Compare and contrast the monstrosity of Jack in the Lord of the Flies with that of Idek from Night.

Kapos are prisoners that are put in charge of the work squads. Idek is the Kapo in charge of Elie and his father's work unit in the concentration camp. The work for their unit is light compared to others, but sometimes Idek gets in a crazy mood. In this wild mood, he beats Elie for no apparent reason. He later beats Elie's father as well.
Jack is a child, and not a grown man like Idek. Jack is not imprisoned in a concentration camp, but we could argue that the deserted island is a kind of prison. Still, the settings are very different: Idek, while in charge of a work squad, is still subject to the rules and structure of the camp. On the island, Jack experiences a kind of freedom that brings out his wild side. Like Idek, Jack is prone to violence, leading a group of hunters and attacking the other boys.
Some questions for further thinking: Do you think the situations these characters are in increase their monstrosity? As an adult, is Idek more in control of his monstrosity? What are the consequences of their monstrous actions?
I recommend making a Venn diagram to keep track of how the monstrosities of Jack and Idek are similar and different!

What is the rhyme scheme in Shakespearian Sonnet 20?

Shakespeare's preferred sonnet structure was so unique that it has a name of its own: the Shakespearean sonnet! In fact, Shakespeare did not invent the Shakespearean sonnet. It preceded him and is also widely known as the English or Elizabethan sonnet. The name now pays homage to Shakespeare because he greatly helped in the popularization of its particular form.
Shakespearean (or English) sonnets share attributes of other sonnets, including the poetic meter known as iambic pentameter. Iambic pentameter refers to lines that are ten syllables each (or "decasyllabic"). Each line consists of five "feet," or groupings of two syllables. Each foot consists of one unstressed or "soft" syllable, followed by a stressed or "hard" syllable. Explanatory foot notation often writes out a foot as the sound-expression "da DUM."
What is distinctly "Shakespearean" about a Shakespearean sonnet is not its use of iambic pentameter but its rhyme scheme. Shakespearean sonnets consist of four stanzas. In each of the first three stanzas, there are four lines, and every other line rhymes. The final stanza consists of only two lines, and they rhyme with each other. In rhyme notation, this feature is written out as "ABAB CDCD EFEF GG."
The highly flexible and playful structure of the Shakespearean sonnet lends itself to a broad range of themes and images. Scholars of poetry argue that Shakespeare used the form to experiment with sexual meaning. Indeed, sexual connotations are abundant in Sonnet 20. In Shakespeare's contemporary world, there were no terms like "gay" or "bisexual" to describe sexual orientation. Gender identity also had a limited explicit vocabulary. The form of the sonnet facilitates the making of new associations between rhyming or parallel language and forces the use of atypical combinations of words. The form also accommodates ambiguity. It was taboo to have sexually "deviant" behavior then, just as it is in some cultures now. The form thus allowed Shakespeare to both conceal and illuminate his meaning, depending on the attitudes and preconceptions of those who read him.

Do you think employers should research a potential employees social media content? Or do you think what one does outside of work should not be a part of the interview process?

This is a somewhat complicated issue. In one sense, researching potential employees on social media could be considered a violation of privacy and could feel uncomfortably intrusive. After all, one's personal habits, beliefs, and lifestyle have little to do with whether one can flip burgers or write computer code. Also, such research could enable employers to discriminate against, for example, women considering having children, gay and transgender people, the disabled, people belonging to minority groups or religions, and even people belonging to different political parties than the HR staff.
On the other hand, prior research is better, for a company, than damage control. Someone who regularly posts racial slurs, Nazi propaganda, or strange conspiracy theories on social media might become a liability to a company. A government branch or reliable news outlet or university might not want to hire a person whose positions or opinions they believe could undermine the intellectual integrity of the organization.
Perhaps a good compromise would be doing only regular public searches using tools such as Google, which would return information any member of the public or customer could encounter, but not looking at private material such as posts restricted to friends or demanding access to accounts, unless the job in question requires a high-level security clearance or otherwise might impact national security (e.g., positions in law enforcement, air traffic control, etc.).

Which phrase in act 1 of Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House suggests that Krogstad is prone to engage in crime and may, in fact, be a criminal?

There are various phrases in act 1 that allude to Krogstad's criminal past. Helmer, in fact, explicitly mentions it when he tells Nora that Krogstad "forged someone's name." Earlier in the act, Rank says of Krogstad that he "suffers from a diseased moral character." This sums up the reputation that has stuck with Krogstad since the crime. And Krogstad himself says to Nora, "I daresay you know, like everybody else, that once, many years ago, I was guilty of an indiscretion." The word "indiscretion" is a euphemistic reference to the crime and implies that Krogstad doesn't think the crime was a particularly serious one.
Krogstad also implies that the crime he committed was committed out of necessity. He says that he "had to do something." He also complains that he has been held back ever since by the criminal reputation which has followed him. It has held him back in his career and it has also cost him the woman he loved. Much of the pity we might have for him, however, is of course diminished somewhat when he decides to blackmail Nora.

What are the benefits of first-person narrative in telling the story of "The Yellow Wallpaper"? In what way was it able to address societal problems through this point of view?

Having "The Yellow Wallpaper" narrated by a woman who is infantilized by her husband and brother deepens the pathos of the story. She speaks from firsthand experience about what it is like for women to be prevented from enjoying essential human freedom and to have their concerns and interests dismissed as illogical and unimportant.
The institution of marriage in general comes under fire in the story's opening, as the narrator observes, "John laughs at me, of course, but one expects that in marriage." This offhand remark speaks volumes about how little respect the narrator feels that she can plausibly expect from her husband.
Though the narrator wants to pursue her interest in writing, she is "absolutely forbidden to 'work'" by her husband, who also happens to be a doctor. His natural assumed authority as a male is intensified by the status of his profession. It places him in a paternal position, and the narrator's brother is also a doctor. It seems apparent that even if the narrator were able to escape the control of her husband, her brother is not likely to be of any more help to her in her desire for self-determination.

How do the kids’s feelings about the painter using their wall change throughout the passage?

At first, the narrator and her cousin, Lou, are pretty annoyed at the lady painting the mural on "their" wall. For years, this wall has been used by all members of the community; it's come to symbolize the strength and togetherness of that community for generations. But along comes this strange woman, from out of town, no less, who spends the whole day painting on the wall, making no effort to ingratiate herself with the locals despite numerous overtures of friendliness.
The narrator and Lou are determined to drive this stranger from their midst. They hatch all kinds of cruel plans which they hope will restore "their" wall to its rightful owners. They even come up with the bold—and criminal—idea of wrecking the painter lady's handiwork by spraying it over with graffiti.
Thankfully, nothing comes of this vicious little scheme. When Lou and the narrator return to the wall, hell bent on destroying the mural, they see a large, appreciative crowd gathered round. The painter lady has left behind a big, colorful mural depicting some of the greatest African-Americans in history. Not only that, but the narrator is amazed to see herself and Lou are also represented on this astonishing work of street art. In the face of such extraordinary talent, Lou and the narrator can only join with the rest of the community in standing before the mural in awestruck admiration.

At the end of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, what valuable lesson does Santiago learn about the idea of death?

This type of question has always struck me as odd. Santiago is an old man, and he has been fishing his entire life. Fishing and killing fish is nothing new to him. The cycle of life is nothing new to him, and I'm quite certain he has probably known other fishermen that have died while out fishing. I hesitate to say that Santiago learned anything about death during the events of this story that greatly enhanced his knowledge about that particular topic.
What I do think is that Santiago's experience in this book gave him further evidence to support what he already knows. Santiago knows that the fish have to die to support his living, and he knows that he will eventually die of starvation if he doesn't catch fish to feed himself or financially support himself with. Santiago also knows that the world is filled with predators other than himself. That's why the warbler will get preyed upon by the hawk. It's why the sharks ruin his prize catch. Death is inevitable, and events of the story highlight this; however, Santiago's adventure also highlights one other important detail about death. Death might be inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact that all of creation, including Santiago, will fight tooth and nail to put death off as long as possible. This is why the marlin fights so hard and why Santiago fights back and fends off the sharks just as tenaciously.

Santiago struggles valiantly when fishing on the seas. He pulls in a mighty marlin and has to fend off multiple sharks as they attempt to attack and kill the fish. After the grueling affair, Santiago is left weak and wasted, with his hands bleeding and his body fatigued but with a sense of satisfaction and a new appreciation and understanding of life and death.
Santiago is an old man, and as he approaches death, he begins to fear his mortality. But he learns a lesson from the marlin. He realizes that death is inescapable, which, while morose, is comforting in that he knows that he doesn’t need to struggle or fear it. However, after watching the valiant struggle of the marlin, he also realizes that it is vital to fight until the end in order to draw every last ounce of experience out of life. As Santiago says to himself at one point, man is not made for defeat, so he resolves to fight and live fully until his dying day.

Santiago is an old man, near to death, when he goes far out in the water fishing. As he defends his marlin unsuccessfully against the attacks of multiple sharks, he learns several things about death. First, he learns that death comes to every living creature. It is part of the cycle of life that includes all of us. The important aspect of death is not death itself, as that is inevitable. What matters the most is that the man of honor struggle against death as long as possible. As Santiago says:

"But man is not made for defeat," he [Santiago] said. "A man can be destroyed but not defeated."

This sense that one must fight to the last animates Santiago in his battle against the sharks. He loses against them--they eat the marlin--but that doesn't matter. What counts is that he gave his all in the fight against them. As he states:

I am too old to club sharks to death. But I will try it as long as I have the oars and the short club and the tiller.

He further decides:

I'll fight them until I die.

This determination to fight to the bitter end is what makes death worthwhile. While Santiago does not die at the end of the novel, he can in the future die in peace, because he has fought the good fight with courage and fortitude.
Beyond this, Santiago determines that "everything kills everything else in some way." This reinforces the idea that we are all part of a natural cycle of life and death. As he is in his boat, Santiago dwells on how he has lived by killing other creatures: that is what a fisherman does. Death feeds on life. Santiago also determines that because he loved the marlin, it was "not a sin to kill him."
The most important thing Santiago learns is to put death into the perspective of a larger picture of a cycle of life in which what counts is not whether or not you die, but how hard you fight.

How did Nat’s father die?

Although there are many deaths mentioned among Nat's sailing friends and family relations, including his mother, grandmother, brothers, wife, and even his first partner in a sailing venture, the cause of the demise of his father, Habbakuk, is never mentioned directly.Instead, the book gradually reveals the sad fate of the hopeful and somewhat prosperous man who had risen to captain a ship and wrecked her and her cargo on a shoal during a storm when the windward anchor gave way. After this, Nat's father was said to have "lost his tuck," meaning that he lost his old confidence and never returned to sea. He also lost his accumulated capital and turned cooper to support his family.After Habbakuk's wife died, his old mother said that he had "lost his windward anchor." She apparently understood that his wife was the last anchor holding him to this life of hardship, and we are led by this to surmise that he died of grief not long after his wife's death.

What inspired Orwell to write Animal Farm?

George Orwell was inspired to write this short novel by the Russian Revolution of 1917. Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate his role as Emperor of Russia, and he and his entire family were assassinated a year later by the Bolsheviks. The character of Old Major, the pig who dies early in the story, is inspired by Vladimir Lenin, and Napoleon the pig is Joseph Stalin whereas Snowball the pig is Leon Trotsky.
Nicholas was an incompetent leader who was out of touch with the Russian people and who refused to change with the times, just as Mr. Jones (the farmer who owned Manor Farm) overworked his animals and did not treat them well. The animals rebelled against Jones just as the Russian people, led by Lenin and the Communist Party, rebelled against the tsar. Lenin helped to foment rebellion but then died in early 1924.
Stalin then lead the Communist party in Soviet Russia after Lenin's death until his own death in 1953. Just as Napoleon runs Snowball off the farm, Stalin had Trotsky removed from power in 1928 and eventually banished from the USSR altogether a few months later. Trotsky preferred a democratic socialism that was antithetical to the more dictatorial regime endorsed by Stalin, which is also evident in the ideological conflict between Snowball and Napoleon.

First, describe depression among international students in relation to Canada. Second, provide three sociological explanations as to why it's happening. Your sociological explanations should be from your research. Lastly, suggest a social policy/ initiative in which you would use to reduce the social problem.

In general, colleges and universities have seen a spike in demand for mental health services across campuses. According to dual US and Canadian studies (2017), one in five students have sought mental health assistance, which begs the question: How many students who are suffering do not seek help?
For international students, the incidence of depression and anxiety may be even higher than the norm due to compounding factors like culture shock, isolation, and xenophobia. While culture shock can typically be overcome through some advance preparation, language and cultural barriers alone (compounded by xenophobia) increase the likelihood of isolation and social distress.
Though Canada has seen a surge of international applicants in recent years, the growth of the international population demands a growth in services to meet the needs of these students. Cultural competency among university faculty and staff is paramount. One public policy initiative that could increase mental health intervention is one that mandates annual mental health and cultural competency trainings for all college faculty, staff, and administrators.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/09/16/increasingly-foreign-students-choose-canada-over/khkot6AYt9lakpIFLTNGvM/story.html

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/48/E1501

What types of clothes did people wear during the American colonial era?

People brought the clothing they were used to wearing in their home countries. As many of the colonies were settled by British and northern European peoples in the seventeenth century, they carried with them seventeenth-century European clothing.
The New England Puritans brought with them the plain style of dress that set them apart from the average English person in Great Britain. This included dark clothes with plain white collars and, in the case of women, plain white aprons and caps. The clothing, despite current fashions, was unadorned with lace, pearls, or heavy embroidery, showing their rejection of excess and luxury, which they associated with the excesses of the papacy and the Church of England. The clothing was heavy and made of wool or linen.
It can seem odd to us in the twenty-first century that the colonists didn't simply adopt the lighter weight, simpler, and more flexible clothing worn by the Native Americans, especially in the summer months, but the settlers wanted to hold onto their distinctively English or northern European heritages. The Plymouth Plantation settlers, for example (the iconic Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower), had left the Netherlands because they feared their children would get assimilated into Dutch culture. Even if it was far more difficult to wear British clothes, they were determined to stick with their cultural traditions. This was largely true throughout the colonies, especially as the Europeans tended to look down on the Native populations as being less advanced.
In the Southern states, settlers did use more cotton and lightweight clothing due to the climate. It is also worth noting that in such places as Massachusetts, sumptuary laws (apparel laws) forbade lower-class people from dressing above their station. Children, after infancy (defined as ages 0–5), wore the same clothes as adults.

Why did Great Britain repeal the Stamp Act?

The simple answer is that it was becoming virtually impossible to enforce. The Stamp Act had been a hugely controversial piece of legislation right from the start. As well as being yet another example of the colonists' main grievance—taxation without representation—the Stamp Act was designed to raise revenue to pay for a standing army, something that American patriots regarded as a potential instrument of tyranny and repression. To add insult to injury, the Stamp Act greatly increased the cost of paper, thus making it more expensive to buy the newspapers and pamphlets that were the main source of revolutionary ideas.
Not surprisingly, the Stamp Act led to complete uproar in the American colonies. A campaign to boycott British goods immediately got under way. Furthermore, riots and other disturbances regularly broke out, which became increasingly violent and bloody. Unless the Stamp Act were repealed, the American colonies threatened to descend into outright anarchy, and that wasn't something the British were prepared to contemplate.
The general mood in Parliament was for repeal, and after the eloquent testimony of Benjamin Franklin, the Stamp Act was doomed. Before the House of Commons, Franklin testified that were the Stamp Act to remain in force, the Americans would lose all respect and affection for the mother country, with potentially disastrous consequences for commerce between Great Britain and her colonies. Just over a week after Franklin's testimony, the House of Commons voted by a large majority to repeal the Stamp Act, handing a huge victory to the American colonists.

What are some specific challenges to low-income families or those living in poverty face? How can these challenges affect the delivery of human services and our relationship with clients? Why is it important for human services professionals to be aware of class bias or classism?

Specific challenges to low-income families or those living in poverty include fewer work opportunities for those belonging to disadvantaged groups and deficits in basic human capital, such as a lack of education or lower language skills, which bar access to higher-earning jobs. In working and non-working low-income families, the lack of a high school diploma will likely prove a barrier at some point. Poverty can be short-lived, and is frequently correlated with job loss or disability; however, chronic poverty can often be attributed to constant severe disadvantages such as chronic disability or a female-headed household with multiple children. Increasing childhood obesity is another challenge. These individuals and families may also live in less stable families and communities.
These challenges are often more prevalent among certain demographics and providers of human services must be especially sensitive to the challenges of delivering human services to disadvantaged populations in order to make them aware of assistance that they might not know is available. It is also important not to bring any prejudices; potential clients in need can come from any background.
It is important for human services providers to be aware of class bias so as to avoid stereotyping or other prejudices, as it may be difficult for a social service worker raised in a stable, middle-class environment to understand the behavior and choices of those from less advantaged backgrounds. Certain behaviors that are unacceptable in one class may be permissible or desirable in another class, and it is important that such personal judgments do not impinge on the professional delivery of services to those in need and those who qualify for assistance programs.

What are some examples where peripeteia and anagnorisis occur in the play Oedipus Rex?

According to Aristotle in Poetics, a tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble tragic hero, which occurs through a combination of the hero's tragic flaw (usually hubris), fate, and the will of the gods.
The tragic hero is driven to accomplish a goal (for Oedipus, this goal is to find the person who killed Laius) but inevitably encounters limits to achieving that goal. These limits can come in the form of their tragic flaw or mistakes (hamartia), failure of reason or the hero's own hubris, the will of the gods expressed through oracles or prophets, or nature itself.
The tragic hero doesn't necessarily die at the end of the play (Oedipus doesn't die at the end of Oedipus Rex), but they must undergo peripeteia, which is a significant change in their life or an unexpected reversal of fortune.
According to Aristotle, the reversal of fortune, the peripeteia, "should arise from the internal structure of the plot, so that what follows should be the necessary or probable result of the preceding action."
Aristotle himself tells us when the peripeteia occurs in Oedipus Rex.

Thus in Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he produces the opposite effect.

During the course of the play the hero also experiences anagnorisis, which is a startling discovery or revelation that causes the hero to undergo a change from ignorance to knowledge. This discovery can be a revelation made by other characters to the hero or the hero's own discovery about fate and the will of the gods.
Anagnorisis is the moment in the play when the hero recognizes their true nature or identity, realizes identity of other characters in the play, or discovers the reality of their situation or that of other characters, which ultimately leads to the resolution of the play.

But, of all recognitions, the best is that which arises from the incidents themselves, where the startling discovery is made by natural means. Such is that in the Oedipus of Sophocles . . .

In Oedipus Rex, anagnorisis occurs naturally, "from the incidents themselves," which is to say without contrived plot reversals or deus ex machina.
What is significant about Oedipus Rex, and what makes it so effective as a tragedy, is that the peripeteia and the anagnorisis occur at the same time.
Everything about Oedipus, Laius, Jocasta, Polybus, and Merope is revealed as a result of the Messenger's information about Polybus's death and the Herdsman's confirmation that Oedipus was the son of Laius and Jocasta. These revelations immediately precede Oedipus's realization that he did, in fact, kill his father and marry his mother.
For Oedipus, his downfall is a result of his unwittingly fulfilling a prophecy in trying to escape it.

Is there a work from John Steinbeck that does not include religion in any way?

One Steinbeck work that does not explicitly include religion is Of Mice and Men. It is wholly focused on the here and now. In it, George, Lennie, and the other ranch hands are exploited by a system that keeps them wandering from job to job, unable to put down roots or form a real community. They are not treated with dignity at the ranch, and they have to worry about what will happen to them as they age and can no longer work.
George and Lennie don't talk about God or religion and don't place their faith in a better afterlife. They dream of a better world in the present time or near future. They have a materialist vision of owning their own farm and living off the fat of the land. They dream of taking a day off when they want to and only inviting people they like to visit. This is a dream of paradise, but it owes more to the secular American Dream than to religious tradition. Even as Lennie is about to die, it is the farm dream George reminds him of, not heaven.

Is Miss Emily unsympathetic as a character? Why?

On the whole, you'd have to say that Miss Emily is an unsympathetic character. Apart from the fact that she's a murderer, her whole demeanor suggests someone you wouldn't want to get too close to. To some extent, this isn't her fault; Emily's a product of a strict, sheltered upbringing. Her father hindered her development as an adult by scaring off any potential suitor. All things considered, it's not surprising that Emily turned out the way she did.
Having said that, she still needs to be held accountable for her actions and her behavior. Long before she finished off poor old Homer Barron with a dose of arsenic, she was a deeply unpleasant character, routinely treating the townsfolk with arrogant disdain. But then, the good people of Jefferson didn't exactly help matters by venerating Miss Emily as if she were some kind of historical relic, a symbol of a vanished past. Though Miss Emily is wholly responsible for her actions, the townsfolk—like Emily's father—have acted as enablers, keeping her detached from the rest of society, and thus ensuring that she remains trapped in a dangerous little fantasy world all her own.

What is the significance of the title in relation to the central conflict of the story?

The title of Alice Walker's short story "Everyday Use" refers directly to the central conflict: which of Mama's daughters should have the family quilts.
Mama, the narrator of the story, has two daughters: Dee and Maggie. The story's conflict occurs as the result of Dee's return to her family home. Dee has gone off to college and has become interested in social issues and African history. She has even changed her name to Wangero, because she believes the name Dee is a remnant of the oppressive naming system imposed by slaveholders. Dee believes she is more sophisticated than her family, and when she comes to the house, she tells Mama that she wants to take the family quilts with her. Dee plans to display the quilts on her wall as art works.
Mama, however, does not want Dee to have the quilts. She believes Maggie is their rightful owner. Maggie has stayed with her mother; she is very shy and was badly burned in a house fire years in the past. Maggie has actually learned the art of quilting herself and can produce more of these prized possessions. Mama feels that Maggie has a greater connection to the family and its history than Dee, who left the family to further herself. Dee insults Maggie by saying that "she would probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use." This statement is the crux of the conflict of the story because it establishes the two differing opinions on what is the best way to honor a family's tradition. Mama sides with Maggie, so it is clear that she, as well, sees objects' value as a result of their literal use.

What is one dominant theme in Those Winter Sundays by Robert Hayden and how does the diction, speaker, and tone help in developing that them?

The dominant theme in "Those Winter Sundays" is the speaker's love for his father, mixed with a guilt for perhaps not expressing that love more fully. He, the speaker, reminisces about the sacrifices his father made for him when he was younger. The father worked hard, polished his son's shoes, and woke early to start the fires so that the house was warm when it was time for the son to rise. The father did all of this but the son, perhaps unaware or unthinking, spoke to the father "indifferently." This poem was perhaps written to redress that indifference.
The love of the speaker towards the father is implied throughout the poem by the simple account of the sacrifices that the father made for the son. For example, phrases such as "my father got up early" and "cracked hands that ached / from labor." The speaker's guilt is implied by the simple sentence, "No one thanked him." and also the rhetorical question that concludes the poem:

"What did I know, what did I know / of love's austere and lonely offices?"

This rhetorical question, as well as the repetition at the beginning of it, creates a tone of self-critical guilt and regret. We can all empathize with the speaker if we have had such a father, as we, like the speaker, probably take for granted many of the sacrifices that our fathers make for us.

What is the main point of the arguments in "On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications" by Bruno Latour?

Latour's article seeks to correct some misconceptions about Actor-Network Theory (AT) as described by Callon, et. al. First he concerns himself with the problematic nature of the word "network." Latour makes two points:
1. AT networks do not necessarily bear any resemblance to technical networks such as computer systems. AT networks can assume many final states, and the rigidity of computer networks is only one of many possible outcomes.
2. Nodes in an AT network have little to do with social networks, and in fact, the nodes of AT networks are very likely to be non-human or non-individual actors. In this way AT is less interested in describing a discrete network than in "the very essence of societies and natures."
AT is a "change of topology" in which networks are understood as multidimensional arrays of "filaments" or "rhizomes." The strength of an AT network lies not in "concentration, purity and unity" but through the "netting, lacing, weaving, twisting" of filaments into a robust whole.
Latour continues by describing the "simplest properties" belonging to all networks: that geographic distance is irrelevant or of less importance than the connections between nodes and that physical scale is irrelevant as well ("A network is never bigger than another one"); also irrelevant are notions of "inside" and "outside ("A network is all boundary without inside and outside").
Latour next describes the three "preoccupations" of AT, which are 1) "a semiotic definition of entity building," or the semiotic investigation of the narrative nature of networks, 2) a methodological framework within which 1) can occur, and 3) a statement on the ontological nature of actants. Just as semiotics is a way of describing narration, AT is a way of "recording" the "deployment of associations." By "taking the meaning bit" out of semiotics and understanding it as a way of describing the order of things (or "path-building")—not simply texts, but objects as well—texts and meaning are raised to the "ontological level of things."
In this way, AT is not "about traced networks but a network tracing" activity. AT does not seek to anthropomorphize networks or actants (a common misconception is that actors in AT always function like humans). Instead, it is about "what moves" in networks and how this movement is recorded.

Give two examples of classical conditioning you have witnessed. Identify the neutral stimulus, the unconditioned stimulus, the unconditioned response, the conditioned stimulus, and the conditioned response. Develop a plan on how you can classically condition a specific behavior. Can you think of anything you do that is not motivated by either the hope of reinforcement or the avoidance of punishment?

Classical conditioning is one of the earliest theories of education and behavioral psychology. Pavlov first established it through his famous studies of the salivation of dogs. Since that time, there have been many more theories of learning, but Pavlov’s theory still holds up to scrutiny as an example of how to condition a response based on a stimulus.
An example I can think of off the top of my head is an analogy for Pavlov’s experiment done in the office. Jim conditions Dwight to crave a mint every time he hears Jim’s computer turn on. The neutral stimulus is the computer startup sound; the unconditioned stimulus is the mint; the unconditioned response is the bad taste of Dwight’s mouth. Once he is conditioned to expect a mint (the conditioned response) when he hears the sound of the computer (the conditioned stimulus) through Jim giving him one every time he hears the sound, Dwight then notices a bad taste in his mouth because he doesn’t have a mint.
Another example of classical conditioning would be something like children hearing an ice cream truck. Children get excited about ice cream, they are conditioned by the neutral stimulus (the song, usually "The Entertainer"), and then they associate the music with ice cream and become excited as a result of hearing the music alone. It is a clever bit of psychology on the part of ice cream trucks everywhere.
If you were to develop a classical conditioning plan for yourself, it might be something like this:
I want to stop eating ice cream, so every time I think about ice cream, I will play nails scratching on a chalkboard. Eventually the sight of ice cream, originally a neutral stimulus, will become a conditioned stimulus that causes the conditioned response of discomfort, a feeling that I would automatically associate because of my memories of the chalkboard sound.

I have witnessed several situations in which the influences and the effects of classical conditioning can be seen. Classical conditioning is a learning process in which a coditioned stimulus relates to an unconditioned stimulus so that a conditioned response can be produced. It was first used by Ivan Pavlov, who wanted to test the salivation response in dogs (the Pavlovian dog). In fact, this is a perfect example of classical conditioning in animals, which happens very often. Basically, Pavlov presented a neutral stimulus—a bell, which didn't produce a reaction such as salivation. He also presented an unconditioned stimulus—food, which produced a response such as salivation. He then taught the dogs to associate the sound of the bell with the food so that they could give a conditioned response (salivation) to the bell, just like they did for the food.
I have also personally experienced classical conditioning myself; when I smell oranges I immediately become hungry and want to eat oranges. This is my conditioned response to an unconditioned stimulus (the orange's smell). My friend has the reverse reaction; when she smells beans cooking, she becomes slightly nauseous, as beans are her least favorite food.
Classical conditioning is commonly used when treating certain fears and phobias, alcohol, tobacco, and even drug addiction.

When is “fairy time” in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream?

In Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Theseus is discussing the play with Bottom in the middle of the night. He begs Bottom not to include an epilogue since the play has gone on long enough and, as he says, the play doesn’t need to apologize for itself in an epilogue (implying to the audience that it will be so bad that the viewers would rather forget it than hear more but making Bottom think he believes the play is very good).
Theseus then states that it is midnight and nearly "fairy time". So, fairy time is soon after midnight. He is saying this because it is very late and he doesn’t wish everyone to oversleep the next day—the day of the wedding and the play’s performance.

How does the story demonstrate the failure of institutional politics?

One of the most compelling aspects of Animal Farm is how the novel articulates the need for authentic change. In his own life, Orwell saw how politics and government tend to corrupt those in positions of power. The novel shows us that government and institutions cannot be relied upon as agents of change. Though the pigs promise change and seek to be a transformative force on the farm, they end up being no different than the humans; the status quo does not change.
Orwell writes Animal Farm as an outsider to the political establishment. In many ways, he is Benjamin, a cynic who recognizes that nothing is really going to change. However, Orwell offers a warning that cynicism does little to impact real and substantive change. This is evident when Benjamin attempts to save Boxer and finds that his actions are too little, too late.
Animal Farm serves as a critical lesson for those pursuing change. Individuals must work for change from the outside and prevent the trappings of power from tainting their efforts. In Orwell's world, institutional politics are easily corrupted. It is up to the outsider to continually rally for social change in the hopes of transforming political and economic institutions. We still struggle with "insiders" who wield power against the disenfranchised, making the message of Animal Farm just as relevant today as it was during its original publication.

What does the title Me Before You mean?

Jojo Moyes's novel Me Before You is a story about Louisa Clark, a young woman who becomes the caretaker of a paraplegic man named Will Traynor. The title could have a couple of meanings, but on the most basic level, it is about Louisa's life before meeting and caring for Will and how her relationship with him changes her forever.
Louisa has no experience as a caretaker, but she has recently lost her job in a local cafe, so she applies for the position. It is quite demanding, and at first, her patient Will is very difficult to get along with. Over time, though, the characters challenge each other, and they both grow. Will is able to experience joy again, despite his physical limitations. Louisa learns to expand her horizons and begins to travel more. After Will's death, Louisa is left with a good deal of money from his inheritance, which he hopes she will use to travel the world. Indeed, she ends the novel in Paris reflecting on their time together.
Louisa's character changes as a result of her time with Will, and she believes it is for the better. Her world opens up in a positive way and she becomes more adventurous and carefree (somewhat ironic considering the tragedy of losing Will). Moyes wrote another novel called Me After You, which follows Louisa after Will's death. All of these details suggest that the title refers to Louisa's life before Will and how she evolves over the course of the relationship.

Choose a quotation from Romeo and Juliet, identify the speaker, provide context (where and when does it take place). How is it significant? Why is the quote is important (related to plot, theme, etc.)?

"I am hurt. A plague o' both your houses!"

–Mercutio, act 3, scene 1
These lines represent a pivotal point in the plot of Romeo and Juliet. Tybalt, Juliet's cousin, has grown increasingly threatening toward her very new (and secret) husband, Romeo. Mercutio, who is Romeo's close friend, pushes Romeo to engage in a dual with Tybalt. Romeo doesn't see how this is a real possibility. How can he possibly kill the cousin of his new bride? (Of course, Mercutio isn't aware of the union.) Growing impatient with Romeo, Mercutio decides to fight Tybalt himself. Because this is a Shakespearean tragedy, Mercutio (who often provides comedic lines in the play) is stabbed instead of Romeo. He utters these lines as he is dying, ultimately both reflecting both the past and the future of the Capulet/Montague feud. Because of their history of hate, Tybalt's rage has culminated in Mercutio losing his life. Mercutio also curses "both their houses," effectively casting evil on events to come. Just after this, an enraged Romeo kills Tybalt, which sets events in motion that will end both his life and that of his new bride.

What do Thomas Merton, Viktor Frankl, and John Henry Newman share in common in their outlook on the meaning of being human and what it is to live a life of meaning and purpose?

Thomas Merton's conception of what it means to be human was informed by his life as a Catholic Monk and his openness to a huge array of Eastern religions and lines of spiritual thought. Though he identified as Catholic, he internalized the ideas of other spiritualities, believing that they each explored unique "depths" within the human experience of the universe. In the same vein, he rallied against his own church's dogmatic promotion of formal Cartesian concepts as if they were ends in themselves.
Viktor Frankl approached the search for human meaning primarily through the lens of a psychology strongly informed by contemporary European philosophy. He viewed human meaning as something that a given individual has a natural will to aggregate as they suffer through time. He is similar to Merton in that he resisted the promotion of concepts that regulate experience, instead endorsing the individual search for meaning and the fundamental process of deindividuation that underlies meaning-making.
John Henry Newman's views on human meaning and purpose were the most institutional and conservative. He believed in a "Judeo-Christian revelation" that took primacy over all other revelations one can make about the world. However, he too believed in the reality and significance of a search for meaning outside of Christian conceptions, and he also held an idealized view of the world free from symbols that exert oppressive or confusing ideological power. He rationalized his simultaneous recognition of a valid Christian and valid non-Christian search for meaning in two concepts he termed "natural religion" and "revealed religion." The former is the endless and undirected set of revelations one can make about the world without the influence of Christianity; the latter is a more directed, controlled, and ultimate kind of revelation that proceeds from the internalization of Judeo-Christian doctrine.
All three thinkers held what the contemporary philosopher Richard Rorty would call a liberal ironist view of human experience and purpose, departing from the central axiom that human understanding is contingent, incomplete, and evolving; this understanding is limited by humans' inability (at least in any mortal state) to totally translate reality into intelligible symbolic chunks.

What happens in Canto XV of Dante's Inferno?

Canto XV
Dante and Virgil are walking along the cooler edge of the burning sands that ring Circle Seven as they descend further into the center of Circle Seven. The travelers are protected by a fine mist that rises from the Phlegethon. The mist serves as a shield, extinguishing the flakes of fire that continually rain down in this circle, punishing those guilty of the crime of blasphemy and other acts of violence against God. The protective shield reminds Dante of the dams built around Italian cities for protection against seasonal flooding. This protective mist, strangely, is even more formidable than those heavy walls:

“...Even as the Flemings, 'twixt Cadsand and Bruges,
Fearing the flood that tow'rds them hurls itself,
Their bulwarks build to put the sea to flight;
And as the Paduans along the Brenta,
To guard their villas and their villages,
Or ever Chiarentana feel the heat;
In such similitude had those been made,
Albeit not so lofty nor so thick,
Whoever he might be, the master made them.”

While marveling about the mist, Dante notices a group of shades walking in the same direction in which he and Virgil travel. These sinners are the sodomites, those who have had sexual relations with other men.
As the condemned souls get closer to the poets, one of their number recognizes Dante, grabs onto Dante’s cloak and cries out. Dante struggles to recognize the man’s badly burned visage. Peering closer, Dante asks if the man is Brunetto Latini:

“By some one I was recognised, who seized
My garment's hem, and cried out, "What a marvel!"
And I, when he stretched forth his arm to me,
On his baked aspect fastened so mine eyes,
That the scorched countenance prevented not
His recognition by my intellect;
And bowing down my face unto his own,
I made reply, "Are you here, Ser Brunetto?"

The shade confirms the identification. Dante wants his former mentor to stay and speak, but the sinner explains that any soul who pauses or stops is punished in the same spot for one hundred years:

"O son," he said, "whoever of this herd
A moment stops, lies then a hundred years,
Nor fans himself when smiteth him the fire.
Therefore go on; I at thy skirts will come,
And afterward will I rejoin my band,
Which goes lamenting its eternal doom."

Dante agrees to walk along near Latini, although soon the path they traverse splits. One side goes along the lower edge of the river and is protected by the mist; the other is on a higher plane and it offers no relief from the falling fire. Dante is forced to take the lower and Latini the more elevated way.
Despite their separation, the two are able to exchange words. Latini wants to know how a living man is able to visit Hell; he also asks Dante with whom he travels:

"What fortune or what fate
Before the last day leadeth thee down here?
And who is this that showeth thee the way?"
Dante explains his wandering in the valley of darkness and Virgil’s part in assisting him:
"I lost me in a valley,
Or ever yet my age had been completed.
But yestermorn I turned my back upon it;
This one appeared to me, returning thither,
And homeward leadeth me along this road."

Latini tells Dante how fortunate he is to be so forewarned in such a vivid way about the eternal torments of Hell. He also laments his own death, in part because he is unable to assist his protege any longer:

"If thou thy star do follow,
Thou canst not fail thee of a glorious port,
If well I judged in the life beautiful.
And if I had not died so prematurely,
Seeing Heaven thus benignant unto thee,
I would have given thee comfort in the work.”

Thinking back to the travails of Earth, Latini tells Dante that his contemporaries, among them the Fiesoles (who had conquered Rome), failed to appreciate Dante’s genius. Furthermore, Latini, the former author and poet, and promoter of elegance in rhetoric, blames the Fiesoles for the decline of Florentine morals and values:

“But that ungrateful and malignant people,
Which of old time from Fesole descended,
And smacks still of the mountain and the granite,
Will make itself, for thy good deeds, thy foe;
And it is right; for among crabbed sorbs
It ill befits the sweet fig to bear fruit.
Old rumour in the world proclaims them blind;
A people avaricious, envious, proud;
Take heed that of their customs thou do cleanse thee.
Thy fortune so much honour doth reserve thee,
One party and the other shall be hungry
For thee; but far from goat shall be the grass.
Their litter let the beasts of Fesole
Make of themselves, nor let them touch the plant,
If any still upon their dunghill rise,
In which may yet revive the consecrated
Seed of those Romans, who remained there when
The nest of such great malice it became."

Dante’s love for his former teacher overflows. He praises Latini for all he taught him, primarily that the only true immortality for men comes through their work. Still attendant, Dante lets Latini know he is writing down whatever he says, in order that he might have Beatrice weigh in on his instruction. Finally, he assures the shade that he is prepared for Fortune’s arrows:

“For in my mind is fixed, and touches now
My heart the dear and good paternal image
Of you, when in the world from hour to hour
You taught me how a man becomes eternal;
And how much I am grateful, while I live
Behoves that in my language be discerned.
What you narrate of my career I write,
And keep it to be glossed with other text
By a Lady who can do it, if I reach her.
This much will I have manifest to you;
Provided that my conscience do not chide me,
For whatsoever Fortune I am ready.
Such handsel is not new unto mine ears;
Therefore let Fortune turn her wheel around
As it may please her, and the churl his mattock."

Virgil approves of Dante’s speech, nodding silently in agreement. As the three walk on, Dante asks Latini who else are among the sinners who suffer in this circle. But on this count, Latini is not very forthcoming. Although those who eternally shuffle along are legion, Latini names just three: Priscian, Francesco d’Accorso, and Bishop Andrea dei Mozzi.
Priscian could be one of two people. Scholars believe that the Priscian to whom Dante refers was either an early influential grammarian or he may be referring to a professor of that name who taught at law at Bologna. There may be more credence to the latter as Francesco d’Accorso was also a professor at Bologna. The final sodomite Latini identifies, Bishop Andrea dei Mozzi, had been transferred by Pope Bonfice VIII from Florence to Vicenza, where he died the following year.
Latini notices something that alarms him: smoke rising in the distance. He tells Dante he must go for these are people “with whom I may not be.” The shade fears the comers and wishes to depart, but first he asks if his own work, the Tesoro has lived on, thus giving his name, at least, literary immortality.
Before Dante can reply, however, Latini makes a hasty retreat; his speed reminds Dante of the famous races at Verona. The winner was awarded a “green mantle,” a scarf that wrapped over the shoulder and about the waist. Dante, watching the man depart, fantasizes Latini was won the famous prize:

“Then he turned round, and seemed to be of those
Who at Verona run for the Green Mantle
Across the plain; and seemed to be among them
The one who wins, and not the one who loses.”

What combined tools do Kevin and Maxwell possess as Freak the Mighty that they don’t necessarily have independent of one another? Cite evidence from the text to support your response.

Freak the Mighty is the name that the two boys give to their collective self, which is composed of Kevin sitting on Max’s shoulders. The boys are portrayed as complementary opposites: Kevin is the one with a powerful intellect but physical disabilities that leave him unable to walk without support, while Max is tall and physically powerful but has learning disabilities and emotional problems. For both boys, their disabilities have left them exposed to bullying and have lowered their self-esteem. When they combine forces and become close friends, they emotionally support each other and gain confidence. On several occasions their combined skills come in handy, such as when they work together to pull a purse from a sewer and return it to the owner.
One early occurrence that helps create their friendship is the Fourth of July, when Kevin thinks fast and Max helps them run away from Tony’s gang. This instance also shows partial role reversal, as Kevin incorrectly assumes Max’s size is adequate protection, but Max is the one who understands gang dynamics, telling him, “You can't just fight Blade, you have to fight his gang, too.”

In Ira Sher's "The Man in the Well," what are the main themes? How can this story be connected to William Golding's Lord of the Flies?

"The Man in the Well," like Lord of the Flies, shows how brutally children can act when they aren't bound by consequences and the normal rules of society. Outside of the standard norms, children aren't yet old enough to have developed consciences that make them react with empathy in groups. This is shown in both the story and the novel.
The children who find the man down the well decide to keep him there indefinitely. When they don't help at first by alerting their parents to what's going on, they decide to instead bring him food and keep him alive in the well. This backfires on them when he finds out what their actual names are; there is now the possibility that they could get in trouble. They choose their own self-interest over helping another human being and decide to leave him in the well rather than risk their parents being upset with them.
The children stranded on the island in Lord of the Flies experience this on a much greater scale. They are completely outside the realm of normal society and adult supervision. Their empathy and concern for others evaporate as they form a new society built on strength. Simon is killed by accident, but Piggy is killed when he tries to impose order and rules on their new society. Jack and his followers choose to kill an innocent person rather than risk their own positions.
Both sets of children act in their own self-interest instead of helping and safeguarding others.

The main themes in Ira Sher's "The Man in the Well" are the need for control and the human tendencies toward callousness, savagery, and protection of one's own self-interest; William Golding's Lord of the Flies emphasizes the same themes.
In "The Man in the Well," a group of nine-year-olds discover a man trapped in a well. Instead of helping the man, the children abandon him after he learns their names. The need for control is a reverberating theme in this part of the story. The children most likely feel less in control of the situation once they accidentally reveal their names to a complete stranger. To protect themselves, the children abandon the man. The savage impulse to protect oneself at all costs kicks in. Hence, the boys decide to leave the man to his fate.
The same savagery and primitive instincts can also be noted in Lord of the Flies, in which a group of boys find themselves in a deserted island. At first, they want to establish an ordered, civilized society. This does not last long, however, once Jack takes control of the group. The group's downward spiral reaches its lowest level when they kill Simon and Piggy. The boys also hunt Ralph to kill him. Young kids, away from the watchful eyes of adults, might revert to their primitive tendencies, probably because of inexperience and immaturity—but Golding suggests that this tendency of human nature might be common to adults, too.

When the children stumble onto the man in the well, it occurs to them to go for help, but they soon agree implicitly to do nothing to get him rescued. They delude themselves that they are helping him by throwing food and water down at him.
The story's themes are the power of consensus over individual conscience, and the quick spread or contagion of mob mentality. Another theme in common with Lord of the Flies is the rejection of difference or deviance.
When Aaron breaks the unwritten rule and names them all, he resembles Simon in Golding's novel, trying to convince the other boys that the beast is actually them. Once evil has taken hold in a group, speaking truth to power may be ineffective if just one person speaks up and he will be ostracized or perhaps even destroyed.

One possible theme of "The Man in the Well" is how children create their own values, rules, and standards when they're no longer under adult supervision. This theme would certainly link the story with Lord of the Flies. The group of boys in "The Man in the Well" don't behave according to the prevailing norms of adulthood when they see that the man is trapped. Instead, they leave him to his fate despite promising to go get some help.
For the boys in both stories, there's an initial sense that they've been liberated from the usual constraints of home and school life. In Sher's story, the boys appear to feel that saving the man would somehow curtail the precious freedom they enjoy far from the prying eyes of their parents. They seem to like the fact that, for once, they are placed in the role traditionally fulfilled by adults, that they are the ones in control. It's a similar story in Lord of the Flies. Ralph and Jack each want to be in charge; they each want to take on the mantle of supervising adult.

In his essay, “On Cannibals”, Michel De Montaigne wrote “…we seem to have no other criterion of truth and reason than the type and kind of opinions and customs current in the land where we live. There we always see the perfect religion, the perfect political system, the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything.” [pp109-109] Is Montaigne right, wrong, or a combination of both?

In his essay “On Cannibals”, Michel de Montaigne was reacting in part to the great age of European exploration, which introduced Europeans to many exotic ideas and cultures. It was a period of great intellectual ferment, in which ideas about religion and morality were being challenged by scientific developments, exploration, and internal reforms (such as the rise of Protestantism).
In this particular passage, the use of the term "we" is somewhat misleading. Montaigne begins his essay with a discussion of how Greeks reacted to observing the Roman military organization. Montaigne, like all educated Europeans of his period, was intimately familiar with Greek and Latin literature. Many Arabic works were also available in Latin translation, as a result of contacts with the Moors in Spain. Byzantine refugees had brought many eastern Greek works to Italy after the fall of Constantinople. The biblical Old Testament, a foundational work of European culture, was written in Hebrew, and the entire Bible is set in the Middle East. Many of the ideas from these cultures were widely known by the French of Montaigne's period and were greatly influential.
On one level, therefore, Montaigne's statement is inaccurate. The inaccuracy, though, has to do with his using sweeping generalization to over-dramatize his point. The argument that he is trying to make could be phrased more cautiously, in saying that many of us often treat as universal the ideas and values of our own particular places and times. That somewhat more modest statement, with the qualifications of "many" and "often," rather than the sweeping unqualified "we" and "no other," is an observation of the phenomenon known as ethnocentrism.
The reason why it is important for students to study diverse cultures and ideas is precisely to avoid this tendency to believe that the viewpoints of one particular culture contain universal truths. Instead, as one studies other cultures, one can think critically about one's own value systems and beliefs. In his praise of the "savages" and their closeness to nature, Montaigne is urging his readers to do this. It is still true that, for example, Americans of European descent can still benefit from learning about the beliefs of many Native American tribes. Thus, Montaigne is partially right in his statement.
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/04/michel-de-montaigne-on-cannibals-1580/

What is the overall theme of Chasing Lincoln’s Killer?

Chasing Lincoln’s Killer deals with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the hunt for his killer. Written by James L. Swanson, the book is not a dry treatment of historical events. Instead, it is a captivating look into the people and places surrounding a tragic event in American history. The reader feels as if he or she is transported to Ford's Theater and the Seward's mansion.
The killer was John Wilkes Booth, a famous, charismatic, and handsome actor. He had long been a sympathizer with the South. As the South's fortunes waned in the last year of the war, he became increasingly angry and frustrated. He gathered a group of co-conspirators, but attempts to kidnap Lincoln failed. By April 1865, Booth had decided to murder Lincoln. By coincidence, Booth learned that Lincoln was scheduled to attend Ford's Theater on the evening of April 14. After mortally wounding Lincoln, Booth made his escape.
There was a massive manhunt for Booth. He and an accomplice, David Herold, fled through fields, over rivers, and across swamps. A reward of $100,000.00 was offered for Booth. The 12-day search for Booth makes for exciting reading. Booth and Herold are finally caught in a barn. Herold surrendered, but Booth was either shot or he shot himself. Herold and three others were executed for their role in the assassination.

Based on "Race, Gender, and Progress: Are Black American Women the Model Minority?" by Amadu Jacky Kaba. Write a paragraph about African American women turning negatives into positives even though a. Inferiorization continues b. African American women are still economically disadvantaged c. African American women suffer more than other minorities

In her essay "Race, Gender and Progress: Are Black American Women the New Model Minority?," Professor Amadu Jacky Kaba outlines how Black women continue to be negatively impacted by the legacy of slavery and how they lag behind other groups, including their Black male counterparts, despite significant gains in education, politics, and economics. Black women's gains in these three areas support the author's point that they are the new "model minority." The expression "model minority," which is usually used to describe the white mainstream's perceptions of Asian Americans, is a problematic phrase because it judges people according to mainstream, white, capitalist standards, which are sometimes at odds with the goals and values within other communities.
Kaba uses the phrase "model minority" rather ironically, looking at "interrelated factors," such as "religion, avoidance of drugs, avoidance of crime, work ethic, and discipline and diligence, and a gradual transfer of wealth and knowledge from older and wealthy Americans of any race or gender" to show how Black American women have progressed.
In terms of disadvantages, Black women are more likely to give birth to infants with low birth weights. This malnutrition is a sign of persistent poverty. The article shows that high school drop-out rates are higher among Black females than among their white counterparts. However, the study is from 2004, and Black women and girls are making steady strides in education. Kaba does acknowledge the gains that Black women have made in higher education. However, they remain more economically disadvantaged than Black men and members of other racial groups in the United States.
Black women continue to suffer higher rates of poverty and are also more likely to be victims of homicide. This is likely due to Black women being more likely to live in economically disadvantaged communities. Due to a legacy of poverty, Black women "are disproportionately represented among the very poor and welfare dependent." However, all other groups have a higher rate of suicide than Black women. One could infer a level of resilience among Black women or, perhaps, fears of leaving children behind, that are less likely to exist in other groups that commit or contemplate suicide.
Politically, Black women have become an influential voting bloc. Kaba lists political activism, along with religion, lower rates of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, and less criminal activity among the reasons that Black women continue to progress. In fact, she concludes by saying that Black women can largely attribute their emerging success to "Religion or their high level of reliance in God." This last is debatable, though it is true that church membership is very high among Black people in general and among Black women particularly.
Kaba asserts that Black women are the true "model minority" because they have suffered most in the New World but, in the United States, have emerged as some of the most productive and law-abiding members of society.

What were witches accused of?

The Salem witch trials took place in 1692 and 1693, in Massachusetts. Over two hundred people were accused of witchcraft, and twenty were executed.
Those accused were charged with various crimes which can be categorized broadly as bewitching, threatening and tormenting. Below are two examples.
Bridget Bishop (1632-1692) was accused of bewitching five young women. She was accused also of threatening any of the women who resisted and of tormenting them as well. It was alleged that she could strike a woman down just by looking at her, and that she would visit her victims as a spirit, to pinch, choke or bite them.
Sarah Good (1653-1692) was likewise accused of bewitching young women, and of possessing them so that they had violent fits. Sarah Good was very poor and was accused of using witchcraft to exercise her jealousy of those who were more fortunate than she. Sarah Good was also accused of using her witchcraft to torment her victims, specifically by sending animals, known as a witch's 'familiars', to cause them harm.

In Station Eleven, what did Laura ask Jeevan to bring home?

Laura asks Jeevan to pick up milk.
When he rushes onstage during King Lear to help Arthur Leander when he suffers a heart attack, Laura decides to go home. He can't find her after the events and wonders whether she is waiting in the lobby. They'd been sitting in the front row before the play stopped.
He wonders whether she'll be upset or if she'll find his actions admirable. He thinks the second is less likely.
When Jeevan calls her, she doesn't answer. He walks outside, and the paparazzi try to get information out of him. He thinks he only wants to talk to Laura. However, his momentum fades when she texts him, saying that she had a headache, went home, and asking him to pick up some milk. He's upset that she left while he was performing CPR on a man who died.

Has Tom Sawyer changed at the end of the story?

Tom Sawyer remains consistent in numerous ways, as Mark Twain does a masterful job of creating a character who is believable because he has the kinds of flaws that many children have. Some of them are personality traits, such as his enjoyment he gets out of provoking reactions; others are more associated with his age, such as impulsiveness and failure to respect other people’s feelings. Although Tom remains young in the novel, his behavior changes in regard to his consideration for others and his ability to project the impact of his actions.
One good example relates to the pirating adventure and the misunderstanding about his and Huck’s deaths. By returning to view his own funeral, he realizes how deeply his aunt loves him and how much more difficult he has been making her life. He also encourages others to include Huck because his people are not there to welcome him back to life. Whether Tom will be able to control his behavior in the short run remains an open question, but the reader suspects he will treat people more kindly in the future. Regarding his knowledge of the murder as well, Tom realizes he must step up and tell the truth because Potter might pay with his life. As Tom confronts these issues of mortality, he gains a more mature perspective on life.

Tom Sawyer is often described as a static character. While he is indeed complex, Tom does not really experience any growth or change by the end of the novel.
After the discovery of Injun Joe’s body in the cave, Tom wastes little time concocting a plan to find the gold he believes is somewhere hidden in the cave. Part of this plan involves Huck, his mischievous pal, and a future band of robbers that the boys want to begin in the cave.
Tom’s love for adventure, putting himself in potentially dangerous situations, and making up arbitrary rules (like that Huck must be “respectable” to join Tom’s band of robbers) are all present at both the beginning and end of the text.
In his conclusion after the novel’s plot ends, Twain explicitly states that he wants this text to be about a boy, and that the story must end where it does it in order to preserve Tom’s childhood. Rather than being a typical Bildungsroman story, Tom Sawyer’s trajectory remains relatively the same.

In Tangerine, what happens when Paul goes in for Victor in the team's first home game?

At half-time in the first home game of the season, Victor tries to stop "a trickle of blood from running down his face." In a previous game, he smacked heads with the other team's goalkeeper, and, in the first half of this game—when heading the ball into the net—he opened up the wound. The coach decides that Victor can't play the second half, and so Paul is substituted into the game.
In the second half, Paul's team scores two more goals, and then Paul scores a third. Paul is momentarily stunned. He can't recall ever scoring a goal before. He stands still, "staring at the net," before realizing that the rest of the team is lining up already for kick off. Paul's team scores one more goal, and the final result is "Tangerine 7, Kinnow 3."
After the game, Victor comes back (with stitches in his head), and he high-fives Paul in recognition of Paul's goal. Paul is, understandably, elated.

I need arguments for complete freedom of speech and limited freedom of speech (where one is restricted because of racial comments for example) and what is said in the media and on the internet. I have to choose a position on which one I support and must clearly understand what both options mean with examples and detailed explanations.

Freedom of speech is an essential aspect to a democracy as it permits and encourages participation in society without the fear of legal repercussions. In the United States, the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States' "Bill of Rights," which also includes the freedom of: association, press, and exercise and establishment of religion.
Complete freedom of speech means that there are no legal restrictions over the content of speech. On the other hand, speech can be limited in two ways: by content or by time, place and manner. By restraining speech based on time, place and manner, the government does not limit the content of speech, simply the performance of speech based on location. Conversely, placing limitations on the content of speech is unconstitutional in the United States; however, there are a few restricted exceptions. Most commonly, commercial speech, such as advertising, can be regulated. Similarly, there can be legal repercussions if speech is found to be defamatory, obscene, 'fighting words' or if it incites imminent violence. While these forms of speech, if violated, may face consequences in court, it should be noted that these restrictions are not legislated due to the risk of unnecessarily restricting speech.

As per the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This points to a society with complete freedom of speech. In many ways, this is ideal as people are encouraged to participate in political discussion and voice their opinions without the fear of backlash. The presence and enforcement of such a right aims to prevent oppression by the government. This right also prohibits the regulation of social interactions on the individual level, which serves to promote equality between people. The freedom of speech and freedom of the press protects the dissemination of information. This ensures the public can be accurately informed and further prevents governmental oppression.
On the flip side, the lack of regulation of speech means that individuals can use their right to harm others and the media could, in theory, publish anything. Using racial comments as an example, there is nothing stopping an individual from using insensitive or harmful speech towards another person. It is this very amendment that permits groups like the KKK to exist, under the freedom of assembly clause. Complete freedom of speech means that all speech and beliefs must be permitted; even if disagreeable.

While Congress may not pass laws that set restrictions on speech, there is nothing stopping individuals and private organizations from voicing their opposition to types of speech. As mentioned above, certain types of speech can be litigated if defamatory, obscene, 'fighting words' or inciting of imminent violence. Defamation is a civil wrong in which the good reputation of a person is damaged. Should someone choose to publish (either by spoken word or in writing) claims about another which results in damage to their character, they can be sued accordingly. Certain types of speech can be found to be 'obscene' meaning they include lewd, filthy, or disgusting words or pictures; such forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. The most common example would be child pornography which is illegal in all 50 states. The other two restrictions, 'fighting words' and 'incitement of imminent violence' are unprotected as they produce a clear and present danger. These restrictions provide a layer of protection and a means to counter free speech when used in a harmful manner.

An issue with these restrictions is that they only protect individuals after the harm has already been done. Thus, an argument in favor of limited free speech is that harmful communications can be prevented. Rather than facing considerable hours and fees in court, and suffering distress from harmful speech, it is arguably better to set preventative limitations on speech. By having legislated constraints on speech, people would be informed of the acceptable parameters of speech beforehand. This could benefit other areas such as national security, as the restrictions of certain types of speech could reduce the risk of incidents.
There is a clear and present danger to the restriction of speech, which can be succinctly put in the form of a question. Where do they draw the line? If the government is given permission to limit speech in certain areas, the laws could be interpreted to apply to others. Continuing with the example of racial comments, pretend that Congress were to prohibit all people from making references to race in an insulting manner. This raises more questions than it answers as there are points of ambiguity, namely "making references" and "insulting manner." It is unclear what constitutes a reference, or even what could be interpreted as insulting. Subjective interpretations vary depending on the person, thus application of the rule would vary between people, organizations and even the courts. Likewise, passing laws that limit speech for public policy or national security poses a great risk of similar ambiguity or undue restrictions.
In order to prevent passing rules that could be considered too restrictive or over-broad, it is safer to abstain from legislating the matter of speech altogether. In response the courts may analyze each case individually to determine the level of harm caused and applicability of retribution.

Freedom allows an individual to be the unique person they are and to live the life they want to live. Of all our freedoms speech, which here includes writing, speaking, and artistic works, is so integral to individual expression and dignity that freedom of speech is the very first right guaranteed in the very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A country that protects its citizens' rights to be the best individuals they can be is a country that will in turn benefit from the best its citizens have to give.
Although complete freedom of speech may seem to be a wonderful ideal to some, there have been a few limitations on free expression from the founding of the United States, when Enlightenment thinkers proposed that complete freedom of speech was to be permitted except when harm to others would occur. This principle continues today with the free speech exceptions, which include incitement to violence and, recently, incitement to suicide.
While some jurisdictions and institutions attempt to limit hate speech, for example racist insults, in general such speech is protected in the United States from governmental censorship. The classical remedy for offensive speech is more and better speech. Racist speech can be successfully confronted by better arguments and even ridicule. The principle behind allowing almost all speech, even if offensive, is that bad ideas will eventually be discredited and the best ideas will prevail, to the benefit of all.
Today, more extensive limits on speech tend to be promulgated by private entities such as internet platforms and the media. Although theoretically users have choices and will gravitate to the outlets that allow the most freedom, realistically most of the important internet platforms are successfully censoring information and manipulating narratives. The media also tend to reinforce narratives with which they agree and censor by omission and opinion. This limitation on speech by internet platforms and the media can deny access to information needed by citizens to make informed decisions about their lives, which will tend to result in less freedom for everyone.

Arguments for both complete, and limited freedom of speech can be categorized as either moral, or pragmatic.
In favor of complete freedom of speech, the moral argument rests on the idea of absolute individual agency, based upon Locke's interpretation of the Social Contract. Locke argues that liberty as a fundamental right, which includes the absolute freedom of speech, cannot be taken away without just cause. In a social contract under this rule, the only acceptable limitation to freedom of speech would be anything that directly causes harm to the rights of another. Given that, as they say, sticks and stones may break bones, but words can never hurt, one could argue that morally, there is no justification to limit hurtful or racist comments, as those are just an expression of an individual's liberty.
The pragmatic argument for complete freedom of speech can be broken into two parts: harm reduction, and the ability for the government to enforce. Quite simply, at the point where the government is able to moderate what you say, it leads down a slippery slope towards communication monitoring, and potentially even a "thought police" scenario, which can stifle political protest and uprising in an unjust government. Furthermore, allowing complete freedom of speech ensures that all ideas can be presented in a democracy, which is fundamental to said democracy's existence. Additionally, it's quite simply impossible to enforce; would the government literally jail people who said contradictory things to their policies? Would racists and hate groups be banned from the internet, and driven further underground? Is that even legal?
In favor of limited freedom of speech, the moral argument is based on the idea that speech with the intention of promoting immoral acts or ideas, such as violence or racial hatred, is anti-utilitarian. Speech of this nature doesn't contribute positively to any society, and thus, there's no reason not to limit it.
The pragmatic argument for limited freedom of speech is very simple: sometimes, saying the wrong thing can lead to terrible consequences. In today's world, cyber-bullying has been positively linked with teen suicide in many cases, and some sort of protection for those teens would be beneficial. Furthermore, limiting speech limits harmful behavior, such as exposing minors to racist or violent ideals that they may not be old enough to understand and comprehend. Finally, the adage of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" holds true, in the sense that sometimes speech can lead to very real violence and panic, and loss of lives.

There are several arguments for complete freedom. For instance, people have the freedom of worship and can join any religion they want. In addition, complete freedom gives people the freedom of speech. Therefore, expression of opinions is not limited, which enables the freedom of press. For this reason, the government is not supposed to interfere with any information that is conveyed to the public by the media. Furthermore, this type of freedom enables creatives to broadcast information on mainstream media and the internet, which has a positive impact on the economy. Moreover, complete freedom promotes democracy. It also improves knowledge acquisition as people can access a wealth of information on the internet.
On the other hand, limited freedom has many benefits. For example, it prevents the distribution of content that is harmful to children such as pornography. Moreover, limiting freedom can prevent hate speech. Adult content that is accessible to children and hate speech can have violent and unethical results. Therefore, limiting freedom can make a country safe for its citizens. Moreover, it can reduce racism by restricting people from saying offensive things and also ensure that all religions are respected. Even more, national security can be improved by limiting freedom. For instance, the privacy of criminal suspects can be infringed upon for the sake of public safety.

How did the invention of white people serve to unify the relatively few plantation owners with large numbers of British and European laborers despite their dramatically different economic and social conditions?

While persons with lighter skin pigmentation have been known for thousands of years, the racial category of "white people," many scholars agree, did not originate until the seventeenth-century. It was first used in a statute enacted by the legislature of colonial Maryland in 1681 and by other colonies thereafter. Prior to this time, there was largely a level of legal and social equality between people of different skin tones. Free laborers of both African and British descent worked alongside one another on colonial American plantations.
With the recognition of different races, however, came a new separation of social and judicial standards and treatment. This helped justify the colonization of the continent of Africa as well as the creation of the institution of slavery. By creating categories of free and slave labor which were based on classes originating in the artificial distinction of skin tone, the former unity of landless British and landless African labor against wealthy landowners was broken. Instead of the landless against the landed, landless whites were united with landed whites against landless blacks. This served the interest of plantation owners by weakening an endemic threat; a threat that—in 1676—manifested itself as armed insurrection during Bacon's Rebellion.
In the podcast interview linked below, Jacqueline Battalora—a sociologist at Saint Xavier University and one of the foremost scholars on "white invention"—discusses her book Birth of a White Nation (2013), which explores these themes in depth.

According to the speaker of "London, 1802" by William Wordsworth, what is England's inheritance?

According to the speaker, England ought to have inherited "the heroic wealth of hall and bower" and the "ancient English dower / Of inward happiness." It is a country of mythic heroes, culture, and history. However, despite this rich and meaningful inheritance—passed down from illustrious poets like John Milton, who had a soul "like a Star"—England has descended into a "fen / Of stagnant waters." The speaker evidently feels that the heroism of the past has disintegrated; now, people are selfish, lacking in virtue, and powerless. Milton, he says, lived in his life in "cheerful godliness," humility, and purity, and he led by example. The speaker holds Milton up as an example of all that a resident of England ought to be, what they could be as a result of their cultural heritage, but he is also a yardstick of their failure.

What solution is formed when sand is added to water?

A solution has two components solvent and solute. Solute is in small quantity and solvent is in large quantity. When the solute is fully miscible in solvent then we call it a solution. For instance, Salt when added in water dissolves completly, so we call it "Salt solution".
A mixture contains two or more substances which are not chemically combined. Components of mixture can be easily seperated using physical methods like filteration, simple distillation, fractional distillation, freezing, heating, etc. Examples of common mixtures are: Sea water, Ink, Crude oil, Gun powder, etc.
When we add sand into water, sand is not miscible in water and sand settles down at the bottom of the container. We can easily separate sand from water by physical methods like filteration, drying and obtain the same sand which we add earlier.

A solution is formed when a solute is dissolved into a solvent. An example is the sweet solution that is formed when sugar is mixed with water or the salty solution that is formed when common salt is dissolved into water.
In comparison, when sand is added to water, it does not mix, and no solution is formed. Because the sand is heavier than the water, it will ultimately settle down at the bottom of the container. The resulting product is, in fact, a mixture.
The mixture of sand and water can be separated out by physical actions of filtration and drying. Water containing sand can be filtered to separate out sand and then dried to obtain dry sand (the original material we started off with).
Hope this helps.

How would I write an essay comparing and contrasting "Fish Cheeks" by Amy Tan and "Museum" by Naomi Shibab Nye?

The short stories “Fish Cheeks” by Amy Tan and “Museum” by Naomi Shihab Nye are autobiographical or memoir texts that tell the stories of experiences the authors had in their youth. “Fish Cheeks” tells the story of an experience Tan had when she was a teenager and an American boy whom she had a crush on attended her family's nontraditional Christmas dinner. “Museum” tells the story of a trip Nye took to the McNay Museum, an old house turned museum—except that the first house she walked into was not the McNay Museum, but another house.
Both stories tell a short tale about embarrassment—Tan felt embarrassment at the traditional Chinese cuisine and mannerisms of her family in the presence of her white American pastor and his family, while Nye was embarrassed about accidentally stepping inside the home of a random family of native Texans.
Something you can look into is Tan's exploration of her embarrassment in the story. She focuses on the differences between Chinese culture and American culture and her awareness of those differences. Early in the story, she focuses on the difference in cuisine: “On Christmas Eve I saw that my mother had outdone herself in creating a strange menu” (paragraph 3). The way she describes the food as strange shows that she is embarrassed because she is considering the way their American guests might perceive the food.
You might also look into the similar embarrassment that Nye feels in her story. Nye feels embarrassed because of an obvious social faux pas that exists across cultures—she has entered someone else's house, uninvited, and has confused it for another place. Because she has brought her friend into the home, and insisted that it is the correct place, she feels responsible for the mistake. The initial embarrassment at being accountable for the error is worse because she has to explain to her friend that they are in the wrong place in front of the owners: “I just couldn’t tell her out loud in front of those people what we had done” (paragraph 3).
The major difference in the two essays lies mainly in who is affected at the end of the story. In “Fish Cheeks” it is Amy Tan who changes her view of her family and culture as a result of reflecting on her own actions in the story:

It wasn’t until many years later—long after I had gotten over my crush on Robert—that I was able to fully appreciate her lesson and the true purpose behind our particular menu. For Christmas Eve that year, she had chosen all my favorite foods. (paragraph 8)

Tan has a revelation about her actions and her own family and grows to appreciate her own culture in spite of its difference from American culture.
In contrast, in “Museum” it isn’t Nye who has the revelation about her own culture or the importance of her family, but one of the members of the family who is present when she enters their home:

That was my home. I was a teenager sitting with my family talking in the living room. Before you came over, I never realized what a beautiful place I lived in. I never felt lucky before. You thought it was a museum. My feelings changed about my parents after that too. They had good taste. I have always wanted to thank you. (paragraph 8)

The woman who stops her in the street is the one who has the change of heart about her own culture and her parents, and as the result of Nye’s embarrassing experience, that woman now has a better view of her own culture.
https://soundcloud.com/ndhumanities/true-story-by-naomi-shihab-nye

https://www.ncps-k12.org/cms/lib8/CT01903077/Centricity/Domain/638/LA/Short%20Story%20-%20Fish%20Cheeks.pdf

What if America was never colonized or even discovered at all?

This is an interesting question. If the Americas had remained undiscovered, Europe would have likely remained much more as it was in 1491 for a far longer period. We can say with confidence it is unlikely the Europeans, who historians such as Charles C. Mann argue had a much less efficient system of agriculture than Native Americans, would have developed such staples as the potato and the tomato. Therefore, such events as the Irish potato famine would never have occurred; although, ironically, without Native American crop imports and innovations, famines would have been more frequent and severe, slowing economic and population growth.
Tobacco would not have come to Europe, as it was brought back from the Americas. More importantly, Europe would have had to do without the influx of such raw materials as timber and fur that flooded in from the colonies. Valuable metals, such as silver, also initially poured in from the New World, and the market for slaves to cultivate such crops as sugar and tobacco would not have existed, so the lucrative and cruel slave trade likely would not have developed.
The Americas brought much wealth to Europe, especially early on. This wealth, coming in the form of raw materials, brought what some historians call the "curse of natural resources" to countries such as Spain. When a nation's wealth can derive simply from selling the natural resources from the territories they own, that country does not have to develop an industrial base.
In Spain, vast wealth was captured by a very small percentage of the population. The wealthy class did invest in the country, but they also squandered a mind-boggling amount of money on palaces, wars, and consumer goods such as costly clothing. When the party was over, the country was left impoverished. Other countries, such as Great Britain, used the resources that came in to develop an industrial base, such as a textile industry, and therefore prospered. Without these American resources, one can imagine that Spain might have done better economically and Great Britain worse, equalizing power on the European continent more than actually occurred.
Of course, all of this is speculative, but without the wealth countries such as England and France amassed through the colonization of the New World, they would have had a much harder time financing the navies and imperial adventures that allowed them to dominate much of the globe. We might today, as a result, have more international equality, and we might, as a world, have benefitted more from the wisdom of cultures that were crushed under colonialism.

Describe at least 3 monsters we see in film or television today. Consider traditional monsters (like Grendel) but also monsters who threaten the well-being of society.

Monsters take many forms in media today. A popular classic is the zombie, which typically represents a number of societal phenomena: consumerism, loss of individualism within society, and a deep fear that humanity is made up of mindless monsters. Zombies are terrifying because they threaten the structure of society (in zombie media, society is often destroyed during the monsters' rise); in this way, they represent a fear of humanity's ability to destroy the society it has created.
Another classic is the werewolf, which, of course, symbolizes the "beast within" and the inability to control one's animal, aggressive urges; a similar, more specific example of this is Dr. Jekyll and his transformation into Mr. Hyde. Grendel can be considered a monster within this category. He is given very little physical description, but is used as a foil to Beowulf, therefore representing the antithesis of the great, noble warrior.
This source from Washington State University gives more detail on Grendel as a monster, as a foil to Beowulf, and monsters in general: WSU MONSTERS FRONTPAGE

As this question depends on your own opinion and addresses social well-being, you could approach it from several perspectives. One promising way would be to give a range of monsters, from literal to abstract. A traditional monster like Grendel could be any evil character from movies or television. Slightly more abstract could be the personification or amplification of threatening characteristics in more modern robot-type or cyborg characters. In the abstract realm, you might use an example of something meant to benefit society that has gone awry, such as the misuses of technology through hacking. Or, paying homage to Shelley’s complex presentation of Frankenstein’s monster and considering modern inversions of monstrosity, including making Grendel a hero, you could reverse that approach and highlight "the good in the bad."
For the first, zombies seem an obvious choice, as they threaten society through literally eating people, For the second, you could consider a figure like the Pretender in the Transformers series, or a classic example such as the Terminator.
For the third, large-scale hacking in data breaches can take on a monstrous scale, affecting all the users of a particular site, like Yahoo or eBay. For a reversal, in which technology is positively humanized, the 2013 Spike Jonze film Her comes to mind.

Why, after fifteen years, does Gene return to school? What does this tell you about how the author will plot the story—that is, arrange its related events?

Gene, the narrator, sets the scene of his return with a long opening descriptive passage about Devon and the town around it. He has come back on his own, because, he states:

There were a couple of places now which I wanted to see. Both were fearful sites, and that was why I wanted to see them.

This tells us that the story will likely be arranged around the events that made these places "fearful" to Gene. We know one site will be the flight of marble stairs in the First Academy building, a set of steps Gene says he climbed every day of his school years at Devon. The second place is on the very edge of the campus, past the main buildings, the secondary buildings, and the muddy playing fields: it is river with a few tree growing by its banks.
We can predict that important action or plot points will take place in these two locales, and, in fact, Gene immediately drifts back in time to a particular tree by the river.

What is the conclusion of "Désirée's Baby"?

The conclusion of "Desiree's Baby" is tragic: Desiree's child is dark-skinned, which implies that either she or her husband Armand have African ancestry. In the Antebellum South of the setting, to be part-black is a mark of shame. Armand, assuming Desiree is the one with black ancestry (since she was a foundling and no one knows who her biological parents are), essentially exiles her from his life.
Desiree is miserable and claims she wants to die if it turns out she is not fully white. Her adopted mother writes her a letter bidding her come back home with her child. After Armand makes it clear he wants Desiree gone, she takes her baby and walks to the bayou, still in her nightclothes.
Chopin makes it clear that Desiree is never seen again at Armand's estate, but the exact nature of her fate is unclear. Depending on the reader, one can assume she and her baby died in the bayou, or (less likely but still valid) she eventually reached Valmonde and lived there with her adopted parents in social exile.
When trying to rid every trace of Desiree from his estate, Armand ends up learning that he is the one who is part-black, as his mother was black. His pride and racism not only compelled him to drive away his wife and baby, but they have also left him humbled.

The conclusion to the story of "Désirée's Baby" is very sad and tragic indeed. Désirée has been abandoned by her husband Armand, who's discovered to his great consternation that his wife is part black. In this deeply race-conscious society the color of one's skin is considered absolutely critical to one's status. African-Americans are slaves, occupying the very lowest rung on society's ladder. That Désirée should have African blood coursing through her veins, even if it's only a drop, is a source of great shame to Armand. That shame is compounded by the fact that the baby to which his wife's just given birth—Armand's baby, no less—is also part black.
Having banished Désirée and her baby from the plantation, Armand sets about destroying her letters and other personal effects. But as he does so, a shocking secret is revealed. While reading an old letter from his mother Armand discovers that, he too, is part black. In that one moment, Armand's exaggerated sense of honor and pride, based on nothing more than racism, has been completely destroyed. Now he realizes, to his horror, that through his mother he belongs to a race cursed with the brand of slavery.

How would you describe the narrators in The Pigman story?

The narrators of The Pigman, John Conlan and Lorraine Jensen, are two teenagers struggling to understand themselves, to get love and recognition by their parents, and to find a place in their school peer group. They're typical adolescents, in other words. That, and the structure of the novel, is what makes them unreliable as narrators.
An unreliable narrator is a character who tells a story that you're not quite sure is true. They have ulterior motives, or they're influenced by external forces which might not be obvious from a simple reading of the text. In The Pigman, John's trouble-making reputation and Lorraine's abusive relationship with her parents make them suspect, because you should wonder about their motivations. Why do they say the things they do about Mr. Pignati? They pledge to report only facts, but can you trust them? After all, they pledged to themselves to take good care of Mr. Pignati's house after his heart attack, and John convinces Lorraine to have a party. Lorraine goes along because she wants John's affection, even though she senses circumstances getting out of control. That should make you, the reader, wonder about their narratives.
The other big factor in creating unreliable narrators is conflicting perspectives. In this case, you're offered two. John and Lorraine alternate storytelling between chapters. Whose is the point of view closest to the truth? How will we know what really happened, when we only get one point of view per chapter even though we know there are two people telling it?
Unreliable narrators do not necessarily make for bad stories. They're devices chosen by authors to set the tone of their stories, to create uncertainty and feelings of conflict.

How does the theme of appearance versus reality appear in Macbeth?

The theme of appearances versus reality runs deep in Shakespeare's Macbeth. When examining this topic, you could examine any of the following ideas:
1. The witches' prophesies: Throughout the play, Macbeth is guided by promises made to him via the witches. From their initial promises until the end of the play, Macbeth's sense of power and destiny hinges on their visions. Consider especially the beginning of act 4, when Macbeth is given three pieces of advice:
"Beware Macduff."
"Laugh to scorn / The power of man, for none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth."
"Macbeth shall never vanquished be until / Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill / Shall come against him."
Because the witches' predictions have always worked in his favor before, he doesn't even consider last two predictions a possibility. The witches have blurred the reality of the situation by making Macbeth's safety and sense of power appear to be a certainty.
2. Thanks to his wife (and the witches), Macbeth believes that becoming king of Scotland is his destiny, so he doesn't mind helping destiny out a little. He therefore kills King Duncan and plants evidence on Duncan's guards to incriminate them. The reality is that Macbeth is a murderer. But it appears (even if some believe that the situation looks suspicious) as if Duncan's guards have killed their own king.
3. Lady Macbeth is a real force guiding the action of the play. Macbeth isn't quite as quick to act as his wife would like, and she goads him in one of the most cutting ways—by questioning his manhood. When he tells her that "I dare do all that may become a man; / Who dares do more is none," his wife responds, "What beast was't, then, / That made you break this enterprise to me? / When you durst do it, then you were a man" (act 1, scene 7). So while Macbeth appears to be the one actively making murderous decisions, in reality it is Lady Macbeth who is the true mastermind of the plot.

how many neutrons does neon-12 have?

Neon is an inert element and has an atomic number of 10. The atomic mass of Neon is 20. However, there are a number of isotopes of neon, including, Neon-16, Neon-19, Neon-20, Neon-21, Neon-22, Neon-23, Neon-24, etc. Among these, the three stable isotopes of Neon are Neon-20, Neon-21, and Neon-22.
Remember that the isotopes of an element have the same atomic number but different atomic masses.
The atomic mass of an atom is equal to the sum of the protons and neutrons. The atomic number of an atom is equal the number of protons it contains. Hence, Neon has 10 protons.
Neon-20 has 10 neutrons since its atomic mass is 20 (10 protons + 10 neutrons). Similarly, a Neon-21 atom has 10 protons and 11 neutrons. And, a Neon-22 atom has 10 protons and 12 neutrons.
Hope this helps.

What does the line "Your mind is tossing on the ocean" from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice mean?

The words are spoken by Salarino in the opening scene of the play. He can tell from the look on his face that something's eating his good friend Antonio. Salarino uses the metaphor of a ship being tossed about on stormy seas to describe his friend's troubled mental state. That's what he means when he says "Your mind is tossing on the ocean." Just imagine, for one moment, a ship caught in the middle of a particularly violent storm. It would be heaving up and down, just about ready to break up and sink at any moment. That's what Antonio's mind is like as the play begins.
The maritime metaphor is particularly appropriate as Antonio, who's a merchant, has all his money tied up in his ships' valuable cargo. If any one of his ships should sink in stormy seas, then he'll be in serious financial trouble. Indeed, that's precisely why Salarino thinks that Antonio looks so troubled; he's worried about his fleet of merchant ships.

This line appears in the opening of the play, at the beginning of the first act. Antonio is wondering aloud to his friend Salarino why he feels so sad. Antonio says it wearies both of them for him to be so depressed and comments that he doesn't understand himself.
Salarino then says to Antonio, "Your mind is tossing on the ocean." By this he means that Antonio is sad because he is constantly thinking and worrying about the ships he has out at sea. In other words, Salarino is stating that Antonio is stressed and preoccupied with worry that his ships won't come home and his business ventures will fail. Another friend, Solanio, concurs, telling Antonio that he would be in a constant state of worry if he were involved in such risky business.
However, Antonio says that's not why he's sad. He notes he's diversified his risk between different ships and isn't particularly worried. When his friends then suggest that he must be sad because he's in love, he denies that, too, but given that his close friend Bassanio wants to marry Portia, we might suspect that love and fear of losing Bassanio's companionship might be the cause of his depression.