Describe the Lake Isle of Innisfree in your own words.

Even if the reader doesn't know that the Lake Isle of Innisfree is an uninhabited island that lies within a large lake in County Sligo, Ireland, he or she can easily imagine what it is like from the descriptions William Butler Yeats gives in the poem. The island is a peaceful place full of lovely sights and relaxing sounds.
In the morning, the island is shrouded in mist, as the moisture from the lake and thick vegetation hangs in the air. By noon, the air has cleared, and the purple flowers that grow wild along the shore reflect on the water, making a "purple glow." Trees and grassy areas make a pleasant home for the birds and insects that populate the isle. After the sun sets and the moon and stars come out, they cast glimmering reflections upon the glassy surface of the lake.
Birds, bees, and crickets perform a quiet symphony, keeping time with the lapping of waves against the shoreline. Buzzing and chirps fill the air, and at twilight, it becomes quiet enough to hear the flutter of the birds' wings as they flit across the island.
Without the sounds of the city—people, traffic, and commerce—the island is a relaxing getaway. If one were to live there, the hustle and bustle of daily life would be abandoned for rest, relaxation, and gentle pleasures such as gardening and tending bees. One might feel isolated, but someone tired of city life would welcome the island's calm serenity as it settled into his very core.

What are a few themes in this short story?

One theme in "Up in Michigan" has to do with gender roles. Liz Coates is a sheltered, subservient young woman who looks to others for cues about how to conduct herself. Though she is attracted to Jim Gilmore, she does not make it known to him until he makes the first move. She is so repressed that she dares not even bake for him for fear that Mrs. Smith will discover her feelings.
Jim Gilmore is "a man's man" who does physical labor, goes hunting, drinks whiskey, hangs out with other men, and, when he decides he wants to, has sex with Liz. He is thoughtless and crude, whereas Liz is sensitive and caring, evidenced by her gentleness toward Jim after he passes out after having drunken sex with her.
Liz's experience brings in perhaps another theme: disillusionment. Liz feels disillusioned as she undergoes the rite of passage of losing her virginity to Jim, passing from innocence to experience. To her, the initiation of the sexual act is the culmination of her feelings for Jim. As for Jim, there is no indication that what happens with Liz is anything more than a lustful act that reads as rape, since Liz does tell him, "You musn't do it, Jim. You musn't," to which he responds "I got to. I'm going to. You know we got to."

What do Maleeka and Miss Saunders have in common? How does each of them handle "their skin"?

Maleeka and Miss Saunders both have issues with their skin that creates problems for them. Maleeka is dark-skinned, and feels different from the other kids at school. Like most people her age, she desperately wants to fit in, yet feels that her skin color holds her back. Even the black kids at school tease her for being "too black."
As for Miss Saunders, she has a large birthmark on her face due to a skin disorder. Yet far from being insecure, she's actually a very confident, assertive woman, the kind of person that Maleeka can only dream of being. Unlike Maleeka, Miss Saunders has learned to live with the skin she's in and accept herself for who and what she is.
Something else that Maleeka and Miss Saunders have in common is their intelligence. Miss Saunders sees straight away that Maleeka's a very bright girl, which is why she's always driving her on, encouraging to do her best at school. She knows that Maleeka's so much better than Char and the other delinquents. Just as she's seen past her own skin, so to speak, to embrace and accept the real person beneath, she ignores Maleeka's dark skin to behold an intelligent girl with great academic potential.

How does Oedipus show power?

Unlike some leaders in ancient Greek plays, like Creon in Antigone, for example, Oedipus doesn't make a public "show" of his power or demand obeisance simply to demonstrate his authority over the Theban people.
Oedipus came to be King of Thebes when he solved the riddle of the Sphinx and released Thebes from her tyranny. (In ancient Greece, the Sphinx had the body of a winged lioness and the head of a woman. The Egyptian Sphinx had, and has, the body of a lion and the head of a man.) In addition to being made King, Oedipus was also given the hand of the former Queen, Jocasta, in marriage. Oedipus knows that he's King only through a twist of fate and as the result of a remarkable series of events.
From all appearances, Oedipus is a benevolent king, and the people of Thebes revere and respect him. The Priest refers to Oedipus as "our peerless king." Oedipus repeatedly refers to his people as "my children."
In the opening scene of the play, Oedipus commiserates with the supplicants who have come to his palace, and he grieves with them for the drought and plague that has befallen them. His sympathetic words to the Theban people seem genuine and heartfelt. He rules by mutual love and mutual respect. He doesn't need to prove to anybody that he's the King, and he rules with a light touch.
However, Oedipus is arrogant:

OEDIPUS: Children, it were not meet that I should learnFrom others, and am hither come, myself,I Oedipus, your world-renowned king.

Oedipus is also headstrong and prideful. Until it's proven to him absolutely and without any reasonable doubt that he's the murderer of Laius, the previous King of Thebes and his own father, and that he married his own mother, Jocasta, it's entirely reasonable that Oedipus refuses to believe something that is frankly so unbelievable.
As the plot moves forward and evidence mounts up against him, Oedipus becomes increasingly isolated and increasingly unreasonable, and he lashes out at everyone around him. He accuses Teiresias of lying to him. He also accuses Creon and Teiresias of conspiring to usurp his throne.
This is when Oedipus brings his power to bear in a negative way. Although Oedipus makes no threats against Teiresias earlier in the play, even when Teiresias reveals the Oedipus is the murderer of Laius and has married his own mother, Oedipus now threatens Creon with a public death when he thinks that Creon is plotting to overthrow him.

CREON: What then's thy will? To banish me the land?
OEDIPUS:I would not have thee banished, no, but dead,That men may mark the wages envy reaps.

Jocasta appears from inside the palace and tells the story of how she and Laius tried to save their son from the prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. The Herdsman is brought in to tell the story of how he saved Oedipus from death. As the pieces of the Oedipus puzzle fall into place, Oedipus realizes that, even through no fault of his own, he's defied the gods and brought destruction to himself and his family.
At this point, Oedipus does the right thing, peacefully relinquishes his power to Creon, and banishes himself from Thebes.
Unfortunately, Creon makes a right mess of things in Antigone, but that's another story.

Oedipus is the King of Thebes when Oedipus the King begins, and while his people respect him and trust him as their leader, he can be quite arrogant. The first part of the play shows Oedipus demonstrating his power, often to extremes.
When Oedipus learns about the plague on his city, he sends Creon to the oracle to find out how to rid Thebes of it. Creon returns with the news that there is a murderer in the town—the man who killed former king Laius—and he must be exiled or killed in order to lift the plague. Oedipus immediately vows to find the killer and bring him to justice. He displays his confidence and strength to the people, as he also promised to punish anyone in the town who has helped the killer. The audience, however, knows about Oedipus's secret ignorance—he is unaware who his real parents are, and thus that he is actually the king's killer and the source of the plague.
Oedipus later commands that blind prophet Teiresias come to him to help solve the mystery. Teiresias is hesitant but eventually reveals that Oedipus is the killer. Oedipus's pride and arrogance lead him to censure the prophet. Oedipus believes his power protects him from people like Teiresias; he can't believe the blind man would dare challenge a king. The encounter with the prophet has a ripple effect, as Oedipus then accuses Creon of conspiring with Teiresias to oust Oedipus from power. Creon says that he doesn't want the kind of power Oedipus has, but he also intimates that Oedipus is abusing his power by treating Creon with such harshness and suspicion.
Oedipus's power fades over the course of the play as the truth is revealed. By the end, he has blinded himself and is exiled. He has suffered an epic fall from power.

Oedipus is the all-powerful king of Thebes, and he exerts his power over others at every opportunity. Fiercely proud, Oedipus will tolerate no opposition to his rule. As far as he's concerned, he's in charge, and what he says, goes. Unfortunately for Oedipus, this stubborn pride, this insistence on being in control, leads to his eventual downfall.
Oedipus's understanding of power is purely of this earth; but as the blind prophet Tiresias points out to him, earthly power is utterly irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things. What ultimately matters is divine authority, the power of the gods. Yet in refusing to listen to Tiresias' prophecy, Oedipus is defying the gods, putting his power as king above that of the immortals. So obsessed is Oedipus with his power as king that he regards the details of Tiresias' prophecy as nothing more than a threat to his throne. His metaphorical blindness to the bigger picture and his true place within it will lead in due course to his literal blindness.

What are the admirable qualities of Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice?

Elizabeth (Lizzie) Bennet has many fine qualities, which are sometimes overshadowed temporarily by her less praiseworthy ones. In particular, Lizzie is a loyal sister, friend, and daughter. She is especially close to her sister Jane and puts Jane’s happiness above her own. Although she initially criticizes her friend Charlotte for accepting Mr. Collins, she soon appreciates her reasons for doing so, and their friendship becomes stronger than ever. Although Lizzie initially misunderstands both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham, when her sister Lydia is in trouble, she does all she can to help her and revises her opinion of Darcy; she appreciates his devotion to his own sister as well. Lizzie frequently disagrees with her frivolous mother, but she strives to do what is best for the whole family; this often means that she and Jane take charge of the household while their mother is indisposed. She is especially close to her bookish, withdrawn father and, until love strikes, does not mind the prospect of living at home with him.

Quote any line from the poem that express the poet's hope in Sonnet 29.

The themes of alienation, failure, self-doubt, self-loathing, envy at the success of others, hopelessness, and desperate loneliness are carried through the first eight lines of the poem.
Then a dramatic transformation takes place, and the poet moves from utter despair to the sheer, transcendent joy of being in love. The hopelessness, desolation, and misery of "When in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes" are replaced by the hopefulness and promise of "Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, Haply I think on thee" (emphasis added).
We can only surmise what's caused the poet to suffer such depths of despair, and we have no way of knowing—and the poet doesn't tell us, here or anywhere else in the sonnets, who the poet loves or by whom the poet is loved. It might be that the poet isn't referring to anyone in particular but to any or all of the people with whom he's experienced love—or simply to the experience of being in love itself.
Nevertheless, the poet tells us that he wouldn't trade his "state" of being in love and the "wealth" it brings to him with anyone or for anything in the world.

Can you let me know the page number that goes with each chapter of this book?

Depending on what edition that you have, the page numbers are going to vary slightly from the following list; however, the following information should get you close. It is for a digital copy of the book, and the ISBN is 9780307887450
Chapter 1 starts on page 13.
Chapter 2 = page 27
Chapter 3 = page 37
Chapter 4 = page 47
Chapter 5 = page 52
Chapter 6 = page 61
Chapter 7 = page 68
Chapter 8 = page 77
Chapter 9 = page 87
Chapter 10 = page 100
Chapter 11 = page 108
Chapter 12 = page 116
Chapter 13 = page 128
Chapter 14 = page 134
Chapter 15 = page 148
Chapter 16 = page 160
Chapter 17 = page 169
Chapter 18 = page 180
Chapter 19 = page 190
Chapter 20 = page 200
Chapter 21 = page 208
Chapter 22 = page 216
Chapter 23 = page 226
Chapter 24 = page 234
Chapter 25 = page 241
Chapter 26 = page 249
Chapter 27 = page 259
Chapter 28 = page 269
Chapter 29 = page 276
Chapter 30 = page 283
Chapter 31 = page 295
Chapter 32 = page 304
Chapter 33 = page 313
Chapter 34 = page 327
Chapter 35 = page 335
Chapter 36 = page 343
Chapter 37 = page 350
Chapter 38 = page 360
Chapter 39 = page 369
What I appreciate as a reader in regards to these chapters is that Cline kept his chapters consistent in length and relatively short. The chapters all fall right around the 10 page per chapter mark. Keeping the chapters consistent, along with keeping them somewhat short, allows readers to frequently feel a sense of progression as they work through the story. I'm certain Cline intentionally did this considering that the book is so steeped in video game references and the "gamer" world. Video games also frequently give players small rewards throughout the game. It gives a sense of progression as well as motivation to keep on playing. Cline's physical organization of the book mirrors this concept.

What was the Church actively doing to help the process of integration in Warriors Don't Cry?

The white supremacist Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, orders the National Guard to enforce segregation at Little Rock High despite its being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. In response, some members of Melba's church form a group with people from other churches. The group will pray and work for peace in the city as well as offering whatever support they can to Melba and the other students.
One of those students is Ernest Green, the oldest of the Little Rock Nine and a member of Melba's church. Indeed, all of the Little Rock Nine are active members of their local church. The church provides moral support for all the students, praying for them and being there for them whenever needed.
The deeply devout Grandma India believes that Melba and the other students have been given an assignment from God and they must carry it out, however difficult that may be. She chides Melba when she seems on the brink of giving in and encourages her to greet every attack she receives at school with a smile and a thank you. Grandma India's advice neatly encapsulates the passive nature of the church's resistance to segregation.

How did the Navigation Acts intend to increase control over colonial economies?

The Navigation Acts, developed throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, sought to maintain control over trade within the British Empire. Specifically, revisions made in 1760 pivoted the focus to controlling colonial economies.
First, the acts made strict rules against the use of foreign ships and required all trade ships to employ at least 75% English and colonial crews. The acts also prohibited the export of many specific products and demanded imports must be sourced through Britain.
This had the effect of ensuring that colonies were decidedly dependent on Britain. Colonies could mostly only make money by selling raw goods (as colonies were primarily agricultural) to Britain and then could only buy back finished products (at a higher cost, of course) from Britain, which was more industrialized. This limited colonial economies and ensured Britain could maintain its trade advantages.
https://archive.org/details/ashorthistorybr01egergoog

https://books.google.com/books?id=9-_2nQEACAAJ

By the time Kerbs returned, his home town had quit “the greeting of heroes” and “the reaction had set in.” What is this "reaction," and how does it affect Kerbs?

"Soldier's Home" represents the lost generation, the WWI veterans' conflict with society upon their return home.
The conflict in the story is man vs. society, in that the small town community's perspective of how life should be lived differed from those soldiers whose outlooks on life had been drastically changed by what they had experienced in the war. By the end of WWI, most people were eager to return to normal life; there was even a presidential campaign slogan in 1920 by Warren G. Harding that appealed to a widespread desire to "return to normalcy."
Because Krebs returns home late, he not only misses the welcome for heroes, but he also misses the window of opportunity to be heard, understood, and supported in his post-war grief. The entire quote that this question references reads this way:

By the time Krebs returned to his home town in Oklahoma the greeting of heroes was over. He came back much too late. The men from the town who had been drafted had all been welcomed elaborately on their return. There had been a great deal of hysteria. Now the reaction had set in. People seemed to think it was rather ridiculous for Krebs to be getting back so late, years after the war was over.

The word "hysteria" in this quote shows that the public did, for a time, experience extreme emotions regarding the return of their soldiers. Hysteria implies a loss of emotional control, so one can imagine that there were overwhelming feelings of grief, joy, pain, and pleasure clashing together all at once. There was probably grief and pain for those who did not return—or in acknowledgement of what those who did return had been through—and there was joy and pleasure in celebration of the heroes' ultimate victory and safe return.
Krebs greatly needed to know his community felt all of these emotions regarding himself and the others who had served, but he returned too late, so they reacted by pressuring him to return to normal—to be the Harold he was before the war changed him.
While his community is eager to move on from the war, Krebs is still processing the past, and thus people's reactions towards his war stories and his behavior are not what he thinks they should be. Because of their reactions, Krebs feels pressured into lying so that they can be entertained by his stories.
Additionally, they react to his stories by imposing their idea of how he should live upon him. This is best seen in how Kreb's mother tries to make him pray when he is unwilling. She tries to communicate that she understands the temptations he faced, even though the appropriate reaction she should be taking is to listen and attempt to understand his experiences. It is also evident in how his father tries to pressure him to get a job before he is ready.

How did Greek science influence Arabic science?

Greek science, as well as Greek literature, law, and custom, is generally regarded as the foundation of Western civilization. Yet in the years following the collapse of the Roman Empire, the adoption of Greek values swung eastward as rising Islamic caliphates looked to build their foundation of knowledge by delving into classical Greek texts. In the Abbasid Caliphate, which ruled most of the Middle East from 750 to 1517 (with a brief interruption during the Mongol conquests), scholars and scribes translated ancient Greek texts into Arabic, preserving many scientific works that might otherwise have been lost. The Abbasids also exchanged knowledge with the Byzantines, whose own concepts of science were based on the ancient Greeks.
There are many examples of how Islamic science is based on Greek science. The great Maragheh Observatory in modern-day Iran, built abut 750 years ago, draws upon principles of ancient Greek astronomers and had tens of thousands of books (both ancient and modern) to guide its studies. Arabic medicine was perhaps the most advanced in the medieval world and was built upon the ancient writers of Hippocrates and Galen. Finally, the rapid growth of Islamic cities required advanced mathematics and engineering: the reconstruction of the Dome of the Rock about 1000 years ago required careful precision and knowledge to rebuild the great shrine, reflecting the influence of Pythagoras and Euclid.

Discuss Edward II's relationship with Gaveston.

Edward's relationship with his favorite Gaveston can be described as more than just platonic. There are clear sexual overtones here, as we can see in the following lines from the play's opening scene:

Kiss not my hand; Embrace me, Gaveston, as I do thee.

This is Edward's impatient response to Gaveston kissing his hand according to court etiquette. His insistence on being embraced by his favorite indicates that the relationship between the two men is a good deal more intimate than would normally be the case between a king and one of his loyal subjects.
Yet in the world that Edward and Gaveston inhabit, love and loyalty are closely linked. In act 1, scene 4, when Mortimer asks the king why he loves Gaveston when the whole world hates him so much, Edward makes a revealing statement:

Because he loves me more than all the world.

Gaveston is not just Edward's lover but also a loyal and faithful servant to his king, which is more than can be said for most of Edward's courtiers. Mortimer is one of those courtiers, and like the rest of the court, he is grievously offended by the open displays of affection between Edward and Gaveston.
Whether or not there really is a sexual dimension to this relationship, there can be no doubting its intensity. There is genuine love between the two men, as can be seen in Edward's heading up north with Gaveston in an attempt to save him from vengeful lords who want to kill him. Ultimately, Edward's efforts are futile, but his strength of feeling for Gaveston remains unimpaired, as can be seen in his bitter mourning over Gaveston's death.

Is "After Twenty Years" similar to any other stories?

Jimmy Wells and "Silky" Bob are so much like the tortoise and the hare in Aesop's well-known fable that it almost seems as if O. Henry wanted to write a modernized version of the story with human characters. In the fable the two animals engage in a foot-race. The tortoise moves slowly, of course, but advances steadily. The hare takes off with a burst of speed and leaves his opponent far behind. But then the hare decides to take a break, since the poor tortoise does not seem to have a chance of winning. When the tortoise catches up with him, the hare speeds off again and then takes another break. In the end the tortoise beats the hare to the finish line because he passes him while he is sound asleep. The moral of the fable, which is spelled out at the end in some editions of Aesop's Fables, is "Slow and steady wins the race."
Bob has been like the hare for the past twenty years. He tells the policeman, whom he doesn't recognize in the dark as Jimmy:
"You see, the West is a pretty big proposition, and I kept hustling around over it pretty lively."
Bob is obviously some kind of a crook, probably a confidence trickster. He has to keep "hustling over it pretty lively" for at least two reasons. One is that he cannot stay in any place where he has made enemies by victimizing the local inhabitants. The other reason is that he is in chronic danger of being arrested, either for a local crime or for one he committed elsewhere at an earlier date. These two truths about the life of crime have been dramatized in at least three excellent movies: Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Paper Moon.
Bob describes Jimmy in the following terms:
"He was a kind of plodder, though, good fellow as he was....A man gets in a groove in New York."
In the end it is Jimmy, the plodder, the tortoise, who wins the race. He has a good steady job. He is probably married and has a home and a family. Bob has a diamond scarf pin and a diamond-studded watch, but he is being hauled off to prison, where he might have to serve multiple sentences for multiple crimes. Whatever money he has managed to accumulate, if any, will probably go to pay a lawyer. Bob has nobody to care about him, which is why he has traveled a thousand miles to see his old friend Jimmy.

How was Jefferson both inclusive and exclusive of the federalists?

In a way, Jefferson was inclusive of the Federalists in that he allowed the party to remain in existence. While the election of 1800 soured the relationship between Jefferson and Adams, the Federalist party was not purged after the election of Jefferson. This was unique in world history because the losing power often was destroyed. Even though Jefferson cut the size of the military budget, he allowed many officers with Federalist leanings to stay at their posts. Even though Jefferson was a strict constructionist, he did authorize the Louisiana Purchase without the approval of Congress. While some Federalist newspapers disagreed with this because the money would help France, most people agreed that it was a great thing to expand the national borders.
Jefferson excluded against the Federalists when he formed his own Cabinet. One of the most famous Anti-Federalists, James Madison, served as Jefferson's Secretary of State. This powerful position made Madison a logical choice to be Jefferson's successor. Jefferson passed the Embargo Act in 1807 over the protests of Federalist strongholds in New England. This action prohibited American shipping with Britain and France, but it hurt New England merchants the worst due to their dependence of trade.

In 1800 the United States had its first real, competitive presidential election when Thomas Jefferson of the anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican Party ran against John Adams of the Federalist Party.
While it is true that Jefferson was generally skeptical of a strong, central government—expressing distrust of Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a National Bank—he was more opposed to the Federalist Party itself than to the concept of federalism. After the end of his presidency, Jefferson wrote, "I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independant [sic] of the national will."
On many occasions Jefferson could be found adopting policies inclusive of federalism by advocating for a strong, central state. He extolled a common identity for the people of America and pushed the early republic into the Tripolitarian War. Afterwards, he established by the U.S. Navy as a permanent military force under federal control.
https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/thomas-jeffersons-federalism-1774%e2%80%921825/

How does Casy echo the convictions of American Transcendentalism?

At its core, the philosophy known as American Transcendentalism is the belief in an ideal spiritual state that “transcends” the physical. This state can only be realized through an individual's intuition. It cannot be achieved through organized religion (or any religion).
The tenets of American Transcendentalism were articulated by Ralph Waldo Emerson, (the man often identified as the “father” of American Transcendentalism) in his 1841 essay, “The Oversoul.”
There are four major themes in “The Oversoul”:
1. The existence and nature of the human soul.
[T]he soul in man is not an organ, but animates and exercises all the organs; is not a function, like the power of memory, of calculation, of comparison, but uses these as hands and feet; is not a faculty, but a light; is not the intellect or the will, but the master of the intellect and the will; is the background of our being, in which they lie, — an immensity not possessed and that cannot be possessed. From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all.
2. The relationship between the soul and the personal ego.
As with events, so is it with thoughts. When I watch that flowing river, which, out of regions I see not, pours for a season its streams into me, I see that I am a pensioner; not a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water; that I desire and look up, and put myself in the attitude of reception, but from some alien energy the visions come.
3. The relationship of one human soul to another.
Childhood and youth see all the world in them. But the larger experience of man discovers the identical nature appearing through them all. Persons themselves acquaint us with the impersonal. In all conversation between two persons, tacit reference is made, as to a third party, to a common nature.
4. The relationship of the human soul to God.
If we will not interfere with our thought, but will act entirely, or see how the thing stands in God, we know the particular thing, and every thing, and every man. For the Maker of all things and all persons stands behind us, and casts his dread omniscience through us over things.
Casy come very close to articulating the major points of Emerson’s philosophy. When he first meets Tom, who is walking home after a stint in prison, Casy explains the first steps on his new path:
"I was a preacher," said the man seriously. "Reverend Jim Casy—was a Burning Busher. Used to howl out the name of Jesus to glory. And used to get an irrigation ditch so squirmin' full of repented sinners half of 'em like to drowned. But not no more," he sighed. "Jus Jim Casy now. Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears—but they seem kinda sensible."
Tom tries to cajole Casy, telling him how fondly his family recalled his preaching, but the man is not moved. He replies:
"I ain't preachin' no more much. The sperit ain't in the people much no more; and worse'n that, the sperit ain't in me no more. 'Course now an' again the sperit gets movin' an' I rip out a meetin', or when folks sets out food I give 'em a grace, but my heart ain't in it. I on'y do it 'cause they expect it."
Then later:
“Before I knowed it, I was sayin’ out loud, “The hell with it! There ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do. It’s all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice and some ain’t nice but that’s as far as any man got a right to say.”
As he continues to verbalize his feelings, perhaps for the first time, Casy arrives at this conclusion:
“Why do we got to hang it on God or Jesus? Maybe,” I figgered, “’maybe it’s all men an’ all women… all men got one big soul and ever’body a part of. Now I sat there thinkin’ it, and all of a suddent- I knew it. I knew it so deep down it was true, and I still know it.”

With regard to symbolism, Hairwoman stated, "Once you figure it out, it's clear as day". How does this relate to Melinda in Speak?

Melinda calls her English teacher Hairwoman. In class, they are studying The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Hairwoman calls Hawthorne a literary genius and tries to get her students to understand the symbolism in his text. Melinda's former friend Rachel (who now goes by Rachelle) speaks up and questions whether the symbols Hairwoman is discussing are truly intentions from the author or not. This prompts Hairwoman to say:

“Do you tell your math teacher you don't believe that three times four equals twelve? Well, Hawthorne's symbolism is just like multiplication—once you figure it out, it's as clear as day.”

Hairwoman then assigns an essay on symbolism and hidden meanings, so the other students yell at Rachel/Rachelle after class. Melinda observes:

That's what you get for speaking up.

To Melinda, it is currently "clear" that she can't say anything about her experience. To us, Hairwoman's quote is a hint to look for the hidden meaning in this chapter. Melinda talks about how looking for the symbols can be fun:

Some of it is fun. It's like a code, breaking into his head and finding the key to his secrets.

Once we break the code and figure out Melinda's secret, it is "clear as day." Melinda identifies with Hester because she has been raped and feels ostracized by those around her.

How is loneliness portrayed in Nausea?

Loneliness is portrayed in Nausea as a necessary consequence of being separated from our true selves.
By choosing to live in the past, as part of his historical research, instead of facing up to the present, Roquentin has become estranged from himself. He ekes out a bare existence—it certainly couldn't be called a life—that isolates him from the world in which he lives. So long as he persists in this ongoing act of bad faith, so long as he postpones taking hold of his own boundless freedom to make something of himself, he will continue to remain in this unhappy condition, forever separated both from the people he meets and from what he could be if he only had the courage to make that leap of commitment.
Ironically, it is only when Roquentin realizes that he is on his own in an absurd, meaningless universe—that only he can choose who and what he is—that he is finally able to overcome his sense of existential loneliness for long enough to make a clean break and take the fateful decision to move to Paris, where he intends to write a novel.

Since the threat of cyberterrorism appears to be never-ending, how is intelligence central to understanding this threat vector?

One certainly can not fight against or conquer something that one does not understand. Being able to gather intelligence against an enemy, such as a the concept of cyberterrorism, is crucial to being able to neutralize the enemy. As such, intelligence agencies must be able to understand the process of hacking, identity theft, shutting down websites, sending viruses, etc. Intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency, have programs specifically dedicated to understanding and thwarting threats to internet networks. The NSA runs 24/7 online surveillance for cybersecurity operations. These cybersecurity operations help identify vulnerabilities within networks, develop solutions to prevent attacks, neutralize threats, and deal with an acute or on-going attack. Through their gathering of intelligence on cybersecurity and cyberterrorism, the NSA is able to publish advisories and recommend best practices for cybersecurity professionals to thwart cyberterrorism.

In Gone Girl, because Nick gives in to Amy by his acceptance of the role of husband in the end, is that proof that Nick's account of the events was less than truthful?

No, Nick giving into Amy's demands at the end of Gone Girl doesn't prove that his retelling of the events was less than truthful.
We know that Amy is an unreliable narrator through her diary. However, that was deliberately written to frame Nick for her murder. When she's speaking outside the diary or when we're being shown events from Nick's perspective, it's likely that both are more reliable narrators. Statements he makes to people in the novel are true, and he doesn't reveal everything to the reader right away. However, as a narrator, he doesn't lie directly to the reader.
Ultimately, Nick may hate Amy. However, he still chooses to be with her. It doesn't mean that what occurred didn't happen or that it didn't affect him. It means that Amy chose the right approach to keep them together after they reconciled. She used his sperm sample to get pregnant with his child. Nick wanted a child and wouldn't leave it alone with Amy after everything she did. That's why he decides to give into her—not necessarily because he's dishonest to the reader.

What are three quotes that show imagery, symbolism, and conflict from the story?

Literal language portrays things as they really are using words that do not vary from their standard definitions. The emergency dispatch pilot describes his ship as “small and collapsible [...] made of light metal and plastics, [...] driven by a small rocket drive that consumed very little fuel.” This image can be taken literally. The ship is small, metal, and fuel efficient. Contrast this with figurative language, which conveys meaning beyond standard denotation or syntax. As the pilot looks toward the closet he believes a stowaway has hidden themselves in “He lets his eyes rest on the narrow white door on the closet.” This is figurative; the pilot does not literally remove his eyes and rest them on the door. It’s also an example of imagery, a literary device used to bring a story to life by appealing to the reader’s senses. As we saw in the description of the ship, imagery doesn’t have to be figurative. Imagine Godwin had instead written, “The pilot looks at the door.” It’s an image, but it doesn’t do much to help readers see it for themselves. Another example of figurative imagery occurs when the pilot tells himself that the stowaway “had signed his own death warrant when he concealed himself on the ship.” Did he really? Surely not, but even if the reader does not directly imagine a man signing a death warrant, they still sense the magnitude of the decision. According to the Interstellar Regulations “Any stowaway discovered in an EDS shall be jettisoned immediately following discovery.” In this world, jettisoning a stowaway is a literal use of imagery.
One of the story’s primary symbols, so central as to be included in the title, is coldness. The cold symbolizes, in turn, the indifference of the ship’s math, the pilot’s demeanor and lack of control, space and death, and the meaninglessness of being killed without being punished. Discovering a human presence in a closet, the pilot walks toward it “coldly, deliberately, [to] take the life of a man he had yet to meet.” When she’s told she’ll have to die, the stowaway asks if another cruiser might help her. “No,” the pilot responds. “The word was like the drop of a cold stone and she again leaned back against the wall, the hope and eagerness leaving her face.” The pilot knows the stowaway’s family will hate him “with cold and terrible intensity.” The girl asks the pilot if it seems cold on the ship, and he sees that the temperature gauge reads normal and still responds “Yes, it’s colder than it should be.” Her hand feels cold on the pilot’s shoulder as she tells her brother, via “cold metal” communicator, that she stowed away. After ejecting the girl into (cold) space, the pilot considers the “forces that killed with neither hatred nor malice” (but rather, presumably, coldness).
The initial conflict occurs when the pilot, “inured to the sight of death,” is surprised to discover that the stowaway is a teenage girl:

He stared without speaking, his hand dropping away from the blaster, and acceptance of what he saw coming like a heavy and unexpected physical blow.

The central conflict arises after the pilot questions her motives and finds them pure:

Why couldn’t she have been a man with some ulterior motive? A fugitive from justice hoping to lose himself on a raw new world; an opportunist seeking transportation to the new colonies where he might find golden fleece for the taking; a crackpot with a mission. Perhaps once in his lifetime an EDS pilot would find such a stowaway on his ship—warped men, mean and selfish men, brutal and dangerous men—but never before a smiling, blue-eyed girl who was willing to pay her fine and work for her keep that she might see her brother.

The pilot knows the rules apply to everyone. He knows what he must do as soon as he sees the girl. His commander confirms that he’ll have to go through with it. The girl comes quickly to understand and accept her imminent death. They all know she hasn’t done anything to deserve it, but it is her alone or her and seven others when the overweight ship runs out of fuel. The girl is ejected. The cold equation is balanced.

What is the writing style of "Goodbye, Sweetwater"?

Henry Dumas’s short story “Goodbye, Sweetwater” is written in the third person and past tense. We are shown the events that occur leading up to Layton's departure from his grandmother's house for New York City, where his mother lives, and they are relayed to us by a narrator who is able to describe them from Layton's point of view. What is interesting in this story is that although the events have happened and the outcome is therefore certain, we are allowed to witness them as they happen so that we and Layton don't know how they will unfold or what the end result will be.
Dumas effectively uses a great deal of metaphor and description in the story. He uses landscape and color to symbolize the oppression of Layton, his family, and his neighbors, but nowhere is this more effective than when Layton refers to Yul Stencely as the “whiteman” rather than the more commonly used term “white man.” Dumas uses the restructured title to suggest that Mr. Stencely is not so much a person as a job title (a representation of the system that oppresses them) or perhaps even a different species.
Aside from Layton's feelings about Mr. Stencely, his feelings in general are ambiguous and confused. He knows that he needs to leave but at the same time believes that he will be abandoning his grandmother if he does. Layton struggles with guessing whether the sweet water will reappear or disappear for good and thinks to himself that things aren't that much better up north. The narrator allows us to see his struggle as he tries to decide what his role will be in relation to the people around him. It isn't until he considers his own wishes and desires that he finds the conviction to choose:

Even if his mother sent a ticket, it would mean nothing unless he wanted to leave. His grandmother would not drink sulfur water unless she had to and he knew that as long as there was sweet water coming out of the ground, she would be strong.

In this moment, Layton finally begins to understand the source of his grandmother's strength and realizes that this strength is within him as well: “if he climbed the tree . . . he knew he would not fall.”

What does Elizabeth Johnson learn about God’s presence from reading Darwin?

Elizabeth Johnson regards the work of Charles Darwin as illuminating the relationship between God and His creation. Her close reading of The Origin of Species is intended to utilize certain of Darwin's key biological findings to provide a deeper insight into the Christian faith, especially in relation to God's presence.
In Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love, Johnson argues for an imminent theology that eschews the more traditional anthropocentric approach and focuses instead upon the natural world around us. On this reading, the world we inhabit is no longer merely a backdrop to the unfolding of the great drama of humanity; it is an expression of God's infinite, self-giving love. Johnson decisively rejects the notion of God as a transcendent monarch who brings the universe into existence by an act of divine fiat. Instead, she presents God as truly a God of love, an imminent God, whose loving presence in His creation allows the universe “to evolve by its own natural powers, making it a free partner in its own creation.”
The very freedom to evolve granted to nature by the Almighty is an expression of God's overflowing love. Just as the universe that God created constantly evolves, so too does His love. It reaches down through Christ's incarnation deep into the most minute, elemental levels of physical reality. It is this incarnational aspect of the Nicene Creed—"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made human”—that constitutes the ultimate expression of God's love for His creation, and Johnson argues that this is reflected in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Mercy and justice are the two themes that play a huge role in this play. Where are these themes present and which characters are most affected by them?

The themes of justice and mercy come to the forefront in Antonio's trial. Shylock has taken Antonio to court because Antonio has failed to repay Shylock the money he has borrowed. In consequence, Shylock wants the right, as the contract stipulates, to cut a pound of flesh from Antonio's body. Shylock comes armed with a knife and plans to take the flesh from Antonio's heart. This is a death sentence, as, of course, nobody can live without a heart.
Shylock represents justice. He wants the letter of the law followed. Legally, he has a right to demand the pound of flesh, and he plans to get it.
Portia represents mercy when she disguises herself as a lawyer to represent Antonio. She gives an eloquent speech in which she says the "quality of mercy is not strained [over-used]" and pleads that Antonio be dealt with compassionately.
In the trial, Shakespeare plays on stereotypes that Jews like Shylock are legalistic and split hairs over "law," while Christians understand the sprit of the law and are compassionate and merciful, as Jesus commanded. Of course, Shylock is not dealt with very mercifully in the end by the Christians, though it is more merciful than how he wanted to deal with Antonio.
The two characters most impacted by the debate between justice and mercy are Antonio and Shylock. Interestingly, however, justice prevails in the court when Shylock refuses mercy: Portia is able to argue that according to the letter of the law, Shylock can only take Antonio's flesh but not his blood, which makes cutting a pound of flesh impossible. Shylock is dealt with harshly when justice prevails.

What is the setting of the first part of the story?

Bram Stoker's Dracula meanders through several different destinations in Europe. At the beginning of the story, we find our diariest, Jonathan Harker, in Bistritz, Transylvania. He notes that he began his European journey in Munich, Germany, and has arrived at his current destination via Vienna and Budapest. Bistritz is the postal town of the area in which Count Dracula lives. Harker explains that this district is in the middle of the Carpathian mountains and is actually at the point where three states converge: Transylvania, Moldavia, and Bukovina. He also notes that there are several different nationalities within the Transylvanian population: those in the area where Harker finds himself at Szekelys, who are supposedly the descendants of Attila the Hun.
Bistritz itself is almost right on the frontier between two nations, having a pass which connects it directly to Bukovina. Harker goes at first to the Golden Krone Hotel, which has been recommended to him by Count Dracula. From there, he will be collected and brought to Dracula's residence.

Is "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night" musical?

It has always seemed to me that the poet's intention was to have "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night" read like a rondo form in classical music, in symphonies, concertos, and sonatas. This form seems appropriate since the rondo movement always comes at the end of the three or four movements of the musical piece. In a rondo the same musical phrases are repeated over and over but with slight variations and in different placements. In Thomas's poem the phrase "Do not go gentle into that good night" keeps reappearing. In the first stanza it is in the first line. Then in the second stanza it pops up in the last line. The other phrase that keeps returning is "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." It appears as the last line in the first stanza and again as the last lines in the third and fifth stanzas. Finally both these phrases end the poem when they appear together in the sixth stanza.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I believe the thought content, or "meaning," is secondary to the musical quality of the poem. Like a rondo it is a sort of simple finale to a serious composition. Presumably the other movements were represented by the poet's father's life itself. The distinguishing quality of any rondo is repetition. Notice how the last line of every stanza is either "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" or "Do not go gentle into that good night." The two lines alternate regularly until the last two stanzas, which both end with "Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
The poet knows that he cannot really give his father any practical advice about dying. His father may already be dead by the time he writes his poem. He is just paying his father a tribute by creating a poem in his honor. The fact that the poet keeps repeating the same two phrases, "Do not go gentle into that good night," and "Rage, rage against the dying of the light," suggests that he really doesn't have much more to say because there is no way of changing the reality that his father is either dead or dying. In addition to being a tribute to his father, the threnody is intended as a means of easing the speaker's own feelings. The repetition is futile as a means of conveying information but is perhaps helpful in mourning the dead or dying man.

How did George Kennan's "Long Telegram" (1946) and National Security Council 68 (1950) help shape US foreign policy from 1945 to 1960?

Kennan's "Long Telegram" was the earlier of these two documents and proved deeply influential in shaping United States perceptions and strategy during the Cold War. It should be noted that Kennan's argument was based on his reading into Russian political psychology. According to Kennan, USSR political assumptions had been shaped by a long-standing Russian self-perception of political insecurity, prompting the Soviet Union to work toward expanding its own zone of influence in response. This led Kennan to advocate a policy of containment. His reading of the Cold War proved critical in shaping the alliance networks and political interventions of the post-war era. If you look at the Marshall Plan, or the alliance networks created to contain communist expansion, you would see his influence at work. (I've provided a link to the Long Telegram, courtesy of the Truman Library.)
NSC 68 took a more militaristic approach that Kennan himself criticized. NSC 68 regarded the USSR as "fanatical" and with "intentions to impose its absolute authority on the rest of the world" (quoted from the US State department—see link), calling for a dramatic expansion in US military capacity, so as to better defend itself and its allies. According to the US State Department, the Truman Administration would follow these suggestions: between 1950 and 1953, the military spending as measured by its percentage of the GDP would rise 300 percent in those years.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/NSC68

What is the state of Elsinore in act 1, scene 1 to scene 5? Why are there so many guards?

In the opening scenes of Hamlet, Elsinore—at least on the outside—is in a state of high tension. The battlements are strewn with soldiers, heavily guarded in expectation of an imminent armed invasion from across the water. The Norwegian prince, Fortinbras, is a headstrong young man who's determined to win back all the territories lost to Denmark, and he's prepared to do this by force of arms. So the Danes are on high alert, prepared to defend their country from the expected Norwegian invasion.
Yet in Elsinore's great drinking hall, the atmosphere is completely different. King Claudius and his court are having another riotous drinking party, a custom that in Hamlet's disapproving words should be more honored in the breach than the observance. In other words, he doesn't think that it's appropriate to throw such a party with Denmark apparently on the brink of a foreign invasion.
To Hamlet, this is further evidence of the country's moral decline since Claudius usurped the throne. There's something "rotten in the state of Denmark," something nasty that corrupts the whole of public life, something that will sap the Danes' vitality, making it easier for the Norwegians to invade and present themselves as noble liberators.

Why does Reverend Sykes ask Scout to stand when her father passes in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Scout and Jem view Tom Robinson's trial from the balcony, sitting with Reverend Sykes and other black people. Eventually Calpurnia comes to collect them, appalled that they have listened to such things that are so unsuitable for children. However, Atticus tells her they might as well come back for the verdict since they have heard everything else already. After supper, they hurry back to the courtroom to find that Reverend Sykes has saved their places. He fills them in on what happened when Judge Taylor dismissed the jury, and he admits the judge seemed to be "leanin' a little to our side." Jem launches into an explanation of how convincing Atticus's defense of Tom Robinson had been.
The jury remains out for hours. Scout can't stay awake; she takes a short nap against Reverend Sykes's shoulder. When the jury returns, she senses it is bad news for Tom Robinson because none of the jurors will look at him. After the judge reads the guilty verdict, Atticus exits, and Scout watches his head from above as he passes down the middle of the courtroom. She is so intent on watching "Atticus's lonely walk down the aisle" that she doesn't realize what those around her are doing.
She feels someone punching her, and Reverend Sykes gets her attention. He tells her to stand up because her father is passing by. Then she realizes that all the black people in the balcony are standing as a way of paying respect to Atticus. Although the verdict didn't go their way, they all appreciate how hard Atticus fought for justice. Reverend Sykes wants Scout to know that her father deserves the highest respect and honor everyone can give him. Even his daughter should stand to show her regard for such a great man.

Compare and contrast Christine Linde and Nora.

Despite the fact that Christine and Nora are the same age, Christine appears "a little paler" and "a little thinner" than Nora does; Christine herself even says that she looks "much, much older" than her one-time school friend. Christine has spent the nine or ten years since they last saw each other quite differently from the way Nora has: Christine married a man she did not love because he could care for her and her family, then she became a widow who was left "nothing" by her husband (when his business "fell to pieces at his death"), and she had to work hard to support herself for the last three years (since his death). Nora, on the other hand, has a healthy and successful husband and "three of the loveliest children."
Christine tells Nora, "it must be delightful to have what you need," and Nora replies that she has "not only what [she] need[s], but heaps of money -- heaps!" Nora is pretty tactless, even in the face of her friend's need; her old friend has clearly fallen on difficult times, but Nora continues to brag about her family and her money. She claims that she's had to work, too, "light fancy work: crochet, and embroidery, and things of that sort" though her work clearly has not affected her the way Christine's has her. Christine talks about how the last three years "have been one long struggle" for her, but now she feels that her life is "inexpressibly empty."
By the end of the play, however, Christine and Krogstad have reunited, and she will finally have a husband that she loves, but Nora has realized how empty her own marriage is and abandons her family in order to discover herself.

The differences between Christine’s life and Nora’s are established immediately with Christine’s introduction into the play. As the drama continues, the fundamental differences in their characters are developed so thoroughly that Christine could be interpreted as a literary foil for Ibsen’s protagonist. Christine’s independence and strong sense of self emphasize Nora’s dependence and lack of personal identity; Christine’s insistence on telling the truth emphasizes Nora’s deceitfulness in all matters, important or insignificant. The literary relationship between the characters, however, is more subtle and complex than that of a character and her foil. Through Christine Linde, Ibsen previews the woman Nora Helmer will become after leaving Torvald and the stifling security of their marriage.
Christine’s personal history is established through exposition early in the play. Responsible for her ailing mother and for several younger brothers, she married a wealthy man she did not love so that she would have the financial resources to take care of them; his business ventures failed, and after he died, leaving her penniless, Christine worked hard to support herself and her family. Her mother died, her brothers grew up, and she continued to work to support herself. In the play’s conclusion, the rest of Christine’s story is revealed; marrying for money had required sacrificing her relationship with Nils Krogstad, the man she had loved and had planned to marry.
Relating the facts of her life to Nora at the beginning of the play, Christine bemoans how hard she has had to work, “[w]ith a little store and a little school and anything else I could think of.” In the play’s conclusion, however, she acknowledges that work has been her “one and only pleasure.” Christine moves to Nora’s town seeking new employment, not a new husband, and she comes to Nora’s home hoping to secure an office job at Torvald’s bank.
When Christine and Krogstad meet again and plan to marry, she does not seek a superficial marriage of convenience that will provide her with financial security. She recognizes that she and Krogstad need each other, and she envisions a true marriage of mind and spirit in which they will bring out the best in each other. With Christine, Krogstad believes he will become a better person and will “raise [himself] in the eyes of others”; with him, Christine declares, “I dare to do anything.” Their marriage will succeed, the play implies, because they reveal the truth about themselves and the past, and they will go into marriage as partners in the relationship.
Christine’s life after the death of her husband foreshadows in several ways what Nora’s life will be after leaving Torvald. Like Christine, Nora will live without the security of marriage, and she will work to support herself. She plans to return to her hometown, where she imagines it will be easier to find “some kind of job” that will give her a start in the new life she seeks. “I must see to it that I get experience, Torvald,” she explains. Working is not the only experience Nora plans to acquire. Like Christine, she will learn to live an independent, self-directed life, thinking for herself, exercising her own judgment, and making her own decisions.
In Nora’s final conversation with Torvald before leaving him, she rejects deceit, speaks frankly, and thus adopts Christine’s regard for the truth. Nora makes it clear that her relationship with Torvald is over unless they can change “[s]o that our living together would become a true marriage.” As the play concludes, Nora strikes out on her own, leaving Torvald behind, and leaving the audience to wonder if the Helmers will find their way back to each other, as Christine and Krogstad have done, and if Nora, like Christine, will one day find genuine happiness as her own person in a marriage between partners. In the drama's final scenes, Christine's long journey to fulfillment ends, and Nora's begins.

What started slavery in America?

Slavery began in colonial America for both economic and cultural reasons. After Jamestown in Virginia turned to growing tobacco, plantation owners looked for a source of reliable labor. The first African slaves arrived in the Virginia colony in 1619, and slaves were also used to grow sugar, rice, and other labor-intensive crops. White indentured slaves were also used at first to help grow crops, but Bacon's Rebellion in colonial Virginia in 1676 caused many elite plantation owners to impose an increasingly harsh color line between indentured servants and slaves. In this popular uprising, slaves and indentured servants united, and the elite imposed a color line between slavery and indentured servitude to break the solidarity between the two groups. In addition, slavery built on an unfortunate pre-existing racism that many Europeans felt towards Africans, but the imposition of slavery was largely driven by economics.

In The Sun Is Also a Star, why did Lester Barnes refer Natasha to Jeremy Fitzgerald?

The simple answer is that Jeremy Fitzgerald's generally thought to be the best immigration attorney in New York. This is a man who's never lost a case, and so if anyone can get Natasha's deportation notice reversed, it's Jeremy. Natasha's certainly going to need ever last bit of his legal expertise if she's to avoid being deported to Jamaica, a country where she doesn't anyone and where she'll almost certainly feel out of place.
Unfortunately, even this legal hit-shot's unable to help Natasha. The main problem is that he seems more interested in conducting an illicit affair with his paralegal, Hannah, than in trying to get Natasha's decoration notice reversed. Although he's never previously lost a case, this is one case he will lose, and it's all because he's taken his eye off the ball and allowed his personal life to interfere with his professional life.

What are Voltaire's attitudes to religion?

Voltaire is a deist, so he is not necessarily opposed to religion as a whole, but he does have some very strong negative attitudes toward major organized religions. Overall, Voltaire shows a strong distaste for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with different reasons for each, and this is evident in his work Candide.
Above everything else, Voltaire detests Christianity, at one point calling it essentially the worst human creation in the entire world. He believes that it is manipulative and used as propaganda and that it leads to the destruction of reason and freedom. He clearly displays this in the novel with the many instances of his characters encountering evil or corrupt priests, such as those who run the Portuguese Inquisition and who take Cunegonde for a concubine. This sentiment is particularly obvious when Candide visits El Dorado: the town is devoid of priests and is thus a bastion of rationality and intellect.
Additionally, Voltaire harbors a strong hatred and resentment for Jews and is described as one of the most vitriolic haters of Jews in the entire Enlightened era. He typically would lump Judaism in with Christianity, often likening the two faiths' beliefs to one another. He accuses the Jewish people of being greedy and superstitious, and many scholars believe his anti-Semitism stemmed from some personal experience or issue.
Voltaire harbors a lesser distaste for Islam, which he thinks is fairly superstitious. He believes that the Quran is in violation of principles of science and physics. He does, however, praise the accomplishments of various Turks, Arabs, and Muslims, showing something of a preference for Islam over the other Abrahamic religions.
Voltaire is actually particularly fond of the beliefs of both Buddhism and Confucianism, neither of which are, ironically, theistic religions by nature. He appreciates the moral and mental aspects of both of these faiths. It seems, however, that he was unwilling to decide on a deity he personally believed in, even though he didn't necessarily deny the existence of one.

Who in the story Me Before You is the "me"?

That is difficult to say because it is never explicitly stated in the novel or the film; however, the author has addressed it to an extent. Intending to be cryptic, the author left it without explanation in order for it to be able to represent both of the characters, to an extent.
The idea is that the book is exploring the lives of Will and Lou before and after they meet each other and how they are radically changed by interacting with one another. In the story, Will's perception of life is changed by the joy Lou brings him, and Lou's world is opened up by Will's adventurous spirit and his worldly experience. The title is meant to represent each characters' past ("Me") before they met the other ("Before You").

Who are the childless adults, and why are they childless?

In the dystopian society depicted in The Giver, adults exist to take care of children given to them by the state. They do not conceive these children and do not form any kind of emotional bond with them. Once the children have grown old enough to go out into the world on their own, their parents are pretty much redundant; their work is done.
As the parents were chosen by the state rather than choosing each other, they go their separate ways once the children have flown the nest. They go off to live with other adults in the same situation, so-called Childless Adults. In this way, the state ensures that there's no such thing as a broken home. Unfortunately, it also means that there's no such thing as love between parents and the children they care for.

Why is an understanding of US foreign policy toward Latin America important to understanding Latin American migration today?

Some observers and commentators have advanced the position that the United States' interventionist policies toward Latin America since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have contributed to instability and poverty in the region. This instability and poverty, they contend, has forced large numbers of residents of Central and South America to flee their native lands.
US entanglement with Latin America traces its roots to American intervention in the Mexican Revolution (1910 to 1920). It later manifested itself in the form of US military occupation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. However, the Cold-War–era decision of the United States to involve itself in the domestic politics of Latin America has been cited as the most direct inspiration for the current wave of migration. Specific examples of US involvement during this period include the following:
Covert American support for the overthrow of Chilean president Augusto Pinochet,
US support for military dictatorships in Latin America through "Operation Condor,"
American involvement in the Nicaraguan Civil War during the period of the Iran Contra affair.
These, and other, situations—some contend—contributed to regional instability and, through that, chronic poverty.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-latino-migration-and-us-foreign-policy

Because US policies in Latin America are the likeliest contributors to the current mass migrations from those regions, it is critical to understand these policies if we are ever to find solutions to this crisis.
The main reason migrants cite for leaving their countries and entering the US is local violence. Acapulco, for example, has the highest murder rate in the world for any city, mostly perpetrated by drug cartels. The US War on Drugs is considered the cause of much of this violence. Under El Plan Merida, the state department grants $1.2 billion dollars per year to arm and train local law enforcement to fight the cartels; however, local law enforcement is known to be part of the cartel network. This is evidenced by the state-sponsored disappearance of forty-three students from Ayotzinapa in Guerrero in 2014, among others, for example.
The disastrous and bloody civil war in El Salvador was also funded and armed by the US. The brutal Duarte regime was supported by the Reagan administration and the CIA. Effects from this war, including economic instability and violence, continue to trigger migration from this region.
Free-trade agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA-DR (the North American and Central American Free-Trade Agreements, with the Dominican Republic) are also root causes of mass migration. The privatization and exploitation of local resources displace whole communities. For example, in Mexico and El Salvador, Coca-Cola has displaced tens of thousands by using up and polluting the water supply. US corporations are able to move into areas, like US pharmaceuticals in the Lacandon forests, more freely under these agreements, causing more people to be displaced. NAFTA has also opened the border to sweat shops, with terrible working conditions. When US corporations recruit labor for these border industries in southern Mexico, migrants arrive just to find out these jobs aren’t as promised, and so they are forced to cross the border.

Are all cities filthy and disgusting places filled with slums, homeless people, and high rates of crime?

The question, as posed, is a problem of propositional logic.
In its most general sense, a city is any large human settlement. More specifically, jurisdictions define cities in relation to certain characteristics, such as population or incorporation status. They are larger than a town or a village.
The question contains four separate inquiries, and the construction of the question requires all four criteria to be met in order for the response to be "yes." These are:

Do all cities have homeless people?
Are all cities filled with slums?
Do all cities have high rates of crime?
Are all cities filthy and disgusting?

Sierra Madre, California, is a city as defined in the California Government Code. According to the most recent homeless census in that city, it has no homeless people living in it. Therefore, not all cities have homeless people. Because we can prove that not all cities have homeless people we can, logically, also establish that the response to the question "Are all cities filthy and disgusting places filled with slums, homeless people, and high rates of crime?" is no.

Describe the road the speaker chooses.

The road chosen is the scarier choice of roads. It does not have any "road signs" to tell the traveler where the road is going, how easily it is to travel, or directions to the destination. There is no mileage markers to tell the traveler how far she or he has gone or how close he or she is to a desired destination. The traveler doesn't know if the road provides access to anything that she or he will need on the way to the place that will cause the traveler to be happy and content with her or his journey.
The road is a metaphor for choosing to follow one's heart in life, even if there are risks and unknowns involved.

Firstly, it's important to understand that "the road" in "The Road Not Taken" is metaphorical—not exactly a literal road, though the poem may have been inspired by an actual walk through a forest. The road that the narrator has taken is "the one less traveled by." The narrator describes it in relation to the first as follows:

And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!

The first path seems attractive, due to how it bends "in the undergrowth," making it shadier and more mysterious. However, the narrator takes the other, which is still "grassy and wanted wear," indicating that few have trodden on this path. This description of the second road is the reason why many people read the Frost poem as championing non-conformity. I would say that they are not exactly wrong. It seems that the narrator chooses the second path because it seems to offer something new. However, on a closer look, he sees that they are worn "about the same" and both are covered in freshly fallen leaves. He imagines that he will have a chance to travel on the first path on another day, but there is never time for that opportunity.
The poem is a meditation on choices and how we cannot enjoy all of the opportunities that are offered to us in life. The choice of one thing guarantees the loss of another.

What caused conflicts between the Powhatan and the colonists?

The Powhatan resented the English settlers because they made regular incursions into their lands without permission. These lands had been occupied by the Powhatan since time immemorial; they were ancestral hunting lands which had deep cultural significance to the tribe and were considered sacred. Unsurprisingly, then, the Powhatan didn't take too kindly to the Jamestown settlers encroaching on their territory.
Relations between the Powhatan and the English settlers, which had initially been quite cordial, rapidly deteriorated, to the extent that a series of full-scale conflicts broke out between the two sides. A brief period of peace ensued after the marriage of the Powhatan princess Pocahontas to the English tobacco planter John Rolfe. But after she passed away, conflict resumed, this time even more bitter and bloody. The Powhatan made regular raids on Jamestown, indiscriminately killing men, women, and children. The English retaliated with equal ferocity, using their superior firepower to bring the Powhatan to within an ace of extinction.

What values do Plutarch and Confucius promote? What similarities and differences do you see in their moral and educational philosophies? How are those similarities and differences related to the history and structure of their respective societies and the problems of creating a common elite class culture to govern far-flung empires?

Plutarch believed in an eternal and good God who created the world. Plutarch saw all life as connected by a world-soul, which was basically evil. One tenet of his philosophy was the necessity of reason, as Plutarch saw man's soul as subject to evil passions. Reason, therefore, was required in order to free the self from bodily passions and to achieve happiness. Plutarch was not overly dogmatic and believed that a moral life was achieved by moderation in all things.
The philosophy of Confucius revolves around the Tao. The Tao is the "principle of order" in nature, natural elements, and human beings. It manifests itself in cold and heat, feminine and masculine, yin and yang, order and chaos. According to Confucius, it is by the study of the Tao, ourselves, and others that we can become better people.
One interesting point of agreement between Plutarch and Confucius is that they both emphasize the need to impose order on chaos. Plutarch saw evil manifested when men were enslaved by their chaotic bodily desires. Confucius saw all of life as a balance between order and chaos.
http://philosophos.org/philosophical_connections/profile_025.html

https://www.the-philosophy.com/confucius-philosophy-summary

Plutarch promoted the ideas of free will and the immortal soul. He preferred to contemplate religious and moral questions rather than abstract, theoretical ones. His values were also monotheistic; he believed that one Being created the universe, and this Being was represented in the gods and myths of other religions. Plutarch opposed other popular teachings of the era, such as the materialism present in Stoicism and the atheistic theories of Epicureanism. He also did not view the gods of the Greek pantheon as literal beings, but as sources of philosophical lessons and vessels for a singular higher power.
The foundation of Confucian philosophy is the Five Constants: humanity, justice, rite, knowledge, and integrity. The goal of these teachings is to help followers find balance through the contemplation of their own human-ness. Confucianism is a reactionary philosophy that emerged during the Warring States period of Chinese history. Born in a time of chaos and confusion, Confucianism focused on the importance of achieving mental tranquility.
Plutarch and Confucius are similar in their value of connecting to a higher power via contemplation, as well as a goal of unifying with the universe. The creation theories in the two philosophies differ slightly. Both teach that the universe was created from matter. However, Plutarch believes this matter, originally evil and chaotic, was harnessed by a single being and endowed with order and reason. Confucius taught that the universe created itself out of matter in a chaotic state, coming together through the balancing opposing forces. This balance became known as yin and yang.
https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plutarch/

What do Pi's faith and his religious practices add to the story of this young man with his ability to survive? How does this create a life story with a happy ending?

Pi is an Indian boy (a Hindu majority country) immigrating to Canada (a Christian majority country) who declares that he is not only Hindu (the religion into which he was born) but also Catholic and Muslim. Religion is an important theme in Yann Martel's Life of Pi—indeed the narrator tells us that this tale is one that would make one "believe in God." However, in the case of Pi, "gods" might be more appropriate. The book makes references throughout to the Bible, the Quran, and even Kabbalah. Even the name of the ship, Tsimtsum, is a Hebrew word, which refers to God's contraction into himself in order to make room for the unfolding of the physical universe. Pi's wreck can also be read as allusive to the tale of Noah's ark. The devastating loss that Pi suffers and his 227-day isolation on the raft causes him to seek answers to deep existential questions, and he finds that the different religions in which he has faith provide him those answers. His belief is central to his ability to survive. One might say that Pascal's wager is key to understanding Pi's faith. This is what the early modern French philosopher Blaise Pascal says:

Whether God exists or not, we should believe in Him, for we suffer nothing by our wrong belief if He does not exist, while we gain an infinitude for our faith if He does.

Pi believes in the gods of three different religions, and he seems to be in agreement with Pascal about the "infinitude" to be gained from belief. His religious beliefs imply that he is not dogmatic about religion, and he finds that faith in a higher power lends meaning to our lives.

In return for Beowulf's bravery, what did King Hrothgar give to Beowulf and to his men?

Beowulf sets off to kill the monster Grendel, which he does, along with tearing off his entire arm and shoulder. He brings the arm back to Hrothgar, who rewards him with a golden banner, coat of mail, and sword, which he caps off with eight magnificent horses with jeweled saddles and golden bridles. He also gives gold and other treasures to Beowulf's men. After Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother, he brings the hilt of the magical jeweled sword and bestows them on Hrothgar. By reading the hilt, Hrothgar learns the owner’s name and that the giant makers experienced a devastating war and floods. Following some cautionary advice, Hrothgar first rewards Beowulf with a lavish feast. The next morning, Unferth arrives and presents Beowulf with the gift of his prize sword Hrunting, which had formerly been just a loan.

Characterize snowball as a leader in Animal Farm. Do you think his reaction to the stable-boys death is the appropriate reaction to have during a revolution?

During the Animalist uprising, the big old shire horse Boxer accidentally kills a stable-boy. Boxer feels somewhat guilty about this, but Snowball tells him not fret over it as the only good human is a dead human. This incident, and Snowball's reaction to it, shows us his ruthless side. Like the fanatical ideologue he is, Snowball believes that the end justifies the means. If some individuals get hurt or even killed in the course of a revolution, then that's just too bad. So long as the revolution is successfully carried out, that's all that matters.
Snowball is supposed to represent Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution. Like Snowball, he too believed that the end justified the means. Though often presented as a more moderate figure than his co-revolutionists Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky was in a actual fact no less ruthless, and was every bit as prepared to countenance death, violence, and bloodshed as a means of attaining and consolidating Bolshevik power.
As to the appropriateness of Snowball's seemingly callous actions, there are two ways of looking at the question. From a moral standpoint, his remarks to Boxer are completely unacceptable. There is simply no justification whatsoever for the taking of an innocent life, be it human or animal.
From a revolutionary standpoint, however, Snowball and others like him would argue that such deaths are a necessary, unavoidable part of any violent uprising, and are in any case a small price to pay for the ultimate victory of the revolution. Which standpoint we choose to adopt depends largely on whether or not we are political revolutionaries.

What is meant by the Puritans's theocracy?

A theocracy is a form of government in which priests of one religion or another rule in the name of God. Colonial Massachusetts is traditionally regarded as a Puritan theocracy because the men in charge of the colony—and it was only men who were allowed to exercise any political authority there—did so according to their religious beliefs.
In Puritan Massachusetts, as with all theocracies, there was no distinction between the secular and the religious, no separation between church and state. All aspects of civic life in the colony were organized on the basis of the Puritans' rigid Calvinism.
In practice, this meant that the colony was governed by a council of elders, chosen for their superior godliness. Also, the role of minister in Puritan Massachusetts was an important one, which involved so much more than simply attending to the pastoral needs of the flock. Though the minister was selected by his congregation, he was paid—quite handsomely, as it happens—out of town government funds as he was in fact a public official.
All those involved in the administration of government were charged with the promotion of godliness; that indeed was the sole end of government as the Puritans understood it. The Puritans set down stringent laws which determined how people lived their lives; and there were severe punishments for anyone who broke those laws. Puritanical strictness ensured that people could find themselves being punished for a whole range of offenses, ranging from gambling to dancing, from swearing to breaking the sabbath. And if anyone were brave or foolish enough to challenge the theocratic system, the church government would use every coercive means at its disposal to crack down on the merest hint of dissent.
As those in charge of Massachusetts believed themselves to be doing God's work, they concluded that anyone who defied them was guilty of blasphemy, and therefore deserving of the most severe punishments. To challenge the church government was to challenge God himself.

If Wade truly wants to abandon humanity and live in solitude, how is that different from IOI's ideas for monetizing OASIS?

I'm assuming this question is about the different ways Wade and IOI perceive the OASIS. Wade views the OASIS as an escape from the horrors and disappointments of the real world, where he is an unattractive, unwanted orphan. In the OASIS, he is powerful and popular. However, the IOI want to make people have to pay for use of the OASIS, which up to this point has been mostly free.
Wade feels that to monetize the OASIS is to take away a significant source of comfort for most people of his generation. Wade feels their wanting to only allow OASIS access to a privileged minority is morally wrong and a great horror when the outside world is so terrible. So, the difference might be that Wade sees the OASIS as something essential that should continue to be available to everyone as passionate about geek culture as he is, while IOI only wants to make more money off of it.

What is the essential conflict in Wednesday Wars?

The essential conflict in The Wednesday Wars is one between expectation and experience.
This conflict can be seen throughout the novel. For example, Holling has an ambivalent relationship with his father. Yet, despite his father's obvious failings, Holling continues to hope for the best. Most of the time, however, Mr. Hoodhood disappoints Holling. A prime example of Mr. Hoodhood's disinterest in Holling can be seen in the Mickey Mantle episode.
Accordingly, after playing the part of Ariel in The Tempest, Holling rushes outside, where his father is supposed to be waiting. Mr. Hoodhood had promised to take Holling to Baker's Sporting Emporium to see Mickey Mantle. Despite his disappointment, Holling manages to act quickly. He flags down a bus and begs the driver to take him to the stadium.
For his part, the driver takes pity on Holling. When Holling gets to the stadium, however, more disappointment awaits him. Upon seeing Holling in Ariel's costume, Mickey Mantle refuses to sign an autograph for Holling. Meanwhile, Danny Hupfer returns his own autographed baseball to Mickey Mantle after witnessing the athlete's rude treatment of Holling. Both Danny and Holling learn that sometimes, expectation does not correspond with experience. It is a painful life lesson.
Another example of this conflict is when Mrs. Bigio (bereft of her soldier husband) lashes out at Mai Thi. For her part, Mai Thi has also suffered, but she is too stunned to respond to Mrs. Bigio's pain. For both, the expectations of hope have been crushed. Mai Thi is displaced from her home, while Mrs. Bigio's husband dies at the hands of the Viet Cong in Vietnam. For Mrs. Bigio's husband, there is no victory celebration or triumphant return home. Instead, the warrior intent upon removing the scourge of communism from Vietnam dies in a foreign land.
Meanwhile, for Mai Thi, there is little hope that she will be able to return to her country of origin in the near future. Her hopes for safety and security are dashed upon the altar of war.
So, again, there is the discrepancy between expectation and experience for the characters in the novel.

The main conflict is between Holling and Mrs. Baker. At first, Holling thinks that Mrs. Baker hates his guts. She comes across as quite a stern, forbidding character who always seems to be on his case. But the problem is that Holling doesn't really know Mrs. Baker at all, not the real Mrs. Baker, at any rate. He just sees her as an unbending authority figure.
But when they start reading Shakespeare together, things change. Holling sees a different side to Mrs. Baker and realizes that he's got her all wrong. Gradually, a bond of mutual respect and trust develops, which provides resolution to a conflict based on misunderstanding. In finally learning to accept Mrs. Baker for who and what she is, Holling's also overcome a conflict that most of us have to deal with at some point in our lives: the gap between what we perceive to be the truth and what's actually true.

What happens when copper is treated with dilute HCl?

Questions of this kind typically require you to identify the type of reaction that could potentially occur, then use published reference material on that type of reaction to determine whether the materials react or not.
When discussing chemical reactions it is almost always necessary to know the chemical reaction equation, or as much of it as possible. Thus we begin by writing down what we know. The symbol for copper is Cu, and it is a solid at room temperature, so we write Cu(s). The HCl is described as ”dilute,” implying a solution in water, so we label it aqueous, HCl(aq). We can write
Cu(s) + HCl(aq) -> ?
What reaction could potentially occur? Copper is a metal, and when metals are present in compounds, they are normally in the form of positive ions. Furthermore, they are paired with negative ions. There is only one negative ion in the equation that could potentially combine with a copper cation: chloride ion, Cl^- . You should know that when hydrochloric acid is dissolved in water, it is ionized, that is, exists as positive hydrogen ions and negative chloride ions.
Here you have an element, copper, and a compound, hydrochloric acid. The copper could combine with the chloride from the acid, forming an ionic compound, and leaving hydrogen by itself. Elemental hydrogen has the formula H_2 and is a gas. To summarize, an element and a compound would react to give a different element and compound. A potential (unbalanced) reaction would look like this:
Cu(s) + HCl(aq)-> Cu_?Cl(aq) + H_2(g)
I hope by now you have recognized the many features that identify this reaction as a Single Replacement: there are an element and a compound on each side, and the compound is dissolved in aqueous solution. To determine if a single replacement reaction will occur or not, we look at the activity series.
The activity series (link attached) is arranged so that elements higher in the series will replace elements lower in the series. If the compound contains the lower element, the higher element will react with it. Here we are looking for copper to be higher than hydrogen. If copper is higher, it will replace hydrogen from HCl, and a reaction will occur.
The activity series shows that copper is below hydrogen. Copper will not replace hydrogen in a compound. That means no reaction will occur between copper and dilute hydrochloric acid. Nothing will happen when these materials are put together! And we are spared having to figure out if copper would form copper(I) or copper(II) ions.

On pages 48–49 of The Other Wes Moore, we learn about the sacrifices Wes and Justin made to attend their school. What did this early experience teach Wes and Justin about the importance of goals?

Wes and Justin must travel to attend their school and be singled out by their peers but they realize these are things they must face in order to get their education. They quickly learn that they must step out of their comfort zone and work a little harder to achieve their goals. Even though they do not like to travel a ways to get to school or be picked on by their peers they must remain focused on their end-goal. They must face these current hardships in order to achieve their goal and be successful in the long-run. They must take advantage of the opportunity they were given and make the best of it.

Despite growing up in a loving family environment, the author Wes Moore has been getting into trouble. His mother's worried that he might end up falling into a life of crime like so many other young men of his age. She figures that the only way to prevent that from happening is by changing her son's environment. That means sending him off to military school.
Doing so involves making a lot of sacrifices. Unbeknownst to Wes, almost every member of his family has had to contribute financially to send him to military school; his grandparents gave up almost the whole of their life savings. Wes learns from this that it was only though such enormous sacrifices that he was able to change his path in life, a path that had led to achievement and success.
As for Justin, Wes's friend, he has to sacrifice his good grades at school in order to help out his family after his mother's diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a rare form of cancer. With his sister away at college and his father living in Harlem, Justin has to hold the family together, juggling basketball practice and study with making regular visits to the hospital to see his mom. Inevitably, this has a disastrous effect on his schoolwork, and his grades decline accordingly.
And yet despite his many trials and tribulations, Justin never gives up hope and remains determined to make something of himself. Despite being diagnosed with cancer himself, Justin also achieves much in life, eventually forging a successful career in education.

What is the role of an exhibitor in a research carnival? Do they need to present a paper or their achievement such as a conference paper?

A research carnival is the most informal type of academic symposium, less formal than a conference paper presentation or even a poster presentation.
Research carnivals, unlike research conferences, are designed to be accessible to the general, non-academic public and to present the findings of research in a way that is both understandable and compelling. Instead of papers or posters, participants in a research carnival present tangible examples of their research so that attendees can understand its practical implications and witness it "in action."
For instance, at a research carnival, an exhibiting robotics engineer would not present a paper on their studies, but they might present working examples of robotic devices they had built with the aid of their research and demonstrate how that research had contributed to their design and construction.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream, how is Hippolyta's reasoning concerning how quickly the next four days will pass different from that of Theseus?

Great question! At the beginning of William Shakespeare's comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Hippolyta and Theseus are due to be married in four days. The upcoming royal wedding serves as the backdrop for the plot of the play, and most of the characters are involved with the wedding in some capacity.
In the opening lines of the play, Theseus bemoans that time seems to pass so slowly. He says that the moon "lingers my desires" and essentially says that he wishes to bed Hippolyta immediately rather than waiting until after the ceremony.
Hippolyta is much less anxious. She responds to Theseus's impatience by saying:

Four nights will quickly dream away the time

For Hippolyta, time is moving quickly. She refers to the night of the wedding as the "night of our solemnities." By using the word "solemnities" to describe a (normally) happy and joyful experience, Hippolyta reveals that she is not enthusiastic about her coming marriage.
For Theseus, four days seem like an eternity while for Hippolyta four nights will pass far too quickly. This is interesting, and the odd relationship between these two characters is revealed a few lines later when Theseus tells his betrothed:

Hippolyta, I woo'd thee with my sword,And won thy love, doing thee injuries;But I will wed thee in another key,With pomp, with triumph and with revelling.

This reveals that Hippolyta is not marrying Theseus willingly. The Queen of the Amazons has been kidnapped by Theseus and is being forced into marriage. This detail largely explains why Theseus and Hippolyta have different perspectives on the passage of time leading to the wedding.
I hope this helps!

What are some examples that highlight the theme of home and abroad in Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Beach of Falesa"?

One example that highlights the theme of home and abroad in "The Beach of Falesá" is the marriage of the protagonist John Wiltshire to the Island native Uma. Such unions were not uncommon in the colonies or the South Seas, in a way that would not have been possible at home because of the cultural prohibition of "miscegenation."
Another example of the theme of home and abroad is the power that the rogue character Case is able to exert over the native population through his manipulation of their belief in the ever-present influence of spirits and the supernatural. Although the use of luminous paint and other conjuring tricks was not unheard of in England at the time, it could hardly have been used to fool an entire society, as happens on the island.
Another home and abroad example is Wiltshire's relative lack of concern for the legal or other consequences of plotting to blow up Case's temple in the jungle, where Case beguiles and enchants the natives. When Case confronts Wiltshire and a fight ensues, Wiltshire kills Case and ends up living contentedly on another island. Such things can happen abroad with far fewer risks and consequences than in England, where plotting to blow up a man's construction and killing him when he resists would likely not go unpunished.

What kind of partnership does Paul have with Bassett?

In D. H. Lawrence's "The Rocking-Horse Winner," Paul and Bassett—the young protagonist and his family's gardener—have partnered together to gamble on horse racing. The partnership is equal in the sense that its success hinges upon both partners holding up their end of the agreement.
Paul is too young to make the bets himself. He also does not wish his mother to find out, as he believes she would put a stop to it. For these reasons, he must rely on Bassett to place the bets for him. On the other hand, Bassett must also rely on Paul, as he is the one picking the winners.
Bassett used to be "batman" (i.e., servant to a British Army officer) to Paul's uncle, Oscar Cresswell. After injuring his foot, Oscar helped Bassett get a job as a gardener for Paul's family. At the start of "The Rocking-Horse Winner," the pair have already been partners for a while, building up quite a stockpile of money. In a sense, Bassett has now also become "batman" to Paul, though it does not take away from the latter's reliance on the former.
The pair's process is as follows: Paul rides his rocking horse, where he gets an idea of who to bet on:

"Sometimes I'm absolutely sure, like about Daffodil," said the boy; "and sometimes I have an idea; and sometimes I haven't even an idea, have I, Bassett? Then we're careful, because we mostly go down."

As Paul is too young to do so, Bassett is the one who must go place the bets. He is also responsible for holding on to their winnings for safe keeping. The two of them only place large bets on horses that Paul is "absolutely" certain will win. Until Uncle Oscar discovers Paul's gift of luck, the pair keep this a secret from everyone else in the family.

Bassett and Paul have a partnership to place bets on horse races. Paul can determine the winner of an upcoming horse race by riding his rocking horse very hard. But he is too young to go to the racetrack and bet, so Bassett does that for him.
We learn that Bassett is the young gardener for Paul's family. His foot was wounded in World War I. Uncle Oscar helped him get him the job with Paul's family, because Bassett had been his batman in the war. (A batman was a personal servant the British army assigned officers like Uncle Oscar.)
Because Bassett and Uncle Oscar had a prior close relationship, Oscar is inclined to support their betting partnership. When Oscar questions Paul about it, he learns that Bassett had lent Paul the money—five shillings—to make his first bet. Oscar is surprised to find out the large sums the two are now winning on the races.

How did the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” change from 1776 to 1850? Who were the Whigs? Of the people and parties encompassed by these terms, what were they for and against? Give specific examples of key people, elections, debates, and so on.

During the establishment of the United States from 1776 to 1789, there were no Democrats and Republicans as we currently understand them. There were Federalists and anti-Federalists, the latter later forming the nucleus of the Democratic-Republicans. Well-known Federalists included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. Federalists believed in a strong, centralized government with infrastructural services, such as a national bank. Federalists were often urban types—Adams was from Boston and Hamilton was from New York—and they were less likely to be sympathetic to the needs of slave owners.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are the most well-known Democratic-Republicans. Members of this party were more agrarian and more likely to be slave owners. They came from less populous states and states, such as Virginia and South Carolina, that often had large populations of black slaves. This situation inspired the "three-fifths compromise" in the Constitution, which declared slaves three-fifths of a person so that the Democratic-Republicans could have better representation in Congress. Both Jefferson and Madison were wealthy Virginia planters.
Democratic-Republicans believed in a less centralized government and supported allowing states more power. Jefferson and other members of this party believed that the citizens of an individual state were best positioned to determine their needs and did not need a distant government, then in Philadelphia, to direct their functioning. Democratic-Republicans were averse to involving themselves in foreign affairs, but the demands of the period, including the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, forced them to become more internationally engaged.
The Whig Party was active from 1834-1854. They developed in opposition to Andrew Jackson, whose populist appeal led to what Whigs perceived as an overreach of presidential powers. They borrowed the term "Whig" from British parliamentarians who opposed extensive royal power. The Whigs were usually antislavery, but they expressed a willingness to compromise—a political instinct best expressed by the party's founder, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, who was nicknamed The Great Compromiser due to his ability to secure sectional compromises, particularly during the Missouri Compromise of 1850. Whigs were sympathetic to sectarian interests, like the Democratic-Republicans before them, but less sympathetic to slavery.
The Whig Party died in the 1850s and was absorbed by the Republican Party. The Whigs' key figures, Clay and Daniel Webster—who represented New Hampshire and Massachusetts in Congress—died. The party subsequently split between its proslavery and antislavery wings. The former joined the Republicans, who dominated in the Northern states; the latter went to the Democrats, who dominated in the South.
The Republicans were, at that time, against slavery. The Democrats, at that time, were for slavery. Democrats were adamant in their support of states' rights—a lingering Constitutional argument that they used to justify their right to have slaves and the perceived right of newly admitted states to decide for themselves if they wished to have slavery.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party

What leadership style did Erin Brockovich have?

In leadership as an academic discipline, there are ten widely recognized styles of leadership: transactional, transformational, democratic, autocratic, bureaucratic, laissez-faire, servant, situational, cross-cultural, and charismatic.
It is rare for a leader to operate exclusively within one style of leadership. A more common occurrence is a blended style that leans more in the direction of one style. This is the case with Erin Brockovich.
Erin Brockovich's leadership blends transformational, servant, situational, and charismatic styles, and it leans more toward the charismatic style than it does the other three. Her style is transformational in the sense that her leadership and actions are focused on substantial and meaningful change. It is servant in the sense that her mission is grass-roots and serves to accommodate and empower the powerless. It is situational in that her move into a leadership role is influenced entirely by the circumstances of her life and community. Lastly, her style is charismatic in that she is able to effect change as a result of her personality, passion, compassion, and personal investment in her cause.
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/organizational-leadership-styles-study-starters/