think that it is.
At the end of chapter 4, after months have passed, Pap shows up in Huck's room. In chapter 5, Huck describes him as about 50 years old with long, greasy black hair, long whiskers, pale white skin, and shabby clothes and boots. He criticizes Huck's cleanliness and tells him to drop out of school. He pretends to reform to try to get custody of Huck, but whenever he can get some money, he spends it on alcohol and gets drunk. In chapter 6, his father kidnaps Huck, takes him to a remote cabin, locks him in, and beats him often until Huck is "all over welts." In a drunken rage, he even goes after Huck with a knife and tries to kill him.
In chapter 7, Huck finds a canoe, hides it, and fakes his own death by killing a pig and scattering the blood. He escapes his father by fleeing downriver to Jackson's Island, where in chapter 8 he finds Jim, Miss Watson's runaway slave. Eventually, Huck and Jim travel on to further adventures.

What is the purpose of the handicaps?

The purpose of the handicaps is to make everyone equal. All of us are born with natural skills and abilities that other people don't have. Some people may be good at sports, others may have superior academic abilities. But in the dystopian nightmare world of "Harrison Bergeron," natural differences between people are considered completely unacceptable.
The Handicapper-General, Diana Moon Glampers, is determined to make sure that no one gains a special advantage over anyone else because of their natural abilities. This is where handicaps come in. Harrison—a tall, athletic young man—is forced to wear heavy weights that slow him down. Harrison's father George is a highly intelligent man. But no one must be allowed to be smarter than anyone else in this society, so he's handicapped by a radio device that emits loud noises into his ears at regular intervals, which prevent him from being able to think.

T is directly proportional to r². It is given that T=9 for a particular value of r. Find the value of T when this value of r is doubled.

Mathematically, if T is directly proportional to r squared, we write that as:
T∝r^2
To get from a proportional expression (∝) to an equation (=), we have to add a multiplication factor to r^2 to account for the how fast T changes with respect to r^2, so:
T=k*(r)^2 (1)
From here, we can plug in the numbers we know, which leads to:
9=k*(r)^2 (2)
And understanding that r doubling is the same as 2*r,
T=k*(2*r)^2 (3)
Using the distributive property we get:
T=k*(2)^2*(r)^2 (4)
Which simplifies to:
T=4*k*(r)^2 (5)
Now, if we look to work we did up above in equation (2), we see that:
k*(r)^2=9 (6)
So, now we substitute 9 into equation (5) and get:
T=4*9=28,
So, T=28 when r is doubled.

Of which two traits does Marianne learn the value through her experience?

Marianne first learns to show emotional restraint. She comes to realize that she doesn't need to always wear her heart on her sleeve. She learns to restrain herself from jumping to conclusions. At the beginning of the novel, she rushes headlong and impulsively into love with the romantic Willoughby and simply assumes that since he seems to share her feelings, they will be engaged and then married. Leading so much with her emotions and her heart hurls her toward destruction. When she find outs that Willoughby, for pragmatic financial reasons, is going to marry another woman, the shock makes Marianne so ill that she almost dies. She is far too emotional and must learn to restrain her feelings and use more sense, like her sister.
Second, Marianne learns not to judge a book by its cover. At first, she rejects the 30-something Colonel Brandon as much too old for her. Later, sobered by her experiences with Willoughby, she comes to realize there is much worth beneath Brandon's "elderly" surface. Willoughby might have been more dashing, handsome, and romantic, but Brandon has the steady character and devoted heart that she needs. His inner worth becomes apparent to her.

Describe the form and meaning of "Remember."

"Remember" is constructed as a sonnet. The sonnet form can do a lot to help us understand the somewhat elusive meaning of "Remember." The sonnet form, in this case, the Petrarachan form (not Shakespearean nor Spenserian) tells us several important things:
The volta of line 9 turns the sonnet toward the presentation of the paradox underlying the sonnet and the paradox in the resolution.
The sonnet problem and resolution are presented in the sestet, last 6 lines, of the sonnet.
Three ideas, including a problem, and a resolution are presented as subdivisions of the theme of the sonnet.
The first 8 lines, the octave, presents the point argued while the last 6, the sestet, present the counterpoint argued and the resolution paradox.
The last six lines, the sestet, seems to present some problems for readers. Line 9 is what is called the volta. The volta is where the sonnet turns form presenting the first two thematic ideas to presenting a problem and solution, usually a paradoxical one.
So then, what's happening in the volta of line 9, "Yet if you should forget me for a while (9)," is that the sonnet turns from the point argued in lines 1-8 and turns toward the counterpoint argued in 9-12. The point of this very complexly organized sonnet is: "Remember me" after I have gone "into the silent land" of death. The counterpoint is: but if you "forget me" [for awhile], my poems remember me, so smile. Voltae most often start with conjunctions of opposition, often "yet" "but" or "and yet." Line 9, the sonnet volta, introduces the counterpoint argument with the oppositional conjunction "Yet": remember me yet if you forget me.
Troublesome Phrases
Before going further with the analysis of lines 9 through 14, it is important to explain the meaning of some troublesome phrases, three in the first 4 lines of the octave and four in the sestet:
Phrases to Explain
Lines 1-4into the silent landhalf turn to goyet turning stayLines 9-14for a while darkness and corruptionvestige of my thoughts
Line 2: "into the silent land"
In Christianity, there is a long history to the phrase "into the silent land." In 1597, the phrase was used as the title for a collection of hymns; there was likely to be a hymn of the same title but this has not been confirmed. The phrase is a symbol for and an implied metaphor for death: going into the silent land is going into the land of death. The probability is high that Rossetti would have known this collection (and the possible hymn). Even though she was born in 1830 and it was compiled in 1597, there is a strong likelihood that she would have known it. There is a very strong probability that the phrase was then in common use as a Christian allusion for death. I say there is a strong probability that she knew the hymn collection because, even today, church congregations sing hymns from long-gone centuries. Here are a few titles, and the dates of their composition, of hymns that are still sung in churches today, indeed, hymns some here grew up singing:
"O Christ, Thou Lamb of God"From the German, 1528"Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow"by Thomas Ken, 1695"Oh, Bless the Lord, My Soul"by Isaac Watts, 1719"Oh, for a Thousand Tongues to Sing"by Charles Wesley, 1739
To make it more interesting, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow composed a hymn titled "Into the Silent Land" in 1840. While it is not possible at this remove to speculate on whether English Christina Rossetti might have encountered American Longfellow's hymn, the hymn does illustrate that the phrase was current in Christian vernacular from the 1500s through the 1800s, 300 years. More importantly, it illustrates clearly and without any ambiguity that Rossetti sets firmly in the first two lines the point of the poem as remember me in death. Some are tempted to argue that "into the silent night" symbolizes the breaking up of a love affair; they incorrectly understand the silent land as the silence of rejected love. One verse of Longfellow's hymn very clearly illustrates the metaphorically symbolic meaning of the Christian allusion "into the silent land," clearly equating the silent land with death:

O land! O land!For all the broken-hearted;The mildest herald by our fate allotted,Beckons, and with inverted torch doth stand,To lead us with a gentle hand Into the land of the departed,Into the silent land!(Longfellow 1840)

Line 4: "half turn to go"
If you understand that the poetic speaker is dangerously ill and forestalling the shock of her death by providing comfort and guidance for herself and her beloved, and if you understand "the silent land" as a symbolic location for death, then you can understand how she would think of being on the brink of death as a "half turn to go" to the silent land. This abridged paraphrase of what she is saying may help to illuminate this concept:
[paraphrase] When I am gone to death and you can no more hold my hand and I can no more half-way turn toward death (but must turn all the way and go into the silent land), remember me.
Line 4: "yet turning stay"
Remembering that the speaker is dangerously ill and that she has at least once been on the brink of death and half turned to go "into the silent land," you can understand that "yet turning stay" describes an unexpected recovery that allows her to turn again toward life and to stay with the living: "half turn to go yet turning stay." In the context of the meaning of the 4 lines, she is saying: When I am dead and you cannot hold my hand nor can I be nearly dead but recover again, remember me.
Line 9: "for a while"
"For a While" is significant here because it helps define her relationship with her listener and it helps define what she is expecting to happen. A very specific amount of time is signified by "for a while": a short time. In other words, she is anticipating and expecting those times when life will intrude into his mourning and distract him by the demands of living into forgetfulness. This is not the forgetfulness following a deliberate action, like breaking up a romance between people who are dubious about their reciprocal love. This is the momentary forgetfulness caused by the distractions of being alive. Acknowledging that he might "forget [her] for a while" is a testament to the compassion, mercy and devotion of her love for him; this defines their relationship as one of the most sincere love.
Line 11: "the darkness and corruption"
The "darkness and corruption" is something that has the capacity to "leave" something. But what is it? The theme of the sonnet is remembrance: "Remember me." The problem brought out in the volta of the sestet is forgetting for a while: "[should you] forget me for a while." The "darkness and corruption" leaving something represents the solution to the paradox of remembering yet forgetting.
In light of these elements, darkness and corruption cannot logically represent something related to the listener: his darkness and corruption in grief cannot solve a problem of his making. What textual clue do we have that indicates the meaning of "darkness and corruption"?
The speaker anticipates going "into the silent land" of death. A classic Biblical allusion likens death to corruption and the land of death to darkness. The logically consistent source of "darkness and corruption" is not the listener nor the listener's grief and loss, but rather the logically consistent source is "the silent land" of death, which, in taking her away, "Gone far away," leaves something behind. What is left behind?: "A vestige of the thoughts that once I had" is left, safe from the silence of death.
Line 12: "vestige of my thoughts"
This phrase is an original expression of a standard poetic convention. Spenser talks about the words he writes in sand; Shakespeare talks about the poems he writes. All talk about the immortality imbued in poetry that attaches to the writer, the recipient/listener, to the words themselves. Like Spenser's words in sand, Rossetti's "vestige of my thoughts" are her poems, the words of her poems. In answer to our last question, "What is left behind?": The darkness and corruption of death in the silent land takes her but leaves a vestige of her thoughts. What does this reference? The vestige of her thoughts are her poems. If the paradoxical condition of forgetting while remembering is the problem, then her poems that live on after her are the solution.
In a complexly connected series of thoughts in logical progression, the speaker tells her beloved listener that if he forgets, the darkness will leave untouched her poems so he mustn't grieve, she will always--in a second paradox--be remembered by her words (and their readers) even while he forgets. So he should smile, not be sad.
Meaning of Text Lines 9-14
It may be tempting after a hasty reading of "Remember" to interpret lines 9-12 as the argument of a young woman who is dubious and ambiguous about her love for her supposed beloved. It might be tempting to think she is acknowledging that his love for her is equally dubious and that he will all too soon conquer his grief and rebuild his life. It may be tempting to think that she has realized that she has never fully loved him, that she has had doubts throughout their time together. But if you know that a sonnet presents a point of argument and a counterpoint and that the counterpoint presents a problem and a solution and that the solution represents a paradox, then you will realize that this hasty sort of interpretation is in conflict with the text and fails to reflect the form and meaning of the text.
What is the meaning of the text in lines 9 through 12?

Yet if you should forget me for a while 9 And afterwards remember, do not grieve: 10 For if the darkness and corruption leave 11 A vestige of the thoughts that once I had, 12

The speaker has just reminded her beloved, in lines 1-8, that when she is gone into the silent land of death, he will no longer hold her hand; he will no longer plan or speak of their future life together (seemingly her illness has prevented them from marrying); he will no longer be able to comfort and counsel her and pray for her. Her request of him is that, with all this that they will lose, he remember her: "Remember me when I am gone ... / far away into the silent land." The theme is being remembered after death. The point being argued is that, when she is so ill that she must turn to go toward death when she can no longer recover, he must replace the planning and counsel and prayer--which will do no good then--with remembrance of her.
The counterpoint being argued from the line 9 volta to line 12, is that while life may distract and cause him to forget for a while--"for a while" is critical to understanding the depth of their love, the dynamic of their relationship and the problem presented--the "darkness and corruption" of death will not touch the vestige of her thoughts as expressed in her poems.
This is a sonnet of mourning written by a poetess, not automatically assumed to be the poet herself (the poetic speaker is not always the poet), whose words will live as a "vestige" of her thoughts after she has died. This is a standard Shakespearean convention that was used equally by Edmund Spenser: the poet's words bestow immortality. Rossetti has given the convention a new aspect and says that her words will remember her. This remembrance clarifies the problem of the sonnet and the solution.
The problem is that humans cannot always remember the beloved departed: they forget even in mourning. The solution is that her poems will keep her immortal by remembering her to the world through their substance: "A vestige of the thoughts that once I had" refers to her poems. The first four lines, 9-12, of the sestet and are her way of comforting her beloved when explains why he need not grieve for forgetting for a while: her words also remember her to the world, to all who read them.
Anyone who has grieved over the death of a loved one knows there are moments in their days during which the world intrudes and forces distraction from grief through the demands of productivity or admits distraction through unexpected laughter with a child or a playful kitten. For the grieving mourner, these moments of distracted living amplify grief and add new grief over the moments we forgot. The poetic speaker recognizes this new grief by acknowledging the inevitability of forgetting and by forestalling grief through compassion and forgiveness and by presenting her original understanding of a poet's immortality: the words hold the remembrance.
What is the paradox of the resolution?
An element of sonnet form is the paradox in the resolution. A paradox is something that seems false but is nonetheless true. Rossetti, who is recognized as the master of form among her generation of poets in Victorian England, has given us two paradoxes. The first paradox is between the octave--in a rhyme scheme of abbaabba--and the sestet--in a rhyme scheme of cddece (the rhyme scheme is central to building the flow of logic in a sonnet). The paradox is: remember me while you forget. The second paradox is in the resolution and is represented by the conflict between "forget" and "smile." Forgetting would be to fail to honor her request, her love and his own love, yet she advices him that it is better to "forget and smile" while discouraging remembering and being sad. It seems false, yet it is true because her poems eternally keep her remembrance offered to those readers who read the vestiges of her thoughts in them.

What does Lady Macbeth ask for in her soliloquy?

In act 1, scene 5, Lady Macbeth receives a letter from her husband describing his encounter with the Three Witches and their seemingly favorable prophecies. After reading Macbeth's letter, Lady Macbeth contemplates whether or not her husband has the resolve and determination to usurp power through bloody means. In Lady Macbeth's famous soliloquy, she portrays her ambitious nature by calling upon evil spirits to make her cruel, insensitive, and murderous in order to carry out her bloody plan. Lady Macbeth beckons wicked spirits to "unsex" her so that she can behave resolute and brutal like a man. By requesting that the evil spirits "unsex" her, Lady Macbeth is commenting on the common perception of females and desires to reject her compassionate, loving nature. She proceeds to ask for the willpower to remain callous and insensitive during the bloody ordeal and once again expresses her desire to lose all her feminine qualities in favor of becoming more aggressive, violent, and hostile. Lady Macbeth then summons nature to cover her dark deeds as she completely embraces her cruel, wicked intentions.

Lady Macbeth's soliloquy is one of the most famous moments in all of Macbeth. In short, Lady Macbeth is simply asking for the strength and resolve to go through with her plan to seize the throne by conspiring in the murder of the good King Duncan. Lady Macbeth is possessed by blind ambition, lusting completely for power and prestige.
On a more figurative level, Lady Macbeth asks the spirits to "unsex" her. She is metaphorically asking the spirits to make her into a man. She tells them to "come into my woman's breasts, and take my milk for gall." Lady Macbeth is asking them to remove the aspects of herself that she considers to represent a nurturing and loving nature. Due to society's view of women, she considers violence and resolve to be inherently masculine in nature.

I need help writing a thesis statement for a three-body paragraph paper on the following question: how can dreams and aspirations positively affect people's lives and relationships?

To write a great thesis statement, you should look at the evidence you're going to use to support your opinion and then make a statement you can support with that evidence. Each of the paragraphs in the essay should then make a point that supports the thesis. You can include a piece of evidence in each paragraph; make sure you properly cite your sources when you provide outside evidence.
Ask yourself why you think that dreams and aspirations make people happier; once you have an answer, write it down. Next, look for evidence to see if you're right or wrong. If you're right, start writing down the reasons why your answer is true. These reasons might become your body paragraphs. If you're wrong, then adjust your answer to fit the evidence. It's okay for your thesis to change as you do the research—sometimes you learn things and have to adjust your thesis accordingly.
It's important to use evidence to support each paragraph. It's important that each paragraph support the thesis. Your thesis should be a road map for the rest of your paper. Your conclusion should sum up each point you made, restate your overall idea, and say something else about the topic.
A good thesis statement on this topic should look not only at why dreams and aspirations improve relationships but how they do so. One example of a strong thesis is: dreams and aspirations positively impact people's relationships by giving them something to work toward together as well as increasing the happiness of both people individually.
If you used a thesis like this, you'd want to prove that dreams and aspirations bring people happiness as individuals. You'd want to prove that a relationship is improved by two people working together toward a common goal. Finally, you'd want to show that those two things have a positive impact on a relationship.
Your thesis should come at the end of your opening paragraph. Before the thesis, include a few sentences introducing your topic to the reader. For example, you might write about the benefits of happy relationships and lives. Ask yourself what the benefits of these things are. Do they increase the chances of having a family that stays together? Do they increase your chances of having a stable job? Look for interesting facts about personal well-being and strong relationships to get your reader excited about the topic as you lead into your thesis. Then explain that one way to improve your personal well-being and relationships is to have dreams and aspirations. After that, write your thesis statement. That's the end of your opening paragraph.
When you start working on your opening statements for each paragraph in the essay, consider how each one proves your thesis. The first paragraph, for example, might be something like: people are happier when they have concrete dreams and aspirations (Parker, 2014). Then you'd talk about the benefits of concrete dreams and how they make people happier. You can later connect this to happier relationships by making the connection to another study that says one reason people with dreams and aspirations are happier in relationships is that people who celebrate each other's achievements are more likely to be in happy relationships (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006).
Keep in mind that your thesis statement is your point of view and opinion. There is going to be a lot of evidence that is interpreted in different ways on this topic. As long as the evidence supports your opinion, you can argue your point. Someone else might look at the same evidence and come up with a different thesis. Another student might argue that dreams and aspirations make people less happy in relationships because they have to change or compromise for the sake of fulfilling their dreams if they don't align with their partner's dreams. Neither point of view is wrong. Just make sure the evidence you include supports your thesis, and you'll have the beginning of a great argument.
Once you've created a basic thesis, read over it and see if you can make it stronger. If any of your words are vague, look for more specific ones. For example, if you say that dreams make relationships stronger, ask yourself what kinds of relationships you're talking about. Do you mean romantic relationships or all relationships in a person's life? Check the evidence you're using to see which types of relationships they discuss to make your thesis more concrete.
When you're done with your paper, read over the entire thing and make sure it still fits your thesis. If the paper seems strong but the thesis seems weak, you can strengthen it once you're done. There's no harm in refining your thesis throughout the writing process. In fact, the more you work to make your thesis specific, supported by evidence, and correctly worded, the stronger your resulting paper is going to be.
https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-giving-and-happiness-041414.html

What is the meaning of “The Sailor who Fell from Grace with the Sea”? How does Noboru define his own “hero” or “belief”

The title of the novel by Yukio Mishima, The Sailor who Fell from Grace with the Sea, refers to one of the main characters, Ryuji, who is a sailor. The other main character of the book—a young boy named Noboru—looks up to Ryuji because he believes him brave to depart from loved ones on land to conquer the sea. When Ryuji retires his mariner career and starts dating Noboru's mother, this disappoints Noboru greatly. Ryuji falls from Noboru's grace, and the latter sees the former as a weakling and, therefore, an enemy.
Noboru has a skewed idea of what manhood is. He believes men who sail and follow their own path, away from the society found on land, were akin to gods. This way of thinking and viewing the world reflects the author's own hyper-masculine attitude and reputation in Japan before his death. Noboru not only has a caricature vision of manhood, but he also follows a strange self-concocted belief system. This illustrates Noboru's psychopathic tendencies and delusional way of thinking.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2015/07/25/books/book-reviews/sailor-fell-grace-sea-shows-yukio-mishima-invoking-primitive-male-fears/

What obstacles for women writers, intellectuals, or artists does Adrienne Rich address in "When we Dead Awaken"? What remedies or reactions does she propose on behalf of women?

The main obstacle Rich sees for women writers, artists, and intellectuals in "When we Dead Awaken" is the tendency for women to want to please men, to look to see what men think of them, and to evaluate themselves by male standards. A primary problem is allowing themselves to be degraded by the way men have defined how they should live their lives.
Women need, Rich argues, to radically critique how they have been defined and depicted in literature, a form largely controlled and dominated by men. This would lead a reevaluation by women of how women imagine themselves. Women cannot truly be free and able to fulfill their potential until they find their own language and art in which to depict their experiences.
Rich says the way out is for women, through their art, to be willing to imagine alternatives to the current oppressive, patriarchal system.

How does Estelle's obsession with approval from others corrupt her moral character?

Estelle Rigault is the classic example of someone whose whole identity is defined by the look of the Other. In true Sartrean fashion, Estelle has been turned into an object by the look, objectified by how other people regard her. As such, she is not really a person in her own right; she is not able to make a firm commitment to living life the way she wants to in the midst of an absurd, meaningless universe. Hell is other people, as the play's most famous line has it, and other people determine the contours of Estelle's whole existence. Her life is thus mired in bad faith and inauthenticity.
Because Estelle's life doesn't really belong to her, she desperately seeks the approval of others. As she has no true identity of her own, she is forced to seek validation from elsewhere, from the approving gaze of the people around her. In Sartrean terms, she chooses to exist as being-for-others rather than being-for-itself. This means that Estelle has willingly become an object, like all the countless other objects in this meaningless universe. In other words, she is no longer a human subject; she has given up her subjectivity to become a mere object of others' approval. And as morality as such can only really attach to the human subject, Estelle has rendered herself incapable of moral action. By choosing to exist purely and solely for others, by forfeiting her subjectivity, she has corrupted her whole being entirely.

When was Liesel born?

The Book Thief is set in Molching, a fictional town in Germany, during World War II. The early action in the book takes place in 1939. We learn this because Liesel hears the news that Germany has invaded Poland, which was an actual historical event in September 1939. Additionally, when the novel opens, we are told that Liesel is nine years old as she makes the train trip to live with her foster family. These two pieces of information together tell us that she was born in 1930.
Other historical events mentioned in the book further contextualize the changes in her life, such as Kristallnacht of 1938, which sent Max into hiding. After the Poland invasion, in 1939, England declared war on Germany and began the aerial bombings of the kind that killed Liesel's friend Rudy.

Which vegetative part is involved in the Bryophyllum plant and the Begonia plant?

Vegetative propagation is the process of producing a new plant from a plant’s vegetative parts, such as the leaves, stem or roots.
This form of asexual reproduction takes place via the leaves of the Bryophyllum plant. Bryophyllum is a tropical herb featuring broad leaves with notches at its margins. New shoots are formed in shallow notches of the leaf margins. Newly formed plants can detach from the leaves and grow into a full plant after falling on the ground. Bryophyllum is also often referred to as the “air plant” because it can form new shoots when suspended by a piece of string or twine.
Begonias can be propagated using a number of different methods, but the most common way is via seeds, stem cuttings and leaf cuttings.The "leaf cutting" technique is most popular among begonia growers, particularly for the rex and rhizomatous begonia varieties. The Rex begonia (Begonia rex cultorum) uses its leaf veins to create new plantlets, which then root into the soil. A grower can then separate each new plant from the mother leaf and transfer it to a new pot.
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/15/11/463/822134?redirectedFrom=PDF

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/begonias-reproduce-leaves-44889.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283786298_STUDY_ON_THE_VEGETATIVE_PROPAGATION_OF_SOME_BEGONIA_L_SPECIES

What factors contributed to the creation of democracy in the United States? How did the new democracy change the election and campaigning process?

The United States' democratic government was built out of philosophy and liberty. As the country fought against absolute monarchy, it was faced with a decision on the type of government it should adopt. The founders then borrowed ideas and concepts from previous philosophers and civilizations. John Locke was arguably the most influential person for this new democracy. Locke argued that human beings have the ability to be self-governed and had the right to "life, liberty, and property." A version of this sentiment made it into Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Another big factor was the various enlightenment periods, such as the Protestant Reformation. These movements favored freethinking and the individual. Some other factors were the democratic principles of Ancient Greece and the Magna Carta.
As for the new election and campaigning process, the formality and hierarchy seemed to dissolve into a new democratic process. Gone were the days of appointed rulers from faraway lands. Now, individuals had to campaign for themselves. They had to build a platform that convinced the populace to vote for them. The Electoral College was instituted in 1804. While controversy has surrounded the Electoral College process, it still was a major overhaul compared to the absolute monarchy of Europe.
https://www.ushistory.org/gov/2.asp

One thing to be aware of is that, in the aftermath of the American Revolution, the United States was entering into uncharted territory. There were no examples in Europe of republicanism practiced on the kind of geographic scale of the United States, so to a large degree, democracy in this country was a work in progress.
Indeed, it should be noted, the United States has actually had two separate founding documents. Originally, it was organized under the Articles of Confederation, which envisioned a very decentralized balance between federal and state power, but in practice, this original political structure proved unable to answer the challenges of the post–Revolutionary War period. With this in mind, the Constitution was drawn up to replace it and provide a new approach to organizing large-scale democratic government.
However, even so, many critical United States government traditions would only arise in the process of actually running a United States government. So it was with the Presidential Cabinet, or the two-term limit, precedents which were set by George Washington himself rather than enshrined in the original US Constitution. Political parties likewise emerged organically, originating in a political struggle between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton and his followers formed the Federalist Party and Jefferson's side formed the Democratic-Republican Party. Political parties have been with us ever since. Your question on elections fits into this same theme: to take presidential elections as an example, the Constitution originally stated that when compiling the votes, the person with the highest tally would become president and the person with the second highest vice president. However, in practice, this proved unfeasible, especially in a world of political parties, and with the Twelfth Amendment, it was changed so that president and vice president would share one ballot. The methods and tactics of campaigning would likewise evolve over time, as political candidates would find better and more effective means of mobilizing support to get elected.

Your question is about the establishment of the democratic government and election processes in the United States of America following the Revolutionary War. Much of the tension between the American colonies and the British stemmed from being ruled by a monarchy and parliament across the Atlantic Ocean that could change the laws and raise taxes without any input from the citizens of the colonies or the delegates chosen to represent them. In 1774, prior to the war, the Continental Congress was established by delegates from the thirteen colonies to attempt better communication and debate with the British government, as a more unified representation of the colonies wants and requirements. By using a system of motions and voting to decide what issues to raise with the British Parliament, the Continental Congress acted as an early form of the United States Congress, which would be established after the Constitutional Convention and rely on officials elected by the general population.
From May 25th to September 17th, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to better establish what the leaders of the country wanted from the new government. The final result of this convention was the creation of the United States Constitution, which laid out the laws that form the three branches of the US government and the system of checks and balances in place to keep one branch from having too much influence. The president was established as a representative of the general population, a single elected official put in office by a majority vote from the electoral college. At the time, the only Americans allowed to vote were land-owning, white men. The primary voting demographic of early America was very similar to that of democratic ancient Greece, which also only allowed a specific segment of males to vote.
One point of contention at the Constitutional Convention was about the amount of time a president should serve in office. Some, like Alexander Hamilton, argued that the president should be a position for life, while others thought that system would be too close to a monarchy and wanted to avoid that system in the country's new government. Prior to Washington’s election as the first president, there was no limit on terms a president could serve, but Washington resigned after two, setting a precedent for all presidents. It wasn’t until the 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that a president would seek election after a second term. Washington claimed in his farewell address that he resigned so the nation could move on and grow without him and continue to do so after other presidents.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/aaron-burr

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-real-birth-of-american-democracy-83232825/

What does Montag’s description of the TV audience mean? (“He imagined thousands of faces with gray colorless eyes, gray tongues, and gray thoughts looking out through the numb flesh of the face.”)

Montag's unflattering description of the TV audience is a stark illustration of the condition to which people in this dystopian society have been reduced. This is a society in which the government actively discourages people from thinking for themselves. Citizens are deliberately kept in a state of permanent ignorance and passivity by the government through mind-numbing commercials and trash TV. This way people are much less likely to rise up and challenge the regime as they simply don't know any better.
The burning of books and the serving up of an endless diet of bland, mindless entertainment has created a population that is almost completely devoid of independent, creative thought. That's what Montag means when he refers to "gray thoughts." And as the people have been deprived of the best means of developing critical thinking skills—reading books—they blindly accept the regime's distorted vision of reality without a moment's thought.
All individuality has been snuffed out by the government. Virtually the whole population has been moulded into one gigantic gray mass, each person practically indistinguishable from the other. In this nightmarish world, where everything has been throughly homogenized, almost everyone has been brought down to the same gutter level of ignorance, and TV has played the leading role in encouraging and facilitating that ignorance.

Does Mrs. Johnson criticize Dee? Maggie? Why? Does she fairly and accurately describe both daughters? How does this help to establish the attitude toward heritage?

Mrs. Johnson does not explicitly criticize her daughters, but I think it is obvious that she is aware of their flaws. For example, she never calls Dee selfish or cruel, but she says that Dee

used to read to [them] without pity; forcing words, lies, other folks' habits, whole lives upon us two, sitting trapped and ignorant underneath her voice. She washed us in a river of make believe, burned us with a lot of knowledge we didn't...need to know.

Her criticism of Dee seems implicit in passages like these. She says that Dee has a "scalding humor" that seems to burn others, though she never actually calls Dee malicious or mean. Likewise, Mrs. Johnson does not explicitly criticize her other daughter, Maggie, either. However, again, she seems to accurately describe Maggie in order that we may draw our own conclusions about her. Mrs. Johnson says,

Have you ever seen a lame animal, perhaps a dog run over by some careless person rich enough to own a car, sidle up to someone who is ignorant enough to be kind to him? That is the way my Maggie walks.

She later describes Maggie as having a kind of "hangdog" look about her. She does not directly criticize Maggie but, rather, simply describes her to us.
Because of Mrs. Johnson's apparently accurate descriptions of both daughters—their accuracy seems confirmed by the women's behavior in the story itself —readers can see that we are not supposed to agree with Dee. Even with her mother's relatively impartial descriptions, it is clear that Dee is an unsympathetic character, while Maggie, on the other hand, is incredibly sympathetic. Thus, when faced with their differing views on heritage, it seems pretty clear that we are supposed to agree with Maggie's (whose view, I would add, is similar to her mother's, a woman who garners our respect throughout the text).

What are 4 marketable skills in criminal justice, and why is each skill important?

Like many fields that involve working with social issues and the public, there is a tendency for some to devalue the skills of earning a degree in Criminal Justice, Social Work, Political Science, or fields in the Humanities. It is an inaccurate portrayal to believe Criminal Justice majors have few marketable skills outside of law enforcement or court management.
A Criminal Justice degree involves multiple disciplines. While your concentration may be in criminal justice, the field requires a person to develop knowledge of other areas like law, political science, sociology, education, and psychology. Having a general understanding of more than one field is an advantage in the marketplace. The myth of the marketplace is that everyone needs to be a specialist, and while that may be true in some disciplines, criminal justice is not limited to one subject opening many opportunities. Having a broad knowledge is always an advantage.
Degrees in Criminal Justice require an in-depth understanding of information and data. Research skills are very marketable. The techniques and analytical tools used in criminal science are easily transferable to research in public policy, education, and public administration. Several non-profits are continually searching for graduates with research and research application skills. Multi-national corporations need people who can find solutions to problems based on quantitative and qualitative research. Criminal Justice majors are trained in both types of research.
Criminal Justice majors develop the most essential and most in-demand skill the market place needs: critical thinking. Corporations and government are in a deficit of people who can identify problems and solve them. Thoughtful decision-making, particularly in the areas of public policy or corporate policy, is critical to the function of an organization. Criminal justice majors are taught to consider multiple solutions to a problem and then, with sufficient data, act to resolve the issue.
People who choose Criminal Justice as a major in general are interested in the welfare of people. They have positive attitudes, outgoing, and care about other people's lives. They are empathetic problem-solvers. The final marketable skill is the ability to influence people in positive ways. Criminal Justice majors are frequent targets for companies looking to expand their market share through sales. Having an interest in people is a prerequisite to be successful in any field that requires interacting with people.
https://www.collegeconsensus.com/majors/criminal-justice-legal/

https://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/faq/outlook-for-criminal-justice-careers-and-salaries/

https://www.national.edu/2016/02/04/why-choose-a-career-in-criminal-justice/

In Hatchet, what did Brian do that attracted the fish?

Gary Paulsen's 1987 novel Hatchet tells the story of a thirteen-year-old-boy, Brian Robeson, and his journey to survive in the wild. While on a small passenger plane with only himself and the pilot, Brian is thrown into a life and death battle after the pilot suffers a heart attack and the plane crashes. The only survivor, Brian is stranded in the deep wilderness of northern Canada and must learn to use his hatchet, a gift from his mother, to survive on his own in the wild.
Brian's plane crashed near a lake, and he quickly becomes determined to figure out how to catch some fish. He tries several methods. First, he wades into the water and stands very still and then tries to catch a fish by hand. When that is unsuccessful, he decides that he needs to create a wooden spear with two prongs at its end to capture the fish. However, this method also does not work.
Finally, Brian realizes that he can finally become faster than the fish if he creates a bow and arrow specifically for catching fish. Using his hatchet, he creates a small wooden bow and then crafts wooden arrows out of willow branches, shaping their ends into points and prongs. When Brian tests his new invention, he is at first unsuccessful. However, he suddenly realizes his mistake.

Of course—he had forgotten that water refracts, bends light. He had learned that somewhere, in some class, maybe it was biology—he couldn’t remember. But it did bend light and that meant the fish were not where they appeared to be. They were lower, just below, which meant he had to aim just under them. He would not forget his first hit. Not ever. A round-shaped fish, with golden sides, sides as gold as the sun, stopped in front of the arrow and he aimed just beneath it, at the bottom edge of the fish, and released the arrow and there was a bright flurry, a splash of gold in the water. He grabbed the arrow and raised it up and the fish was on the end, wiggling against the blue sky. He held the fish against the sky until it stopped wiggling, held it and looked to the sky and felt his throat tighten, swell, and fill with pride at what he had done. He had done food. With his bow, with an arrow fashioned by his own hands he had done food, had found a way to live.

Later, Brian learns that he can section of part of the river to create pond for luring fish into with bait. The fish swim into the pond and into a fine mesh net that Brian has created by weaving fine willow branches together.

Storing live fish to eat later had been a major breakthrough, he thought. It wasn’t just keeping from starving—it was trying to save ahead, think ahead. Of course he didn’t know then how sick he would get of fish.

What is a hypothesis about some challenges immigrants face in a new country?

A hypothesis is different than a thesis statement, so I hope that the question truly means hypothesis. A hypothesis is a statement that makes a proposed explanation for a particular observation or question. In this case, the observation is that immigrants face challenges. The hypothesis then is a statement that attempts to explain why this phenomenon is happening. The following hypothesis could work: "Immigrants face challenges in a new country because of language barriers." A different hypothesis could be the following: "Immigrants face challenges in a new country because existing laws make it difficult for immigrants to obtain jobs." A key feature to a hypothesis is that it should be a testable statement. If the statement can't be tested, there is no way to support or discredit the statement. There is a simple wording trick that more often than not produces a testable hypothesis. Put the hypothesis in "if/then" format. "If language barriers didn't exist, then immigrants would face fewer challenges."

Immigrants in new countries face a host of challenges. For example, they might not speak the language. This would make navigating daily life a challenge, as doing anything from buying a cup of coffee to renting an apartment becomes a difficult process if there is a language barrier.
Immigrants might also be experiencing culture shock: a feeling of disorientation that can occur when someone finds themselves in a culture that is very different from their own. In some cultures, it is not polite to be direct, so someone who comes from a culture where people say exactly what they mean would find themselves rather confused if they come into a culture where context is crucial to understanding what someone is saying.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture%20shock

How do the Pigman, Lorraine, and John change throughout the story?

Both John and Lorraine change a great deal over the course of the book. What is great about this book is that the chapters alternate between those two characters telling the story, so readers get really solid insight into how each character is mentally and emotionally developing throughout the story.
When the story begins, readers see John as a mischievous troublemaker of a kid. He does not care what other people think about him, and he has a huge problem with authority. That is why he sets off firecrackers in the bathroom and antagonizes substitute teachers. I believe that John's attitude and actions result from the fact that the important adults in his life don't care about him. John's dad thinks it is hilarious that his son is going to grow up to be an alcoholic. By the end of the story, John has changed a great deal. Through his relationship with the Pigman, John has learned what it feels like to be loved. He has also learned what it feels like to hurt and disappoint an important adult in his life. John feels horrible for the party he hosted and the resulting sadness it caused the Pigman. Losing the Pigman also changed John. It really showed him that relationships are important and have to be cherished and cared for.
In some ways, Lorraine learned the same lessons as John, but Lorraine's changes are also distinct from John's changes. Lorraine's home life is equally as messed up as John's home life. Her mother is equally abusive, but in a different way. Lorraine's mother is constantly criticizing Lorraine, and that results in Lorraine being very shy and having almost no self-confidence. She has hopes and dreams, but she doesn't really have enough confidence to pursue those dreams; however, by the end of the book, she has learned from John how to be a bit more confident in herself. When the book ends, readers feel that her dream of someday becoming a writer just might come true. This is bolstered by the fact that she and John are the ones "writing" the book we have been reading.

What according to Spaulding was the origin and purpose of the Red-Headed League?

Vincent Spaulding is the person Wilson meets who is tasked with explaining the origins and purpose of the Red Headed League. Of course, as we later learn, and as Holmes uncovers through the course of his deductions, the League is actually a fabrication, used as a front by a criminal gang who simply want to keep Wilson out of his shop for four hours every day. However, according to Spaulding's story, the Red Headed League had been founded years earlier by an American millionaire, who had red hair and who therefore had a particular affinity and concern for other red-headed men. This millionaire was supposedly rather eccentric, and when he died he left a significant fortune with instructions for it to be handed out to other men with red hair in return for the most simple duties. According to Spaulding's story, this man, Ezekiah Hopkins, simply wanted to provide for other men with red hair.

Why does Mark have to move to the Schiaparelli crater in The Martian?

In the science fiction novel The Martian by Andy Weir, astronaut Mark Watney is left behind on Mars, when he is presumed dead in an intense storm. He has to learn to survive on the hostile planet with limited resources. In each case that he comes up against obstacles, he keeps working until he finds solutions to the problems he encounters. For instance, in handling the issue of having enough food to survive, he learns to grow potatoes in the habitat. To communicate with NASA, he salvages technology from past Martian missions.
The journey to Shiaparelli crater is part of his long-term survival plans. He wants to not only survive but also eventually get off Mars. To make this happen, he plans to travel 3,200 kilometers to Shiaparelli crater, which is the site where the next Martian mission will land in four years and where a MAV is already positioned for them. He modifies a rover to be able to make the trip. Eventually, he manages to reach Shiaparelli crater, but the Hermes, the spacecraft with his original crew, comes back for him. He uses the MAV to get far enough into space so that the Hermes crew can intercept and save him.

What does this rhyme symbolize? What does the ladybird symbolize? Ladybird, ladybird fly away home,Your house is on fire and your children are gone,All except one,And her name is Ann,And she hid under the baking pan

This rhyme, sometimes attributed to Mother Goose, is a nursery rhyme: a folk verse typically taught to young children and handed down orally for generations. Some nursery rhymes have historic meanings that most modern readers don't understand. For example, several explanations of "Humpty Dumpty" give it meanings from British history, and "Ring Around the Rosie" may have originally referred to the bubonic plague.
Some have suggested that "Ladybird, Ladybird, Fly Away Home" may refer symbolically to the persecution of the Catholic Church in England after Henry VIII withdrew from the authority of Rome. In such an interpretation, the "Ladybird" (the British name for the insect that Americans call a ladybug) represents the Virgin Mary. Telling the ladybird to fly away home suggests that followers of the Catholic faith should leave England and return to Italy, the home of Catholicism. The references to fire and the loss of children could refer to persecution of Catholics via the burning of churches and killing followers of the religion.
One need not concur with that interpretation to find symbolic meaning in the rhyme, however. The best way to determine symbolism is to look for parallels between the symbol and some real-life person or quality. A ladybug is an almost universally appreciated insect, contrasting starkly with other creatures in its class. Most people will slap a mosquito, swat a fly, or squash a spider underfoot with not a second's regret. Yet most people will shoo away a ladybug instead of killing it. This rhyme describes such a merciful action toward the tiny critter. The little bug is told to fly off and given reasons to hurry away. Although the warnings are dire, this may be interpreted as a harmless way to encourage the ladybug on its way. The description of "Little Ann" is further proof that this insect is endearing rather than loathsome; our hearts immediately go out to the sole remaining offspring who is hiding under the baking pan. Ann gives us all the more reason not to harm the ladybird; we don't want Ann to be an orphan in addition to having lost all her siblings.
Thus, one symbolic meaning of the rhyme is that Ladybird is any representative of a normally despised or ill-treated class who is shown mercy rather than cruelty. Ladybird could stand for a wild youngster who, when caught in a youthful indiscretion, is left unpunished by the authorities. Or, Ladybird could be a woman who is excused from an odious task in order to protect her sensitive nature.
Alternatively, perhaps the rhyme symbolizes wanting to get rid of a "pest" who is bothering you. However, such an explanation doesn't seem to fit with the emotional picture of "Little Ann" hiding under the baking pan.
The rhyme presents several possibilities for symbolism. It could be used to represent many situations, depending on the context in which it is used.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/mother-goose

Why is the Affordable Care Act necessary?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as "Obamacare," is designed to provide affordable healthcare to individuals and families. The legislation, which was signed into law in 2010, does three very important things: it has maintained consumer choice in healthcare while offering affordable plans based on household income, it allows both married and unmarried young people to remain on their parents' insurance plans up to the age of 26, and it has eliminated pre-existing conditions as a basis for insurance companies to refuse people health insurance coverage. These clauses in the ACA have expanded insurance coverage for millions of Americans who were previously uninsured.
Though Republicans strongly opposed the ACA upon its introduction in 2009, the idea for marketplace insurance emerged out of the conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation. Also, the Republican Mitt Romney installed a very similar program when he was governor of Massachusetts, though he spoke out against Obamacare on the campaign trail, due to the legislation's unpopularity among conservatives.
Currently, Republicans are working, probably due to encouragement from insurance companies, to eliminate the clause about ensuring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. When uninsured people get sick or injured, they must be treated. The cost of treating the uninsured raises healthcare costs which, in turn, raises insurance premiums. Therefore, it is better for as many people to be insured as possible. Those who remain uninsured are subjected to an additional tax when the time comes to file income tax.
The complaint among some people is that Obamacare is still unaffordable and that they were better off with their previous insurance plans. Firstly, just because a plan is affordable does not mean that it provides sufficient coverage. HMOs (Health Management Organizations) have provided coverage to customers for an annual fee. However, many HMOs are notorious for providing insufficient coverage. Secondly, the high costs of health insurance are linked to the high costs of healthcare in the United States, which are much higher than those in other developed nations. There is no cap on healthcare costs in the United States, meaning that hospitals, doctors, and other care providers can charge what they please for supplies and services. The Affordable Care Act does not address exorbitant healthcare costs, which are continually on the rise.
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html

Compare and contrast Slumdog Millionaire and Oliver Twist using the big ticket theme.

The stories of Oliver Twist and Slumdog Millionaire are somewhat similar. Both feature young, poor boys on a long journey out of poverty who are tricked by unsavory characters along the way, though there are key differences. Jamal seems to be in slightly better circumstances. He is, at least at a young age, afforded the comfort of his brother, Salim, and his friend, Latika. Oliver is constantly alone and has no truly trustworthy companion. In regard to the "big ticket" theme, there are a few similarities. Both Jamal and Oliver are brought out of their sad states by a large sum of money coming to them at once, and both suffer planned attempts to be robbed of it. Jamal competes on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and is swept away to a brutal police interrogation when they suspect him of cheating. Oliver is the benefactor of an inheritance about which he knows nothing, and he suffers attempts on the part of his half-brother to completely corrupt him and rob him of it. Truth wins out in the end for both of these characters, and they use the money to get themselves to better circumstances.

The protagonists of both Slumdog Millionaire and Oliver Twist have similar backgrounds. Jamal in Slumdog Millionaire comes from an impoverished neighborhood, a "slum," in a developing country. Oliver Twist lived in a low-class section of London during the Victorian era. Both characters experienced adventures and "misadventures" throughout their respective stories, and make up a bulk of the narratives. Jamal and Oliver Twist are a product of their respective environments, and become involved with unsavory characters who come from such socioeconomic conditions.
The difference between the two characters—who both eventually attain what they wanted—is that Jamal was motivated by love whereas Oliver Twist simply wanted to escape poverty and crime. Interestingly, both stories are set during their respective countries' push towards economic and industrial progress. Slumdog Millionaire is set at a time when contemporary India was on a trajectory towards becoming a major economic power, whilst the Victorian era of Oliver Twist marked the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/SlumdogMillionaire

How did Ernest Defarge die?

Ernest Defarge is a wine-merchant in a particularly unpleasant slum neighborhood of Paris. He and his wife—the unspeakable Madame Defarge—are both fanatical supporters of the French Revolution, whose main movers were not, as is commonly supposed, the great unwashed, but sturdy members of the prosperous middle-classes like the Defarges.
Though fiercely committed to the revolutionary cause, Ernest nonetheless maintains a shred of mercy and decency, refusing to go along with his wife's diabolical plan to murder sweet Lucie Mannette. This causes Madame Defarge—the French Revolution's answer to Lady Macbeth—to accuse her husband of weakness. It seems that Ernest has no stomach for what his wife thinks needs to be done to advance the cause of the Revolution.
Madame Defarge is subsequently shot dead after her pistol goes off during a struggle with Miss Pross, Lucie's governess and friend. As to her husband, his fate is unknown, but Sydney Carton's probably right in saying that Defarge will one day end up going to the guillotine himself. After all, this is what happened to many loyal revolutionaries after the Reign of Terror took hold, and the radical Jacobins set out to destroy their enemies.

How does Holden, in The Catcher in The Rye, show alienation?

Holden Caulfield is the angst-ridden teenager in The Catcher in the Rye who struggles with both depression and isolation. He is deeply reflective and spends much of the space in the novel commenting on how the world around him is disappointing. Holden is caught between the world of children, which he finds predictable and full of imagination, and the world of adults, which seems confusing. He therefore clings to things like his hunting hat, which most people find odd. (He is once told, "Up home we wear a hat like that to shoot deer in . . . That's a deer shooting hat" [Chapter 3].) Holden recognizes that it sets him apart as quirky, but he holds on to it nonetheless, sometimes returning to it when the world seems especially confusing.
This sense of alienation leads him to feel disconnected from both realms, childhood and adulthood. In Chapter 9, he relates, "I was sort of crying. I don't know why. I put my red hunting hat on . . ." In effect, Holden often alienates himself as a means of coping with the world around him. He isn't quite sure how to relate to people, and when he tries, he is often met with disappointment. In his efforts to connect with Sally (who is definitely not his best match, as she lacks depth and sincerity), he launches into a discussion of how depressed he feels, following with ideas about the two of them possibly getting married. Sally is undoubtedly a bit baffled by all this at once, and she doesn't jump on this not-so-exciting train of thought. Holden responds by calling her a "pain in the ass," which effectively ends the connection. He is alienated once again by trying to share his innermost thoughts/conflicts.
Holden spends most of his time in physical isolation; part of this seems to be his inability to meaningfully connect with the people around him. He feels alienated from the actions and thoughts of others and even takes measures to alienate himself from the connections he has potential to create. This inner conflict drives the novel, as Holden inches closer to a time when he must leave the world of childhood behind and integrate himself into the more mature world of adulthood.

How do the narrator's spoken remarks to Fortunato compare with his internal feelings for the man in The Cast of Amontillado?

There is definitely a tension; Montresor makes overtures of friendship and comradery with Fortunato while all the while despising the other man and plotting his destruction. Indeed, it is through his friendly disposition that Montresor lures his target into the crypts—greeting him warmly and claiming to have acquired "a pipe of what passes for Amontillado, though I have my doubts." As Fortunato fashions himself as a wine connoisseur, Montresor is in this manner able to entice Fortunato into joining him.
As they walk, Montresor offers his companion wine to drink in order to further lower his ability to defend himself. Thus, the two head deeper into the catacombs, with Montresor continuing to maintain his deception of friendship. When they come to the destination where Montresor intends to entomb his now thoroughly inebriated victim, Montresor enchains Fortunato and proceeds to bury him alive.

In his Four Freedoms speech of 1941, how does President Franklin D. Roosevelt characterize World War II and the threat posed by fascism and Nazi Germany? Had he been alive at the time, do you think Roosevelt would have characterized the Cold War and the Soviet Union in the same way?

The Four Freedoms speech was Franklin D. Roosevelt's State of the Union address in 1941, at which time the United States had not yet entered World War II. In his speech, Roosevelt immediately turns to what he calls the "unpredecented" emergency of world events, by which he means World War II.
Roosevelt characterizes Nazism and fascism as a threat to the United States' democratic way of life and everything decent that way of life stands for. He mentions the "treachery" of the enemy—that is, Nazi Germany—in attacking and taking over Norway, implying that such tactics could be used against the United States. He argues that any policy of appeasement toward the dictators of the fascist world is doomed to failure and will not be used. He employs the negative term "dictators" to refer to the leaders of enemy countries. However, he does not specifically name these countries or their leaders.
As for World War II, Roosevelt does his best to get the nation ready for total war against the fascist regimes, saying that they could strike at any time without a declaration of war. He characterizes the war struggle as one of "defense of freedom." He says that the country must use all its resources, in addition to borrowing money, to equip both itself and other countries with the weaponry needed for defense against a ruthless enemy.
Roosevelt also links the United States' desire to spread the good life to all its citizens with the preservation of democracy and freedom. He calls for expanding social programs as a way to fight the enemy forces of evil in the world. He lists the four freedoms as follows:

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means 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—anywhere in the world.

Although he does not say this, Roosevelt implies that since these are four freedoms that set us apart, they are what the fascists and Nazis do not offer to their people. These freedoms, he implies, are what the American people would lose should the fascists and Nazis win the war.
I think Roosevelt would have characterized the Soviets and the Cold War the same way, as the Soviet Union was also a dictatorship that denied average people freedom.