What did Martin Van Buren stand for?

Martin Van Buren stood in the tradition of limited Federal government as espoused by his predecessor Andrew Jackson. Like Jackson, Van Buren was a staunch advocate of states' rights, and he sought to interfere with what he saw as their fundamental prerogatives as little as possible.
Whatever the merits of such an idea on the theoretical level, in practice it proved disastrous for the country during Van Buren's single term of office. During the Panic of 1837, the irresponsible speculative lending habits of the state banks led to a serious economic crisis. This was largely the consequence of Jackson's banking policy—which Van Buren endorsed and continued—which removed funds from the Federal Bank and gave them to state banks.
Jackson was extremely hostile towards the Second Bank of the United States, whose charter he refused to renew. He and his supporters believed that the Second Bank—or indeed, any Federal bank—was an instrument of economic oppression in the hands of the East coast banking elite, and which would be used against the kind of ordinary people—farmers, traders, and small businessmen—who'd helped Jackson get elected. Instead, Jackson diverted government funds from the Second Bank to individual state banks in the belief that they would be more responsive to local economic needs.
It didn't quite work out like that, however. As we've already seen, reckless speculation led to economic chaos, for which Van Buren found himself hopelessly unprepared. Rigidly sticking to his overriding belief in limited government and states' rights, Van Buren refused to restore confidence in the banking system by reestablishing the Federal Bank. Instead, he diverted some of the government's funds from the failing state banks to an independent treasury.
This did little to halt the growing crisis, and the economy still hadn't fully recovered from this terrible shock by the time Van Buren came up for reelection in 1840. No surprise, then, that Van Buren lost the election. One could reasonably argue that he was defeated, as much as anything else, by his rigid adherence to the principles for which he'd always stood.

What was the “secret protocol” of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact?

The secret protocol was a provision of the 1939 treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, in which the two countries agreed not to declare war on one another for ten years. The protocol spelled out how Eastern Europe would be divided after Adolph Hitler’s Germany invaded Poland: Germany would control Western Poland, while the Soviet Union would control Eastern Poland the nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Less than a week after the pact was signed, Germany invaded Poland. England and France – but not the Soviet Union – quickly declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II in Europe. Within two years, the Soviet Union joined the fight against Germany, when Hitler violated the non-aggression pact by invading the Soviet Union.

The German-Soviet Nonaggression pact was an agreement signed by Germany and Soviet Union on August 23, 1939 agreeing not to attack each other or support any country that attacked any of them. The pact was proposed by Nazi Germany leader, Adolf Hitler who wanted to invade Poland unopposed. The secret protocol in the pact was the division of Poland territory between the two countries with Germans taking the western part of Poland and Soviets taking the eastern part of the country. Further, the Soviet Union were also given three Baltic states; Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia as part of the deal.
After the agreement, Nazi Germany invaded Poland without any Soviet Union intervention to the surprise of other European powers. Britain and France declared war on Germany in defense of Poland which eventually lead to the outbreak of the World War II. As the war raged, Adolf Hitler quest to dominate Europe saw the German-Soviet Nonaggression pact violated and the subsequent Nazi Germany invasion of Russia. Later, the Soviet Red Army drove the Nazi forces from their territories.
Further Reading
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/german-soviet-nonaggression-pact

German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was an agreement between Germany and Soviet Union where they agreed not to attack each other or support any nation that attacks any of them. The Pact was proposed by Adolf Hitler, Germany leader who wanted to invade Poland unopposed. The secret protocol in the pact outlined the division of the Europe between the two countries. Under the secret deal, German would occupy the western part of Poland through an invasion while Eastern part of Poland would go to Soviet Union. Part of the secret protocol gave three Baltic states; Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to the Soviet Union.

according to the agreement, Nazi Germany would invade Poland and Soviet Union would not intervene to help Poland. Due to the aggression of the Germans, Britain and France declared war against Germany to defend Poland that sparked the World War II. During the War, Adolf Hitler violated the pact by invading Soviet Union but was later driven back by Soviet Union forces.


References
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/german-soviet-nonaggression-pact

The German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was an agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In the pact, both sides agreed that they would not go to war with each other, nor would they support any nation that attacked either of them. The secret protocol of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact dealt with the division of Europe between the two nations. As a result of the agreement, Germany would receive the western part of Poland, following Hitler's invasion, and the Soviet Union would gain the eastern part of Poland. The Soviet Union would also gain the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.
Shortly following the agreement, Germany invade Poland with the knowledge that the Soviet Union would not intervene. This caused Britain and France, who had proclaimed they would defend Poland, to declare war against Germany. This sparked World War II. After only approximately two years, Hitler would violate the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact and invade the Soviet Union.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/german-soviet-nonaggression-pact

What is the structure of Spenserian Sonnet?

A Spenserian Sonnet, invented by Edmund Spenser, consists of 14 lines. The term "quatrain" refers to a grouping of 4 consecutive lines. Spenserian Sonnets are formed of 3 quatrains followed by a couplet. The rhyme scheme is as follows:

Quatrain 1:A-B-A-B Quatrain 2: B-C-B-C Quatrain 3: C-D-C-D Final Couplet: E-E

Because the ending rhyme in one stanza carries over as the beginning rhyme in the next stanza, some people also refer to this form as the linking sonnet. Often poets try to connect not only these rhymes but also the thoughts as they link from quatrain to quatrain.
Each line follows a meter of iambic pentameter, meaning there are five pairs of syllables (or ten syllables total) per line and that the second syllable in each pair is stressed.
The purpose of the sonnet is to develop an idea, metaphor, conflict, or question, and to shift toward commentary of that purpose in the final couplet.
Below is an example of a Spenserian Sonnet, written by Edmund Spenser himself:

Sonnet 75
One day I wrote her name upon the strand;But came the waves, and washed it away: Again, I wrote it with a second hand; But came the tide, and made my pains his prey.
Vain man, said she, that dost in vain assayA mortal thing so to immortalize;For I myself shall like to this decay, And eke my name be wiped out likewise.
Not so, quoth I, let baser things deviseTo die in dust, but you shall live by fame: My verse your virtues rare shall eternize, And in the heavens write your glorious name.
Where, when as death shall all the world subdue, Our love shall live, and later life renew.

What is immediately established by the contrast between the goat and Grendel?

Grendel's encounter with the goat in Chapter 10 follows a scene in which he was processing the life-and-death philosophies that the Ork shared with him. These ideas have caused some misgivings about his approach to life.
As the goat climbs up, Grendel takes note of the goat's persistence but he does not welcome it. Rather than admire its tenacity, Grendel is annoyed and throws stones at it. He keeps stoning the goat until he splits its skull, and even when it seems the goat has died, still he does not stop.
The main contrast drawn is between passivity and aggression. The goat is not interested in harming Grendel, but it seems dedicated merely to making its way up the hill. Grendel, however, seems unable to resist attacking the goat.

How do the Monarchs affect the narrator's work and talent in "The Real Thing" by Henry James?

Major and Mrs. Monarch stunt the narrator's work as an artist. Why? Because they're too real. What Major Monarch thinks would be his and his wife's greatest strength as models proves to be the narrator's undoing. He simply can't do anything with them; however he chooses to paint them, they will remain as they are: ordinary, respectable, middle-aged.
Inevitably, this holds back his creativity, making it impossible for him to exercise his imagination to the fullest possible extent. To paint a really good portrait, he needs to have something to work with, something he can mould to create something new and exciting. But he can't do that with the Monarchs. They are who they are and cannot be anyone or anything else. And this is a serious drawback to being an artist's model, especially for an artist like the narrator who's so wedded to artifice.

What time period does Hamlet take place in?

Although up for a bit of debate, most learned scholars think that Shakespeare set Hamlet in the latter half of the middle ages—in other words, probably somewhere between 1300 and 1500 (otherwise known as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). We can be even more specific about time by noting that the play officially begins at midnight. Shakespeare meant for this play to take place in the late middle ages, but there are directors who have set their productions of Hamlet in vastly different time periods.

What honors in our society are similar to the honor Jonas receives?

As in our own society, Jonas’s community educates all children the same way until they reach the age of majority. They may have different interests to pursue as elective volunteer positions, but until the Ceremony of Twelve, children of the same age learn together. After the ceremony, many of them will remain together as they continue their education or training in order to fulfill their Assignments. Jonas, however, undergoes training “alone and apart” (65). Jonas has been given “the most important job in the community" (66), his parents tell him: “You’ve been greatly honored, Jonas. Greatly honored” (67).

Our society has many positions that are held in high regard. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the military are among them. Jonas’s position is above and beyond even Assignments such as these, which have a clearer path to attainment. Members of the community treat Jonas with deference once he is given his Assignment. They watch him and move aside for him. In this way, receiving Jonas's Assignment is a bit like being elected president—without having run for office.

As Jonas looks over the information sheet for his Assignment, he sees several rules that apply only to him. In fact, he’s exempted from many rules that govern his society. In The Giver, these are things such as rudeness and lying. Political leaders in our society are often exempted from certain laws as well. Congressional immunity in the United States exempts members of Congress from certain federal laws. Presidential immunity is a longstanding topic of debate, with some arguing that the president cannot be prosecuted while in office. In either case, it is clear that politicians in the upper ranks share with Jonas both a degree of freedom from the law and a high level of esteem. Some governmental officials, after all, are addressed as "The Honorable (Name)."

Jonas’s information sheet disallows him from sharing what he learns in his training with members of his community, even his own family. This is also similar to top secret information that governments restrict to very few leaders. Even the freedom to lie is (comically) relevant to our society. People across the world accuse even their most beloved politicians of lying—it’s practically in the job description, we joke.

In addition to these rules, Jonas learns that he is not permitted to apply for release, and he is not allowed to apply for a spouse. This is similar to the clergy of many religions (specifically Catholicism: Catholic priests are not allowed to marry). They are viewed as leaders in their communities and treated with a great deal of honor and respect, even a bit of fear. The leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope, is also subject to these rules. In addition, despite the atypical resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, popes are not supposed to be “released” from their sacred duty.

There are, of course, several additional analogs in our society to the honor Jonas receives. Writers, for instance, could be a kind of receiver of memory—historians as well. We trust these people to preserve our world and inform our thoughts. When we read a book, we can see and feel things we’ve never actually experienced. We can learn things that other people do not know. There’s honor to be found in reading and writing: it’s a cure for Sameness.

How is evil exemplified in Lord of the Flies and Macbeth? What are its sources, and how is it manifested in both?

This particular writing prompt correctly indicates that both Lord of the Flies and Macbeth deal thematically with evil. You could probably go multiple directions with this answer. One direction would be to explore how the characters demonstrate their propensity to do something that most readers would consider is evil. I think it is safe to assume that intentionally killing a person is evil. What is great about both stories is that the main characters aren't rushing into the evil that is murder. Macbeth actually talks himself out of it until Lady Macbeth browbeats him into changing his mind and going through with it. Once Macbeth initiates himself into his new murderous life, the subsequent killings come much easier for him. The boys on the island are in a similar situation. Readers will actually see Jack fail to kill the pig the first time; however, by chapter four, he has worked up the courage to go through with the kill. He quickly descends into becoming a complete savage with no qualms about trying to kill Ralph. Interestingly, it isn't Jack that actually succeeds in killing a human. Roger kills Piggy by rolling a boulder onto him.
Another comparison that could be made between the two works is how the evil grows as the story continues, and characters get more and more familiar with embracing the evil. The descent into evil savagery is often a topic of discussion with Lord of the Flies, and Macbeth spirals deeper and deeper into a murderous web in order to keep himself on the throne. Both stories show how evil so completely blinds a person to the point where that person is willing to hurt or even kill former friends. This is how and why Simon is tragically killed. The boys are so focused on a possible beast, that they don't recognize a friend. Finally, I think both stories accurately show how evil is a force within every person. This is a key detail that Simon learns about who and what the beast actually is. He is the beast as much as Jack and Ralph are. All of the boys have the potential to do great evil. Macbeth is the same. His unrestrained ambition overpowers his morality, and that shows readers that the evil was always present.

Describe the feelings of young Robinson during his first voyage.

Of his first voyage, the young Robinson Crusoe says the following, showing that he was miserable and frightened during his trip:

Never any young adventurer’s misfortunes, I believe, began sooner, or continued longer than mine. The ship was no sooner out of the Humber than the wind began to blow and the sea to rise in a most frightful manner; and, as I had never been at sea before, I was most inexpressibly sick in body and terrified in mind.

Robinson has ventured out to sea against the firm wishes of his mother and father, who had forbidden him to leave dry land. He goes off without telling them, and begins, being frightened by this first voyage, to wonder if he should not have paid attention to what they told him.
He says the sea continues to terrify him during the whole journey, though he later realizes that the waves were not as high or dangerous as he imagined. Every time the ship goes up and down on the sea, he vows to God that if he is brought to shore safely, he will obey his parents and never set foot on a ship again. Of course, as we know, that is a vow he breaks.

What is the relationship between the cardiac cycle and an ECG? What is isovolumetric contraction? When does it begin and end?

The human heart's cardiac cycle is regulated by key electrical events, namely by muscle cells at points called the sinoatrial and atriovencular (or SA and AV) "nodes." The SA node is calibrated to fire at between 60 and 100 beats per minute (BPM), which is the healthy range for a resting heart rate. When it is excited, it induces atrial contraction. The AV node fires at between 40 and 60 BPM, and slows the electrical impulses sent from the SA node to ensure that each heartbeat terminates, preparing the heart for successive beats by providing the cells in the SA node with an opportunity to return to electrical equilibrium. This also induces ventricular contraction. An electrocardiogram (ECG) is a way of tracing the electrical events of the heart by analyzing the SA and AV nodes by connecting a device that is sensitive to the heart's electrical moments and can display them graphically as waves.
During this heartbeat cycle, there is a tiny window of time (about 0.03 seconds) after ventricular contraction in which both the atrial and ventricular valves are still closed. This moment is isovolumetric contraction, its name referring to the fact that the volume of blood between the valves has stayed constant. The moment of pressure then overcomes the pressure exerted by the aorta and pulmonary trunk, forcing open the semilunar valves and allowing blood to leave the heart. This is when the isovolumetric contraction ends.

What are the similarities between Plato’s allegory of the cave and the social construction of reality?

In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, a group of people have spent their lives chained in a cave, where they are unable to turn around. All they can do is watch the shadows of reality that firelight cast on the wall in front of them. They can't see the real objects themselves. They mistake the shadows of reality for reality itself, because that is all they know.
In 1966, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann coined the term "social construction of reality" in their book of the same name. Customs, social institutions, common ideas about the way the world is, and even sayings or proverbs shape our reality.
The social construction of reality also says that our perceptions of the world are shaped by who we are in society and by what is known as our "social location." This means that factors like our economic status, gender, educational level, race, ethnicity, geographic location, and age deeply influence the way we experience the world.
As with the figures chained to a spot in Plato's cave, our social construction of reality also "chains" us, metaphorically speaking, to a certain way of understanding the world. This can be reinforced by the echo chamber of social media if we surround ourselves only with people like us.
In order to build up a truer picture of the world, it is important to try to look at the world as it might be experienced by people in different social locations. In other words, we don't want to look solely at the shadows or representations of reality all around us, but try to see reality itself.

What does it mean to call someone a "Romeo"?

In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is seen at the beginning of the play head over heels in love for Rosaline. Although Romeo is infatuated with her, Rosaline doesn't seem to share these feelings, as Romeo notes: "She hath forsworn to love, and in that vow / Do I live dead that live to tell it now" (1.1.223–224). Once he sees Juliet (on the same day, no less), he falls immediately head over heels in love again: "Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight! / For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night" (1.1.50–51).
It is this speedy transition that likely gives Romeo a negative reputation in popular culture. Although the character in the play does seem to truly love Juliet, his speedy transition from one girl to the next is at least a little questionable. Did he really love Rosaline at all? Or did she just represent his quest for the unattainable? Also, anyone who doesn't believe in love at first sight will certainly be a bit skeptical about Romeo's immediate profession of true love over the sight of Juliet.
So, in our society, a Romeo is a type of guy who says what he thinks girls want to hear in order to win them over. He is fickle and not subject to settling down or committing to just one girl. Some of these characteristics can be attributed to the fickle ways of Shakespeare's Romeo, but the play's character did commit to Juliet, marrying her within about twenty-four hours. It's a bit of a misnomer.

A Romeo is the kind of guy—like the "real" Romeo, from the Shakespeare play—who is in love with being in love. Chasing romance is his life's true passion. He is always falling head-over-heels in love. He then woos the current girl of his dreams with his his poetic love language, comparing her eyes to the stars and her radiant face to the sun. He does everything he can to get her to fall in love with him, just as Romeo did with Juliet. And, like Romeo, he doesn't wait around. He dives right in, because love is what he does. He lives for love.
However, the term has attained a somewhat negative connotation. This is a little unfair to the "real" Romeo, in my opinion. A "Romeo" often refers to the kind of guy who loves girls and leaves them, always moving on to the next attraction. At the same time, this characterization is not entirely unfair, because Romeo does moon around and claim undying love for Rosaline, only to completely forget about her the moment he lays eyes on Juliet. However, since he kills himself over losing Juliet, we have to believe that love was sincere.
In short, a "Romeo" is a man who is always falling in love and speaking the language of love in a way that may or may not be sincere—and perhaps making the other guys jealous with his poetic approach.

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has become a modern symbol for archetypical young love. The terms "Romeo" and "Juliet" (particularly the less common name "Romeo") have become synonymous with "lover." That's how ubiquitous the play has become! If you say to anyone, "He's such a Romeo," they'll know exactly what you mean.

How do books 6–8 of the Odyssey show Odysseus as a leader?

In books 6–8 of the Odyssey, Odysseus is the honored guest of the Phaeacians. During this part of the poem, Odysseus doesn't get to do much that's especially heroic. It's only later on, in books 9–12, when Odysseus tells his awestruck hosts about his epic wanderings, that his leadership skills are revealed in all their majestic glory.
Before then, however, Odysseus does at least show that he's no ordinary mortal. The Phaeacians are renowned for their athletic skills, and an impudent young man by the name of Broadsea openly mocks Odysseus and challenges him to a display of athletic prowess.
Now at this point, Odysseus could simply make some kind of excuse and back down. After all, he hasn't yet revealed his identity and wants to keep it a secret for as long as possible. He knows that if he participates in the athletics contests, then he'll wipe the floor with the competition, potentially exposing himself as the hero that he is.
But Odysseus just wouldn't be Odysseus if he didn't grab an opportunity to show what he's capable of. There's no way in a million years he would ever back down from any kind of challenge. Among other things, Odysseus is a leader, and leaders lead by example. So in response to the impudent young man's foolish challenge, he picks up a discus and throws it farther away into the distance than anyone else could possibly manage.

What are the ramifications if a member of any Executive Branch fires a Special Counsel appointed to investigate him in a criminal corruption case?

In the context of the United States federal government, the ramifications for firing a special counsel by an officer of the executive branch are of a political nature only, as federal statutory and administrative law allows the United States Attorney-General—a member of the executive branch—broad discretion in the dismissal of a special counsel. Ergo, the discharge of a special counsel outside of the conditions set-forth in law would have no ramifications of a non-political nature, as no such discharge can occur.
We have only one example of the dismissal of a special counsel from which to draw conclusions of what the political ramifications would be, and that is the 1973 firing of Archibald Cox by Acting Attorney-General Robert Bork. The firing of Cox accelerated a series of events already set in motion by the Watergate scandal, which culminated in the resignation of Richard Nixon as President of the United States.
Harry Rimm, a former federal prosecutor, has theorized that the firing of a special counsel might result in impeachment proceedings against the president of the day.

This is a timely question, although the practice of appointing a special counsel to investigate allegations against government officials (particularly the executive branch) is not new. In this process, the Attorney General of the United States authorizes the special counsel to investigate a given set of allegations, as well as federal crimes committed with the intent to interfere with the investigation (this includes perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses). The special counsel also has authority to investigate any new allegations that arise and are directly related to the existing investigation. Under regulations in 28 C.F.R. 600.1, there is a three-step analysis in the decision to appoint a special counsel:
1. The attorney general must determine is a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.
2. If a criminal investigation is warranted, the attorney general must determine if a conflict of interest would arise if the U.S. Attorney's Office or Department of Justice litigated the matter.
3. If it would be in public interest to appoint a special counsel.
Following appointment, the special counsel has the authority to investigate with the full power and independence of any U.S. attorney. However, they must consult with the attorney general should new allegations rise directly related to the matter under investigation.
Under section 600.7, removal of the special counsel requires "direct action" from only the attorney general and "only for good cause", i.e. “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of [DOJ] policies". Therefore, a member of the executive branch (such as the President) does not have the power to directly remove an acting special counsel. The only way for a president to remove an appointed special counsel would be to instruct the attorney general to fire the counsel. Under law, the attorney general could only do so under strict guidelines, and would have to show prove misconduct or incapacity in respect to the special counsel. If the attorney general refused to do this, the President could theoretically replace the attorney general with someone who could carry out the orders to fire the special counsel. However, the political ramifications of this are disastrous; as seen in the 1973 "Saturday Night Massacre" of the Watergate Scandal during which President Nixon replaced the Attorney General Elliot Richardson after he refused to fire special counsel Archibald Cox. Richardson was replaced with Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, which lead to immense political fallout. Therefore, it is absolutely unlikely that a President have a special counsel removed without significant political, and perhaps criminal, repercussions.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/340413-fire-the-special-counsel-history-shows-it-would-be-a

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

What were Harry Truman's mistakes as president?

Some historians have claimed that the biggest mistake that Truman made during his presidency was his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Ever since Truman made that fateful decision, which claimed so many lives and wrought such appalling devastation, debate has raged as to whether or not it was justified. Opponents of Truman's decision regard it was not just immoral, but completely unnecessary. They argue that Japan was already on the verge of defeat in the late summer of 1945 anyway, and that final surrender wasn't too far away.
One could argue that a further mistake made by Truman was that he cut the defense budget too far and too fast, which left the United States unprepared for future challenges. Though it was understandable that Truman wanted to reduce military spending after the end of World War II, he placed too much reliance on the atomic bomb—as used to such devastating effect on Japan—to secure the United States against all external threats.
Truman's lack of flexibility hampered his Administration's efforts to adopt the kind of aggressive, proactive posture towards Communist expansion as outlined in the National Security Council's NSC 68 document. It wasn't until the Korean War that a more robust approach became apparent, but by then the Truman Administration wasn't so much shaping events as responding to them.

How did World War II change the economy?

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, electrified the nation and transformed its economy. The War Powers Act was passed less than two weeks later. It regulated industry and business. The whole economy was put on a war footing.
The War Production Board administered the war economy. Car production nearly ceased as factories converted to the manufacture of tanks and planes. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted a "crushing superiority of equipment." The military-related share of the economy increased from a mere 2 percent to 40 percent by 1943.
The war was financed by the Revenue Act of 1942. This measure increased taxation, and more people became taxpayers. The government borrowed too.
As the economy took off, inflation became a concern. In 1942 the Office of Price Administration was established. Fortunately, inflation was not as severe as it had been in World War I. Essential consumer goods were rationed.
For labor, the war had mostly positive repercussions. Unemployment went from 14 percent to 2 percent by 1943. But unions were curtailed and strikes were virtually forbidden.
In summary the war completely changed the economy. The Great Depression was finally defeated, and the country emerged in 1945 as the richest in the world.

What kind of store does Dedé's father run in In the Time of the Butterflies?

Dedé's father is a wealthy farmer and landowner who also runs a general store. Despite his wealth, Papa is actually quite a generous soul, which sets him apart from the economic and social elite of Trujillo's Dominican Republic.
Occasionally, a peasant will wander by, and Papa will open up his store and give them something for free. Dedé's none too thrilled about this and tells her father in no uncertain terms that he'll end up poor if he persists in such random acts of generosity. In response, Papa jokes that, with such an attitude, Dedé will probably grow up to be a millionaire.
There's some interesting foreshadowing here. In later years, after all her family's many trials and tribulations, Dedé will go on to make a lot of money selling life insurance.

Do you think hard work changed Mathilde's character?

At the beginning of the short story, Mathilde Loisel is depicted as a superficial woman, who desperately desires to be part of the upperclass and enjoy a luxurious life. Her lack of material wealth and lower-class status leaves her miserable as she naively believes that worldly possessions will make her happy. Mathilde's attitude instantly changes when Madame Forestier allows her to borrow a presumably expensive necklace to wear at a prestigious ball with her husband. Mathilde thoroughly enjoys the ball and feels triumphant in her beauty. Unfortunately, Mathilde loses Madame Forestier's necklace and she is forced to spend her inheritance and toil for ten years in order to pay the thirty-six thousand francs to buy a genuine replica of the lost necklace. Mathilde prematurely ages over the years because of her hard manual labor but still finds time to daydream about the lovely ball when she wore the fancy necklace. Mathilde's daydreams indicate that she still values material objects and has not experienced a change in character over the years. She remains superficial and miserable as she toils to pay off the genuine necklace for Madame Forestier. Mathilde's values and character remains the same throughout the short story and she does not learn that material wealth cannot bring happiness.

It certainly changes her outward appearance. When Madame Forestier catches up with her years later, she doesn't recognize Mathilde. Mathilde has been thoroughly worn out and prematurely aged as the result of all the hard toil she's had to do to pay off the loans she took out to buy a replacement necklace.
But there doesn't seem to be much evidence that her character has changed all that much. When her husband's out at work, she often sits by the window wistfully recalling that magical night at the Education Ministry ball when all eyes were upon her. She reflects on what might have been and what a great life she might have had if only she hadn't lost that necklace. This indicates that Mathilde, despite a decade of ceaseless toil, still hasn't learned her lesson. She's still living in a fantasy world, still unable and unwilling to come to terms with reality. It is this unhealthy attitude to life that got her and her husband into such deep trouble in the first place.

Container security is vital to the operation of the Maritime Transportation Security (MTS) with thousands of containers brought into this country daily. How is the Secure Freight System significant to categorizing the vulnerabilities of Port systems to disruption? In answering this question, include the importance of CPB's Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CT-PAT), and the resultant implications in delays in screening cargo on port operations. References (not all inclusive; others may be sought): https://www.academia.edu/17499484/Maritime_supply_chain_security_A_critical_reviewhttps://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpathttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/national_strategy_for_global_supply_chain_security.pdfhttps://www.tsa.gov/news/top-stories/2016/08/22/tsa-provides-support-coast-guard-secure-us-portshttp://www.inhdelva.com/files/csi_brochure_2011.pdf

The U.S. maritime transportation system consists of hundreds of ports that receive container shipments daily from countries around the globe. Because container shipping is essential to global commerce yet leaves the nation vulnerable to terrorist attack, the United States has installed measures to ensure the security of our ports and reduce our vulnerability due to cargo shipping. A large cargo ship can contain hundreds of containers, which poses challenges for inspectors, as they are restricted from hindering the movement of goods. Also, inspecting large numbers of containers delays the movement considerably.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security controls port security, which it entrusts to a number of agencies, including CTPAT, the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. CTPAT is a network of partners that include importers and exporters, transportation intermediaries, highway, rail, and sea carriers, port officials, and others involved in the cargo shipping industry. These partners agree to certain practices that have been put in place to prevent terrorism. For this reason, CTPAT helps prevent terrorism by including groups of people who combine forces to prevent it. Because CTPAT members are considered low risk, cargo shipments that are moved by these organizations are less likely to be tampered with, less likely to be inspected, and less likely to be delayed. CTPAT emerged in the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, in an attempt to ensure the integrity of incoming cargo.

How does Arnold's reluctance to cooperate with his mother at the beginning of the story foreshadow the story's main event?

Arnold's getting too much for his mother, Bet, to handle. His serious learning disabilities are making it increasingly hard for Bet to raise him properly, so she's decided to put him in an institution. On the morning that Arnold's due to be institutionalized, he senses that something's not quite right and starts acting up, refusing to eat his breakfast.
Things don't get any better when Bet tries to dress him. Arnold makes the whole process as difficult as possible, willfully refusing to wear the brown hooded corduroy jacket that his mother's just fetched from the closet. Eventually, Bet's able to get Arnold out the door, fully dressed and carrying his little suitcase, but it's been a real struggle.
Arnold's stubbornness and lack of cooperation foreshadow how he'll behave once his mother drops him off at the institution. Although he seems quite placid at first, Arnold lets out a loud, terrible scream as his mother walks down the hospital corridor. This makes Bet feel uneasy, so much so that she just wants to get out of the place as soon as possible and catch a train home. There's a sense of urgency in her voice as she asks the taxi driver if he can get to the train station in a hurry. Bet wants to move on with her life as quickly as possible, both literally and figuratively.

How does Della save money?

Della saves money by squirreling away a few pennies here and there, wherever and whenever she can manage. The narrator tells us that she's

[...] saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until [her] cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied.

In other words, Della has been haggling with each of the people she purchases food from throughout the week. By bargaining with each merchant, offering them slightly less than they are asking for each item, Della has been able to stash away one dollar and eighty-seven cents. However, this process makes her blush as a result of what it reveals about her family's difficult financial situation. We learn that Jim, Della's husband, used to make thirty dollars a week, but his income has since been reduced to only twenty dollars; in other words, he's lost a third of his income. We know that the Youngs' flat costs eight dollars a week, so this only leaves twelve dollars per week for food and other necessities. Della's food budget is likely already quite small, and this is possibly why she has not been able to save more.

Women had to do a lot more shopping in O. Henry's day. There were no supermarkets, and they had no refrigerators, so they went shopping practically every day. O. Henry says that Della has been trying to save money for Jim's Christmas present by haggling with the merchants she traded with:
ONE DOLLAR AND eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied.
As a woman without her own source of income, Della doesn't have many options when it comes to saving money for Jim's Christmas present. One of the few things she can do is economize.
It is interesting to compare Della Young in O. Henry's story "The Gift of the Magi" with Mathilde Loisel in Guy de Maupassant's famous story "The Necklace." Mathilde was forced to economize after they went into heavy debt to replace the lost necklace. About her only way of saving money was by haggling with the merchants when she went shopping.
She came to know what heavy housework meant and the odious cares of the kitchen[...]. And dressed like a woman of the people, she went to the fruiterer, the grocer, the butcher, a basket on her arm, bargaining, meeting with impertinence, defending her miserable money, sou by sou.
With few employment options open to them, restricted by both their class and gender, Della and Madame Loisel struggle to make a difference in their own financial security, and all gains are hard-won.

Why did Harry Truman go without a vice president during his first term?

It wouldn't be until the passage of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1967 that the President would be able to choose a replacement in the event of the vice presidency position becoming vacant.
After just 82 days in the role, Truman had had to vacate the vice presidency in the wake of President Roosevelt's death. Truman was a firm believer in the old order of succession established under George Washington, which he brought up to date by signing the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Under this legislation, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be placed next in the line of succession after the president of the United States, and ahead of the president of the Senate pro tempore. Critics accused Truman of playing politics with the succession, as it was widely known that he was much closer politically and personally to Sam Rayburn, the House Speaker, than he was to Kenneth McKellar, president of the US Senate pro tempore.

Do you think it is right (or ethical) for sociologists to not identify or otherwise misrepresent themselves when doing research? What if identifying themselves as researchers will destroy their access to a research setting or to informants?

Ethics are the standards that essentially help us differentiate between right and wrong modes of conduct in social settings. Sociologists work with human subjects in order to gain data and insight about human actions, interactions, social constructs, and the function of human society.
Because sociologists study and work with human subjects, it is essential for them to act in an ethical way at all times. Therefore, they must always represent themselves accurately and identify themselves to their subjects when performing research in order to obtain informed consent. Informed consent means that the human subjects are aware that they are working with a sociologist, are aware of the research process in which they are participating, are aware of the purpose of the research being performed, and knowingly agree to be part of that process. Without obtaining informed consent from a subject and continuing the research process anyway, a sociologist would be committing an egregious breech of ethical codes.
For example, if a sociologist were to keep their identity secret and did not disclose their research purposes to a human subject, that person could potentially act incredibly differently than if they were aware that they were part of a sociological research project. This would be especially true in situations where information about drugs, alcohol, or sexual practices were being shared. If a sociologist didn’t disclose their identity or research project, a subject might share information more freely, especially about topics perceived to be taboo by society. This would not only skew the data collected, but it would mean that the human subject was being disrespected from an ethical standpoint, as the data collected would have been obtained through deceit. Additionally, some people may not want to have their personal information and experiences act as part of a body of research, especially if that research were to be published. In that type of situation, it is important to allow human subjects to choose to participate in research or not, as tricking them into it would be a breech of ethical codes.
This question boils down to the idea of consent. Human subjects must be fully aware of the identity of a sociologist and their research process in order to be aware of the full situation and give their informed consent. Informed consent is important because it ensures that human subjects are treated with respect and that those who interact with human subjects are held to high ethical standards.

How do you explain act 5, scene 7, line 55–60, of Macbeth?

There are only 31 lines in scene 7, so I wasn't sure if you meant scene 7 or scene 8. I've told you about both scenes here, because scene 8 is the conclusion of the actions set up in scene 7.
Act 5, the final act of Shakespeare’s Macbeth brings together many of the witches’ predictions from early acts. While some of the earlier scenes are longer, both the pacing and action of Act 5 are much quicker.
To understand scene 7, you must first remember the witches three statements in Act 4, scene 1. There, the three witches warned Macbeth to “beware the Thane of Fife” and promise him that “ne of woman born Shall harm” him. He hires murderers to kill the Thane of Fife’s family (he only is able to kill his wife and son) and is confident that he is safe, since naturally all people are born from a woman. The witches conclude their prophecy by telling him that his rule as king is safe because “Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill.” Macbeth doesn't think that an entire forest can move, so he takes the witches at their word and continues his plan for power.
As Act 5 unfolds, things start to unravel for Macbeth. The Thane of Fife has convinced Malcolm to return from England with an army to fight for his right to the throne, and Lady Macbeth has committed suicide. In scene 7, Macbeth is trapped at the castle as the army closes in: "they have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly." However, he remains confident that he will be safe, quoting the prophecies to himself. The scene begins as he kills Young Siward who challenges Macbeth to a fight, but Macbeth again reminds the audience that he cannot be killed.

Thou wast born of woman / But swords I smile at, weapons laugh to scorn, / Brandish'd by man that's of a woman born.

As Macbeth exits, MacDuff (the Thane of Fife) arrives and demands Macbeth fight him. MacDuff wants revenge for the murder of his family.
In scene 8, everything makes sense at last. In this last scene, we learn that the witches' prophecy was correct: no one who was born naturally could hurt Macbeth. However, the witches have a loophole. The Thane of Fife was born early through a caesarean section and thus poses a threat to the king:

Despair thy charm; / And let the angel whom thou still hast served / Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother's womb / Untimely ripp'd.

In act 5, scene 8, MacDuff kills Macbeth and greets Malcom as the new king in lines 55–60.

Macduff. Hail, King! for so thou art. Behold where stands Th’ usurper’s cursèd head. The time is free. I see thee compassed with thy kingdom’s pearl, That speak my salutation in their minds, Whose voices I desire aloud with mine.

This is MacDuff officially formally recognizing Malcolm as the new King of Scotland and announcing that Macbeth, a usurper because he stole power from Malcolm's family, is dead. He recognizes that the people of Scotland have rallied behind Malcolm, and that they all agree he is the rightful next king for them.

How does the writer convey a sense of seperation in the poem "Breakfast" by Jacques Prévert?

The speaker, who appears to be a woman, describes how the man she is living with, who may or may not be her husband, gets up in the morning, pours his coffee, puts milk in it, and drinks it without saying a word to her. He also smokes a cigarette in the same silent way and puts on his raincoat to leave without saying a word. This description of a silent man going about his business while ignoring the presence of the speaker creates a picture of profound isolation and separation. The two might as well be in different countries for all that the man notices the woman.
The speaker reinforces her sense of separation by repeating the line:

Without any word to me

She states this four times, and then states two times:

Without any look at me

This description and the repeated refrain create a mood of separation and lonely chill. How devastating it must to be in a room with another person who won't acknowledge your presence. The emotional pain of this isolation is brought home in the last three lines of the poem, in which the speaker writes

And I buried My face in my handsAnd I cried

How is racism used in The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux? Cite specific quotes from the novel.

In the novel, racism is used to demonstrate a main theme: how a biased worldview can distort reality in one's mind.
The story is narrated by Charlie Fox but dominated by Allie "Father" Fox, a scientist and iconoclast who despises what America has become. Allie is sick of commercialism, pornographic entertainment, cheap imported goods, and society's obsession with technology. However, he is also a racist, xenophobe, and misanthrope. This is a man who calls Central American immigrants "savages." In short, Allie loathes America and wants to leave it altogether. He believes that his family needs to reject civilization and return to living off the land. So, he moves his entire family (a wife and four children) to Honduras.
There, he buys the deed to Jeronimo, a remote town on the coast of La Cieba. More than anything, Allie wants to prove a point. He thinks that he can make Honduras a better place to live and that he can save the native "savages" from a life of continued degradation.
However, Allie's altruism is subsumed by his inherently racist and biased worldview. Throughout the novel, Charlie gives us an account of his father's genius. Allie is a world-class inventor who wastes little time in modernizing Jeronimo. Ironically, despite his hatred of all the accoutrements that come with civilization, he revels in his prized inventions: the Fat Boy, the Self-Sealing Tank, and the Metal Muscle.
In the novel, the author shows that Allie's supposed altruism is actually motivated by his inherent racism. As the novel progresses, his sanctimonious attitude leads him to the edge of megalomania:

Father went on to say that savagery was seeing and not believing you could do it yourself and that was a fearful condition. The man who saw a bird and made it into a god, because he could not imagine flying himself, was a savage of the most basic kind. There were tribes of people who did not have the sense to build huts. They went around naked and caught double-pneumonia. And yet, they lived in the same neighborhood as birds that made nests and jackrabbits that dug holes. So, these people were savages of utter worthlessness who did not have the imagination to come in out of the rain.

Allie thinks that much of civilization is beneath him and his genius. His racist, xenophobic, and misanthropic attitudes originate from his contempt for his fellow human beings. The natives, the Zambus, are fascinated by Allie's ways and his inventions. They work for him and hang on his every word. However, they little comprehend the level of contempt Allie has for them:

This was different from Father's way. He was an innovator. He thought nothing of getting a dozen people to peel wood or dig ditches, and he would not tell them why until he had finished. Then, he would say, "You've just made yourself a permanent enhancement!" Or he would ask them to guess what a particular thing was for (no one so far had guessed what Fat Boy was for), and laugh when they gave him the wrong answer.

Allie's misplaced feelings of superiority eventually lead him to embrace an alternate reality. He comes to believe that he is the "last man left" in America. In Allie's mind, he is the only one who can save America and the rest of civilization. Therefore, he must be the only worthy living thing on earth. Near the end of the novel, Allie's mind continues to unravel. He declares America destroyed and non-existent. In the end, Allie dies a broken, confused, and disillusioned man. So, the author uses racism to highlight how a biased worldview can distort reality in one's mind.

What could the people smell when they got off the transport?

When they exited the train, the people were hit with a barrage of smells. From within the train car smells of a car, overcrowded with people, defecation, urine and even bodily odor. Possibly even the smell of dying and/or decaying people, who did not make it to the final destination. Then the smells of the outdoors, something they have not been able to smell in a long time. The air, the earth, the grass. Then there was the smell from the came itself. The smell of the furnaces, with was a mixture of fire and burning flesh. The smell of over worked, emaciated people. The smell of death, and despair would have hung heavily in the air, as they unloaded from the train.

Eliezer, along with the other Jews of Sighet, has been transported by cattle train to Birkenau, the reception center for the notorious Auschwitz death camp. The journey is long and hard with appalling conditions for everyone on board. What makes it even more unbearable is that one of the Jewish prisoners, Madame Schaechter, goes completely insane, constantly screaming in terror at the visions that torture her rapidly disintegrating mind.
In her nightmarish premonitions, Madame Schaechter sees hellish visions of fire and furnace. It's only when they finally arrive at Birkenau that the other prisoners realize to their horror just how disturbingly accurate Madame Schaechter's premonitions really are. Through the windows of the train, it's possible to see chimneys belching thick clouds of acrid smoke into the atmosphere. All around is the revolting stench of death, the stench of burning flesh coming from the furnaces used for the disposal of dead bodies.

What happens in Canto XII of Dante's Inferno?

Canto XII
Forewarned by Virgil of the horrors to come, Dante and his guide leave the flaming tombs of the arch-Heretics behind them. The path to the first of the lowest circles is incredibly steep. As Dante treads carefully, he compares the rough terrain to the infamous landslides of Marco, a city in northern Italy, near Trent.

"The place where to descend the bank we came
Was alpine, and from what was there, moreover,
Of such a kind that every eye would shun it.
Such as that ruin is which in the flank
Smote, on this side of Trent, the Adige,
Either by earthquake or by failing stay,
For from the mountain's top, from which it moved,
Unto the plain the cliff is shattered so,
Some path 'twould give to him who was above..."

The landing proves even more terrifying than the descent. At the bottom stands the enormous Minotaur, a monster with the head of a bull and the body of a man. The Minotaur spies the invaders and becomes enraged, so much so that he confusedly take his anger out on himself, biting his own arm in fury.
Virgil knows the monster believes that the intruder of his domain to be Theseus, the Duke of Athens (Theseus had slain the Minotaur on Earth). Virgil both rebukes and taunts the beast. He tells him not only to back down, but also that he and Dante are in Hell, in part, to enjoy watching him suffer. Virgil calls out:

“Peradventure
Thou think'st that here may be the Duke of Athens,
Who in the world above brought death to thee?
Get thee gone, beast, for this one cometh not
Instructed by thy sister, but he comes
In order to behold your punishments."

The gibes enrage the monster even more and goes in pursuit of the intruders. Virgil urges Dante out of his stumbling reach, crying,

“Run to the passage;
While he wroth, 'tis well thou shouldst descend."

Having evaded the Minotaur, the travelers’ challenges are far from over. The rubble underfoot is treacherous. Virgil explains to Dante how the upheaval came about. On Virgil’s previous journey into Hell, he witnessed the rapture of the good men who had died prior to Jesus’s salvation of the damned. The force of Christ’s love shook the universe, even to the depths of Hell. Virgil explains:

“... a little
Before His coming who the mighty spoil
Bore off from Dis, in the supernal circle,
Upon all sides the deep and loathsome valley
Trembled so, that I thought the Universe
Was thrilled with love, by which there are who think
The world ofttimes converted into chaos;
And at that moment this primeval crag
Both here and elsewhere made such overthrow.”

As Virgil concludes his story, the pair find themselves at an impasse. They have reached a river of boiling blood; its name is “Phlegethon.” Dante is terrified to see that the banks are thick with an army of centaurs, monsters that are half man, half horse. These guardians are armed with bows and arrows. One of their legion cries out to Virgil, demanding to know:

“Unto what torment
Come ye, who down the hillside are descending?”

Virgil refuses to answer, saying he will only speak to Chiron, the leader of the centaurs. Surrounded by the herd but continuing to move forward, Virgil points out two individuals among the armed sentries: Nessus, and the leader of the pack, Chiron.
The centaur Nessus was slain by Hercules, who, in turn, was killed by the beast’s poisoned blood. Dejanira’s name in Greek means “man destroyer.” Dejanria was Hercules’s wife. Nessus attempted to rape her and was shot by an arrow launched by Heracles in the attempt. As the centaur lay dying, he gave the woman a cloak soaked in his blood. Nessus claimed that the cloak would preserve Dejanira’s love for Heracles; the grieving wife took the garment to her dying husband, but Nessus had deceived her. The blood was poisonous and he died. (In despair, Dejarina hung herself, thereby committing the mortal sin of suicide.)
Chiron, even though he is condemned, has a more laudable reputation. In life, the centaur had been a tutor to both Hercules and Achilles. He acts as the guardian to Circle Seven.
Eyeing the pair as they come closer, Chiron tells his army to watch out for Dante, as the intruder, unlike Virgil, who is a shade, can actually alter the physical environment. Chiron warns:

“Are you ware
That he behind moveth whate'er he touches?
Thus are not wont to do the feet of dead men."

Virgil tells the centaur that Dante indeed is alive. He explains that he and his charge are on a mission from God and asks that Chiron not only allow passage, but also permit one of the herd to accompany them and carry Dante over the river of blood:

"Indeed he lives, and thus alone
Me it behoves to show him the dark valley;
Necessity, and not delight, impels us.
Some one withdrew from singing Halleluja,
Who unto me committed this new office;
No thief is he, nor I a thievish spirit.
But by that virtue through which I am moving
My steps along this savage thoroughfare,
Give us some one of thine, to be with us,
And who may show us where to pass the ford,
And who may carry this one on his back;
For 'tis no spirit that can walk the air."

Chiron understands and selects Nessus to be their emissary through the circle. Dante climbs on the beast’s back. The trio proceed and Nessus points out some of the tormented souls in the boiling river of blood:

"Tyrants are these,
Who dealt in bloodshed and in pillaging.
Here they lament their pitiless mischiefs; here
Is Alexander, and fierce Dionysius
Who upon Sicily brought dolorous years.
That forehead there which has the hair so black
Is Azzolin; and the other who is blond,
Obizzo is of Esti, who, in truth,
Up in the world was by his stepson slain."

All of these men had committed mass acts of violence against entire populations. Alexander is almost definitely Alexander the Great, the military conqueror, whose bloody coup of Persia ousted King Darius III. Dionysus was held in contempt by the ancient philosophers, not only for his bloody murders but also for his thirst for revenge and greed. Azzolin (also known as “Azzolinao” as well as “Ezzelino”) was a feudal Italian lord who was regarded as a cruel tyrant who ruled Verona, Vincenza, and Pauda. Obizzo d’Este is placed in Hell by Dante for his crime of buying a woman from her brother in order to rape her.
Still astride Nessus’s back, the three continue on. They stop in order for centaur to point out Guy de Montfort, who led a rebellion against King Henry III. De Montfort and his brother Simon murdered Henry III at the Church of San Silvestro, taking no mercy on the monarch who clung to the altar and begged for his life. As Dante watches the man’s torment, he realizes that the depth of the river changes in direct correlation to the seriousness of the sinner’s crimes:

"Then people saw I, who from out the river
Lifted their heads and also all the chest;
And many among these I recognised.
Thus ever more and more grew shallower
That blood, so that the feet alone it covered;
And there across the moat our passage was."

Nessus carries Dante across at the lowest point and Virgil follows. The centaur tells the poet that as the river winds lower into the depths of Hell, the waters will become deeper still; in these boiling depths Dante and Virgil will find Attila, Pyrrhus, and Sextus.
Attila (frequently called “Attila the Hun”) was the great enemy of the Roman Empire, plundering the Balkans, and, along with his armies, left a trail of corpses from Persia to France to Rome. Pyrrhus was regarded by Dante (and others) as a tyrant for his bloody battles in opposition to Rome. For his part, Sextus, or “Sextus Pompey,” is the son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, (also known as “Pompey the Great"). Sextus is condemned to Hell’s Seventh Circle for his opposition to the Second Triumvirate, the political alliance between Augustus (who had once been known as “Octavian”), Marc Antony, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.
Now safely across, Nessus takes his leave of Virgil and Dante. The poets carry on alone.

What did professor Linda Heywood make Ta-Nehisi Coates rethink about romanticism in Between the World and Me?

Between the World and Me explores the author's growing awareness to the ways in which racial prejudice are deeply and systemically ingrained in society, and this book is Coates's elucidation of that experience, which he's sharing with his son.
While in Professor Heywood's class, Coates had the experience of realizing the story of Queen Nzinga, which he had held in high esteem and viewed with a kind of pride, is still about power dynamics and control of bodies. He comes to this lockturn moment when his professor matter-of-factly describes the "servant" on whom the queen sat while negotiating, and it makes Coates think about the way the state controls black bodies, too, and what he has in common with the servant, as a black man in America.
For Coates, it's a moment that shatters the illusion of romanticism that he'd previously assigned to the legend, referring to the story of Queen Nzinga as "my Tolstoy," meaning a work of emotional intensity and cultural pride that deals with the large themes of life. Coates realizes that systems of exploitative power are pervasive throughout history, and he ponders this idea in conjunction with learning more about the dehumanization of human beings.

When the Boffins are trying to adopt a child, are children being treated almost like commodities and materials?

Our Mutual Friend is a novel written by famed English writer and social critic Charles Dickens. It is the author’s fourteenth and last completed novel, and it was published as a monthly serial of nineteen installments, from May 1864 to November 1865. Because of Dickens’s heavy criticism of the socio-economic and political climate of Victorian English society, the novel is also considered a social satire.
Having grown up poor and underprivileged, Dickens often used his past experiences as an inspiration for many of his novels. He had a tough childhood, and his struggles greatly influenced his moral and political views. Thus, he grew up to be a fervent advocate for children’ rights and happiness. In Our Mutual Friend, Dickens describes the children, especially the orphans and those living in poverty, as financial “stock” and “merchandise.” He purposely uses a satirical rhetoric that is quite similar to economic language to showcase the unfair treatment of children and the consequences of penury and indigence.
In the First Book, titled “The Cup and the Leap,” we meet the newly rich and naive Mr. and Mrs. Boffin. They have no children of their own and wish to adopt a little boy and name him Johnny, in honor of John Harmon—the main protagonist of the story, who is wrongly presumed dead. Thus, they visit Reverend Frank Milvey and his wife, Margaretta, who, apparently, have orphans in “stock.” The entire conversation is led as if it’s a business transaction.

“We have orphans, I know,” pursued Mr. Milvey, quite with the air as if he might have added, ‘in stock,’ and quite as anxiously as if there were great competition in the business and he were afraid of losing an order, “over at the clay-pits; but they are employed by relations or friends, and I am afraid it would come at last to a transaction in the way of barter. And even if you exchanged blankets for the child—or books and firing—it would be impossible to prevent their being turned into liquor.”

By objectifying the children and presenting the orphans as commodities and material goods to be sold and bought, Dickens wants to metaphorically pinpoint how little value was given to a child’s life in Victorian England, especially the life of an orphan who is slightly older, “squints too much,” or has troublesome relatives—in other words, a child that has unfortunately been branded “imperfect.” Essentially, with his clever metaphors and analogies, Dickens wants to showcase Victorian society’s tendency to put a price on human emotions and human lives.

Either an eligible orphan was of the wrong sex (which almost always happened) or was too old, or too young, or too sickly, or too dirty, or too much accustomed to the streets, or too likely to run away; or, it was found impossible to complete the philanthropic transaction without buying the orphan. For, the instant it became known that anybody wanted the orphan, up started some affectionate relative of the orphan who put a price upon the orphan’s head. The suddenness of an orphan’s rise in the market was not to be paralleled by the maddest records of the Stock Exchange.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/883/883-h/883-h.htm

What is the dramatic significance of good angel and evil angel in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus?

The Good Angel and the Evil Angel in Marlowe's Dr Faustus are physical manifestations of the good and evil impulses that battle for supremacy in Faustus's conscience. Bringing the two competing sides of Faustus's conscience alive in the form of the two angels makes the dramatic tension between them more palpable and more dramatically explicit. It is easier for an audience to empathize with and invest in a battle between two anthropomorphized angels than it is for an audience to empathize with and invest in a battle between two abstract concepts.
The angels are also dramatically significant in that they create suspense for the audience. We wonder which angel will prove the stronger influence upon Faustus, and we wonder which will be proven correct as regards Faustus' fate. The Good Angel tells him repeatedly that it is never too late to repent, whereas the Evil Angel promises that devils will tear him to pieces if he ever does repent. The Good Angel warns Faustus that his transgressive pride will bring "God's heavy wrath upon (his) head," whereas the Evil Angel encourages Faustus to enjoy his powers and "Be . . . on earth as Jove is in the sky." Faustus is constantly pulled back and forth between the two angels, and from this battle, much of the play's dramatic tension derives—and also much of its suspense.

Provide an analysis of Brently Mallard.

It is a nice literary touch that has Brently Mallard supposedly killed in a train accident. It not only triggers all of his wife's repressed emotions, but it shows the great difference between men and women in those days. Brently is free to come and go as he pleases. He can travel all over the United States and see new sights, meet new people, eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and generally enjoy a more interesting, meaningful life. Meanwhile, Louise Mallard his wife is confined to a house where she follows the same routine she will be following for the rest of her life. She is a domestic slave even when her husband is away from home. She is only expected to be there when he gets back. For an hour Louise feels "free," but as a woman her freedom would still be far less unrestricted than that enjoyed by men. Mainly, she would be free to discover her own personal identity. She would not be free to travel, for example, because she would have no place to go in a man's world and no particular reason for going anywhere. Money, of course, would be a major concern. It does not seem likely that she would want to marry again--but she soon learns that she doesn't have that option anyway. Brently Mallard appears only momentarily at the end of the story. When his wife sees him still alive, she realizes that her dreams of freedom will never be realized.

Some one was opening the front door with a latchkey. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little travel-stained, composedly carrying his grip-sack and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of the accident, and did not even know there had been one. He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richards' quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife.
When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease--of the joy that kills.

Why is the heart of the happy prince unable to be melted?

“The Happy Prince” tells of a royal man who was sheltered from all the world’s cares while he was alive, which led him to believe he was happy. What he had was a life of unspoiled pleasure, so he could not develop a true sense of what happiness meant. Now that his life has ended and he is trapped in statue form, he can see the world around him but cannot independently act upon it. The swallow becomes his emissary, dispensing the material elements of wealth—jewels and gold—that adorn the outside of his statue form. Inside it, his heart will not melt because it is made of lead. In the end, it cracks in two at the moment of the swallow’s death.

What is the historical background?

Carlos Fuentes (1928-2012) was an extremely important Mexican diplomat and literary figure, author of many novels, plays, and essays. Many of his works are influenced by Marxism, and a concern for the poor and oppressed. Las buenas conciencias (which translates into English as The Good Conscience) was first published in Spanish in 1959 and addressed the issues of urbanization and the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) and the ensuing adaptations in moral values to the new social environment.

What was the Second Red Scare? How and why did it grow so quickly? How did it affect the politics and society of the United States during the 1950s?

The Second Red Scare was a hysteria that led people to believe that communists had infiltrated the media and government. One of its primary leaders was Joseph McCarthy, who claimed to have information on several Washington communists. He was an important member of the House Un-American Activities Committee who investigated several organizations for having communist ties.
There were also investigations of Hollywood screenwriters who were accused of being communists. Many of them "pleaded the fifth" and would not incriminate others. By doing this, they were considered guilty even though they were exercising a constitutional right. The "Hollywood Ten" were a collection of screenwriters who were sent to prison and blacklisted from ever working in Hollywood again. Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in 1953; while the play depicts the events of the Salem witch trials, the mounting hysteria and public accusations that surrounded the event closely parallel what happened in the Second Red Scare (which, in itself, was called a "witch hunt").
There were fears of Soviet takeover after WWII. US military officials claimed that it would take the Soviets at least twenty years to develop an atomic bomb. However, the Soviets—with the help of American spies and captured German scientists—dropped their first atomic bomb in 1949. The Rosenbergs were famously put on trial for selling secrets to the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, China, a recent American ally in the war against Japan, had recently become communist. It was becoming increasingly clear that the Soviet Union was going to be a permanent fixture in Eastern Europe.
The Second Red Scare grew as people became more afraid of Soviet takeover. Movies and magazines also fed into this; Time magazine placed McCarthy on its cover in 1954 at the height of his power. It was not until Eisenhower publicly confronted McCarthy that he was finally discredited. McCarthy never revealed information about specific communists. While there would be continuing suspicion of anything that looked like leftist thoughts throughout the Cold War, by the 1960s, the Second Red Scare was largely over.
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19540308,00.html

https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/huac

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/10/21/why-i-wrote-the-crucible

What is Mrs. Granger's battle cry?

Mrs. Granger's famous battle cry, one that all her students past and present know all too well, is "Look it up! That's why we have the dictionary." Mrs. Granger teaches her class that words gain their meaning from how we use them. That inspires the mischievous Nick to use a completely made-up word (the "frindle" of the title). But of course that's not what Mrs. Granger means at all, as Nick knows full well.
Words and their meanings evolve and develop over time, gradually entering into daily use. Mrs. Granger regards the dictionary not as a book of laws and rules that govern our language, but rather as a record of the words we use to describe the world around us. So when someone wants to find out the origin or meaning of a word in everyday use, they need to look it up in a dictionary, because that's what the dictionary is there for, as she asserts.

Please describe three moments in which the other Wes Moore made a decision that changed his life.

Confrontation with Tony
When Tony comes home in 1990 and sees a tower of Nike sneakers in Wes's room, he asks him where he got the money. Wes lies, saying that he's been DJing. Tony knows the truth; he beats Wes and walks out. He's furious that his brother chose to sell drugs and pursue a life of crime after all his warnings for Wes not to do so. It's the last time that Tony ever tries to talk to Wes about "the drug game" and the end of him hoping for a better life for his brother.
Soon after, his mother investigates and finds out he's been selling drugs.
Shooting Ray
Wes is taking a girl home when Ray starts yelling at her for being with a black man. Soon, he attacks Wes. He beats him. He gets inside and decides to escalate; he reaches for his Beretta and trades shots with Ray. Ray falls. The police come to pick Wes up soon after he gets home, cleans up, and hides the gun.
Because he's tried in juvenile court and because Ray survives, he only spends six months locked up.
Selling to an Undercover Cop
Wes isn't sure he should sell to the man who uses the wrong lingo. However, he's in a hurry and wants to make the sale, so he changes his mind after refusing him. When the man hands him the money, he sees that the nails are smooth and clean. This is a sign that the man is a cop.
He tries to get away but ends up being arrested again.

Are African Americans entitled to reparations? Why or why not?

Many politicians have proposed reparations for the descendants of slaves, arguing that African Americans continue to face inequality as a result of slavery. This inequality extends to African Americans' economic, social, and political rights and situation. Proponents of reparations also point out that American society continues to be plagued by racism and lack of complete integration. Many proponents of reparations believe that African Americans should receive checks from the federal government, while others believe that reparation payments should take other forms. Opponents of reparations have suggested that African Americans are better off pursuing greater equality by using the law instead of receiving checks from the government. There is no doubt, however, that payments to African Americans would help rectify the financial inequality that African Americans have long faced as a result of having fewer educational and job opportunities.

From your point of view, to what extent were historical European imperialists justified in their attempts to change people from other countries?

It is important to remember that European imperialism was not merely about overtaking other countries, but also about exploiting a land's natural resources for profit without returning any of that revenue to the people native to the land, or to the former slaves left behind. This exploitation often resulted in economic devastation. For example, some islands in the Caribbean have been left more vulnerable to natural disaster due to deforestation that made way for sugar and cocoa plantations. In their belief that they were racially and culturally superior, Europeans not only imposed their language and standards of living, but also abused and murdered people from native populations. European men raped women in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Oceania with impunity.
However, your question asks us to play devil's advocate and consider imperialism from the point of view of those who sought, in Rudyard Kipling's words, to "take up the white man's burden"—that is, to provide "civilization" where Europeans perceived none. One must first ask, what did Europeans consider to be "civilization"? The definition may have varied, depending on the conquering nation.
France and Great Britain were Europe's most successful conquerors. Though Spain and Portugal were the world's first conquerors, their empires were less extensive and were not maintained for as long as those of France and Britain. The French began to seize islands in the Greater Antilles in the 1600s, during the reign of Louis XIV. Guadeloupe was among the first. The French maintained colonies in the Americas, North and West Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia until the 1960s. In fact, they still have territories in the Caribbean, including Guadeloupe and Martinique. The British also began to colonize in the 1600s. English colonists established Jamestown, which was a failure, in 1607. The British maintained islands in the Caribbean, like the French, for its very lucrative sugar trade. Barbados was key for the cultivation and trade of sugar. The British also colonized Oceania and had a presence in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and were responsible for drawing the borders that later formed Iraq. However, India was Britain's most important colony. Due to the expense of maintaining India after the Second World War, the British quickly relinquished power in 1947.
The French believed that "less civilized" people would benefit from learning the French language, which was, and remains, a source of great national pride. France also introduced aspects of their national diet. For example, the Vietnamese sandwich banh mi is made with a baguette. The British built infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Though some might say that such an effect demonstrates that imperialism was a good thing, the British did not build such structures for the benefit of the locals; they did so to help the colonizers and businesspeople who had settled there to move goods and people more easily and quickly.
The colonizers brought other forms of technology and modernization as they became available, such as railroads, electricity, automobiles, plumbing in favor of well water, and airports. The French introduced their mode of architecture. A traveler who goes to Vietnam or Cambodia today will see numerous houses and buildings in a neoclassical or Haussmannian style, some in great condition and others in disrepair, built by the French in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Based on this information, it is for you to decide if the Europeans helped or hurt other people with imperialism, or if their actions were both helpful and hurtful. It is also worthwhile to consider the long-term economic benefits of imperialism in Europe versus the nearly indomitable poverty in many nations that were colonized.

Consider the incident in Just Mercy where Stevenson's car was searched illegally by the police. Do you think the officers acted appropriately? Should Stevenson have been more assertive?

One night, Bryan Stevenson's sitting in his car in front of an apartment complex in a run-down neighborhood of Atlanta. He's not doing anyone any harm or breaking any laws, he's just minding his own business, listening to music. All of a sudden, he's surrounded by several police officers, one of whom points a gun at him. The officers then proceed to conduct an illegal search of Stevenson's car, which makes him feel embarrassed, hurt, and angry.
I would argue that the police officers in this case did not act appropriately. The police are supposed to uphold the law, not violate it. And yet violating the law is precisely what they did by conducting an illegal search of Bryan's car. It's more than likely that they were motivated by racial prejudice, treating Bryan the same way as they've treated countless other young African American men just like him.
As for Bryan's reaction, well he could've been more assertive, perhaps, but we can only really say that with the benefit of hindsight. And besides, the cops who searched his car had guns, and Bryan was most probably worried that he'd end up being shot if he'd been more assertive. As Bryan knows all too well, a disturbingly high number of unarmed African American men are shot by the police each year, and for obvious reasons, he didn't want to become another statistic. So instead of being more assertive at the time of his ordeal, he went through a formal complaints procedure later.

What does the reader learn about Caesar's, Cassius's, and Brutus's characters throughout act 1? Give your points with quotes.

From his initial appearance, we learn that Caesar is a superstitious man. He wants his infertile wife, Calpurnia, to be touched by Antony, since the belief is that the touch of a ceremonial figure can cure sterility. However, this seems to be a circumstantial belief for Caesar, since he ignores the warning of the soothsayer to "beware the ides of March." He dismisses the soothsayer with a curt judgement: "He is a dreamer; let us leave him:—pass" (1.2.24). He also speaks in the third person (using the "royal we"), showing that he has a high view of himself.
Cassius's first major dialogue shows his interest in Brutus and his crafty ways. He comes off like someone looking for an opening, trying to find the best way to win Brutus to his case. He is also observant. We understand this from when he says to Brutus,

And, since you know you cannot see yourselfSo well as by reflection, I, your glass,Will modestly discover you to yourself.(1.2.67–69)

Cassius intends to use his observances to his own advantage, and he is successful when he convinces Brutus that the right thing to do is kill Caesar. He is a sneaky and keen-brained fellow.
Brutus's troubled character reveals itself quickly as well. When Cassius observes that Brutus hasn't seemed himself lately, Brutus says,

Be not deceived; if I have veil'd my look,I turn the trouble of my countenanceMerely upon myself. (1.2.37–39)

This shows that he is a man with high standards in all things, but mostly for himself. He is a noble figure, and that is the biggest thing the audience takes away about him in this initial appearance.

In line 5 of "Porphyria's Lover," how does the speaker feel? Why do you think this is?

In the fifth line of the poem, "I listened with heart fit to break," the speaker seems to be feeling something like despair or near hopelessness. Perhaps he is afraid that Porphyria, his lover, will not show up as a result of the rain or for some darker reason (for example, she later reveals that though she loves the speaker, there are some other responsibilities or obligations that prevent her from being able to commit to a relationship with him).
The speaker listens to the storm and wind outside as he awaits the arrival of Porphyria, and he does not seem optimistic that she will arrive. Then, when she does, he all but ignores her until she reveals her shoulders and lets down her long, blond hair. Finally, when she tells the speaker that she loves him but cannot stay with him, he strangles her with her own hair in order to keep her by his side.

What "singular coincidence" does Helen refer to in chapter 1?

The "singular coincidence" of which Helen speaks in chapter 1 is that one of her ancestors was the first teacher of the deaf in the Swiss city of Zurich. What's interesting here is that he became a pioneer in deaf education in much the same way that Helen's companion Annie Sullivan blazed a trail in relation to educating the blind. It was Annie who memorably helped Helen to establish a connection between herself and the world around her through the power of touch.
Even more remarkable is the fact that Helen's parents were introduced to Annie through the good offices of Alexander Graham Bell, the famous inventor of the telephone, and himself a pioneer in the field of deaf education. It's truly a happy coincidence that the Keller name has been linked with not one, but two trailblazers in the field of deaf education, living in two different eras in two separate countries.

In the first chapter of her memoir, Helen Keller briefly talks about her ancestors. She notes that one, a Swiss man, was the first to teach the deaf in Zurich, Switzerland, and that he also wrote a book on educating the deaf. To her mind, this is a "singular coincidence," because Keller herself ended up deaf and blind, and progressive methods of education for people with these disabilities made a huge difference in her life. Keller says of her ancestor,

One of my Swiss ancestors was the first teacher of the deaf in Zurich and wrote a book on the subject of their education—rather a singular coincidence . . .

She also notes, a bit wryly, that everyone has notable and not-so-notable figures among their ancestors, as if to hint that she doesn't want to make too much out of those who came before her. Primarily, she hopes in her memoir to focus on what happened in her own life that made a difference and to show that it is possible to overcome heavy obstacles.

Why does Summer sit beside August at lunch?

Summer answers this question in part 3, which is on page 119 of my copy of this book. She admits that she sat with him on the first day because she felt sorry for him. She realized that with his strange face, this boy was in even more need of a friend than most new kids.
As Summer got to know August, she stopped sitting with him because she felt sorry for him, but continued to sit with him because she thought he was good company. She discusses how August is not like the other kids in the fifth grade who suddenly consider themselves too busy play games, preferring to "hang out" and "talk" over recess.
Summer proves her loyalty to August at Savanna's Halloween party, when she leaves after Savanna tells her that her chances of being popular and part of the "in crowd" would improve dramatically if she stopped hanging out with August.

It's Auggie's first day at school, and he's understandably very nervous about it. He's going to try and get through the day by keeping his head down so that the other kids don't gawk at his facial disfigurement. At lunchtime, though, that's not possible, and Auggie feels distinctly uncomfortable with all the other kids staring at him.
Thankfully, Summer's on hand to make Auggie feel a little better. She comes over to sit next to him and strikes up a conversation. Summer just sees a strange-looking kid in a brand-new school who looks like he needs a friend. She's naturally a mature, empathetic, caring young lady with an unwavering commitment to doing the right thing. It's also possible that Summer has developed more sensitivity and understanding than other kids her age, due to the death of her father.

What significance do names and their nuances have in The Bonesetter’s Daughter? Why is it so important that Ruth discover her family’s true name? When Ruth discovers what her own name means, how does that realization change her relationship with LuLing?

Names take on significance in Amy Tan’s novels. In The Bonesetter’s Daughter, one important name is that of Precious Auntie. She is referred to as both Bao Mu and Bao Bomu. Each name carries a very different connotation which connects to Precious Auntie’s relationship with her daughter, Lu Ling. Bao can mean “precious” or “protect.” Mu by itself means “mother.” Yet, when the two words are placed together, Bao Mu signifies a nursemaid or babysitter. Gao Ling tells Ruth that everyone called Precious Auntie Bao Mu. She was indeed a protective mother, one who was precious only to Lu Ling, even before her daughter discovered her true identity. Yet, sadly her station was not of mother but of nursemaid to her own daughter. However, Lu Ling called her mother Bao Bomu. The word bomu means “auntie” so it also represents the family’s deception in designating Lu Ling’s real mother to be her aunt or nursemaid. Thus, Precious Auntie’s names are tragically ironic.
Throughout the novel, Lu Ling is unable to remember her mother’s family name. When Lu Ling says the family name is Gu, Ruth believes she is mistaken because the word means “bone.” She thinks Lu Ling is confusing people and events from her past. However, Gao Ling confirms the name and explains that it can actually mean several things—bone, gorge, old, blind, thigh, grain, merchant, or character. Gao Ling intimates that the word “character” is closest to its true meaning. “That’s why we use that expression ‘It’s in your bones.’ It means, ‘That’s your character.’” Gao Ling explains Ruth’s grandmother’s first name was Liu Xin. Ruth thinks it means “shooting star” but her aunt explains it really means “remain true.”
Ruth’s epiphany begins with her conversation with Gao Ling. She realizes that the Chinese language is quite rich, not limited as she had always thought. She thinks of a sentence to represent the word and the past: “The blind bone doctor from the gorge repaired the thigh of the old grain merchant.” Ruth gains a new respect for her mother; she recognizes that Lu Ling has actually been telling her about her grandmother and their family, but she has not been truly listening. Ruth cries because she proudly realizes she belongs to this family. Character is shaped by connection to one’s family.
Heritage becomes important to Ruth now. She keeps a picture of her grandmother on her desk and uses the past to see the present. She finds her voice and begins to write her family’s story. “It is for her grandmother, for herself, for the little girl who became her mother.”

The clearest example of the importance of names in The Bonesetter's Daughter is LuLing trying to remember her mother's name. She knows that her mother told her—she even remembers the conversation—but the name itself eludes her. This haunts her and keeps her from being able to move on. The novel also opens when LuLing is in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's or dementia. This is representative of her lifelong difficulty with memory, beginning with her mother's name.
At the end of the novel, the name is discovered, but it is not as important as it was in the beginning. Ruth knowing her mother's history, repairing her relationship with Art, moving LuLing into an assisted living home, and introducing LuLing to Mr. Tang all have a more tangible impact than the discovery of the long-lost family name.
Just as LuLing's mother communicates through her signs and actions instead of words, Ruth's understanding and the steps she takes to help her mother do more than any name ever could.

Names in The Bonesetter's Daughter have a connection to the person's heritage and true self. LuLing wants to know the name of her mother—the woman she knows only as the Bonesetter's Daughter—and to better understand her past. Ruth wants to know her family's true name so that she can experience the connection with her heritage that she's been denied; when she finally learns her name and the history associated with it, she's able to better understand her mother, LuLing, and be more at peace with her and with herself.
LuLing grows up not knowing that Precious Auntie is her true mother. She only knows that her mother was the Bonesetter's Daughter. Precious Auntie shows LuLing her true family name when she is six, but she can't remember it as an adult and regrets the loss. She calls her mother "Gu" to Ruth, but Ruth realizes it means "bone" and thinks it's a reference to LuLing's mother's family's profession. However, near the end, Ruth learns that "Gu" can have other meanings. GaoLing explains that:

"It sounds the same as the bone gu, but it's written a different way. The third-tone gu can mean many things: 'old,' 'gorge,' 'bone,' also 'thigh,' 'blind,' 'grain,' 'merchant,' lots of things. And the way 'bone' is written can also stand for 'character.' That's why we use that expression 'It's in your bones.' It means, 'That's your character.'"

They also find out that Ruth's grandmother's full name was Gu Liu Xin. As soon as she hears it, Ruth understands that her grandmother existed and that she, LuLing, and Lui Xin all belong to each other.
Ruth also doesn't understand her true name until it is revealed to her at the end of the novel. Amy Tan writes,

Ruth was amazed and gratified that her mother had put so much heart into naming her. For most of her childhood, she had hated both her American and her Chinese names, the old-fashioned sound of "Ruth," which her mother could not even pronounce, and the way "Luyi" sounded like the name of a boy, a boxer, or a bully.

This deeper understanding helps her make peace with both her mother and her Chinese heritage. Caring for her aging and ailing mother no longer seems like the burden it did to Ruth at the beginning of the novel.

What is the setting of Becoming by Michelle Obama?

Becoming, the first book written by former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama, covers a multitude of different settings. Her book covers much of her life but focuses primarily on the early years of her marriage to former US president Barack Obama.
She writes much about her childhood and growing up on the South Side of Chicago, so this is one of the main settings in the book. Her hometown is where she grew up with her brother and parents and helped shape her into the person she is today.
Not only was Chicago the setting for her childhood, it was also the setting for the early years of her marriage and motherhood. As such, various settings within the South Side of Chicago are part of Obama's account of her schooling and career.
Michelle Obama spent time at both Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey, for her higher education. As such, these places are also settings in her book.
In Becoming, Michelle discusses the lessons she has learned throughout her life in the context of the places she has lived—alone, with her family, and with her husband.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38746485-becoming

How was World War II related to religion?

World War II was related to religion insofar as one of the main protagonists, Nazi Germany, was hell-bent on wiping out the entire Jewish population of Europe. This is not say that the Nazis' genocide was motivated by religion; their warped ideology was steeped in cultural and biological racism. Furthermore, the Nazis regarded Judaism as not just a religion, but a race.
Even so, Judaism was and is a religion, and it suffered appallingly during World War II. It's been estimated that the pre-war Jewish population of Europe was somewhere in the region of 9 million. Yet by the end of the war, that number had declined significantly due to the Holocaust, in which over 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.

What is the theme, tone, mood, and diction in the poem "Letter From a Contract Worker"?

The poem “Letter From a Contract Worker” by Antonio Jacinto presents a fairly straightforward subject matter, which we can use to determine the underlying theme(s). A poem's subject is often described as the topic or simply put, what the poem is about. In this case, we have an obvious love poem, written by a man forced to leave his lover in order to find work, most likely as an itinerant worker. This is evidenced by lines 45-48, where Jacinto's character describes his workplace among the orchards and exotic beasts, where he appears to be far from home, expressed metaphorically in line 50 as "the wind should lose it on the way," referring to his "letter."
So now that we have our subject matter, we can explore the themes in a more in-depth way. On the surface, the poem is about a man yearning to be reunited with his love. If we look closer, we can see that the primary theme behind that idea is the pain of separation. Clearly, the man is miserable and worried about his lady forgetting their precious time together. He worries that she will go on about her life an forget him, while he aches for her daily as he toils. He worries that his work will overshadow his personal life, but that he has no choice in the matter. He also worries that others in her life will persuade her to move on without him. The other notable theme is the cruelty of fate, and how it plays a part in their separation.
Tone and mood are often used together where the author's purpose is to create an emotional experience for the reader. Jacinto expresses several moods: sorrow, passion, frustration, heartbreak, and pessimistic. Overall, the man writing the letter does not seem very hopeful that he will be reunited with his love. The tone of a poem refers to the author's feelings about the subject matter. In this poem, the author seems to portray a sense of pity for the man who finds himself in this difficult situation. He does not give a neat and tidy resolution to the problem, so it appears that the author feels this is a common predicament that men such as this find themselves in.
The diction of this poem leans towards conversational, yet is not something we would necessarily find in a typical love letter. The words in the poem are very visual and convey sensory experiences through rhythm. An example of this is found in the fifth stanza, in the following lines:
"from song to songlament to lamentgabble to gabble"

In his poem “Letter From a Contract Writer,” Antonio Jacinto assumes the persona of a lovesick laborer who is working far away from home—and the woman he adores.
Diction is defined as word choice. The connotations of the words in all but the last stanza of the poem are romantic or sexual. The speaker uses words like “desire,” “yearning,” “intimate,” “caresses,” “passion,” and “hot.” All of these suggest the speaker’s lust for his lover.
The diction of the poem establishes an admiring, passionate tone as the speaker compares his lover’s features to various things he finds beautiful.
Mood, which is how the author intends readers to feel, is created through tone. Readers are supposed to be swept up in the speaker’s passion, wishing he could be reunited with the woman he figuratively worships. One could say the mood is wistful.
To determine the theme, or underlying message, it is important to note the changes in tone and mood that come in the last stanza. The speaker repeats the word “why” to express his frustration at not being able to write the letter he has heretofore described. He uses exclamation points and dashes to indicate an agitated feeling. When the speaker reveals that he can’t write and his lover can’t read, the reader feels the speaker’s agony over his unexpressed emotions.
Theme in this poem could relate to either language or education. Since the title of the poem emphasizes the speaker’s impoverished working-class identity, I will focus on the education theme. Jacinto comments on how limited access to education prevents people from expressing themselves to the world. The speaker’s inability to write down everything he feels is the fault of a lacking education. Yet, the speaker is clearly a creative, intelligent individual who has something to offer the world. This shows that limiting one’s education limits one’s ability to be who one truly is.

Who is the character of Major Metcalf in the play The Mousetrap? What are some examples from his dialogue and body language that show his characterization? What is his intention in the play, and what are his relationships to each character?

Agatha Christie's classic who-done-it, The Mousetrap, is celebrating its 67th year (eight months shy of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II) of being the longest-running play in the world, with over 27,500 performances to date.
Major Metcalf is first mentioned by Mrs. Boyle, who she's left in charge of the luggage she left outside Monkswell Manor in a blizzard. The first thing we learn about Major Metcalf is that he's extremely accommodating.
As he enters Monkswell Manor in act 1, scene 1, Major Metcalf is described by the playwright in the stage notes as "a middle-aged, square-shouldered man, very military in his manner and bearing."
On his entrance we see that he's amiable, polite, and respectful of women. He removes his hat for Mrs. Boyle, even though she left him in the blizzard with her luggage. He remarks that he hasn't seen this kind of weather "since I was on leave in nineteen-forty," which give us another hint about his military background.
A quick exchange between Giles and Major Metcalf seems to confirm his military history.

GILES: (authoritatively) Major!
MAJOR METCALF: (instinctively the soldier) Sir!

In scene 2, Major Metcalf is on the sofa in the main room reading a book, and Mrs. Boyle is sitting in an armchair writing a letter. Mrs. Boyle is complaining bitterly about everything, including the breakfast, the lunch, and the fact she wasn't given the best bedroom.
Major Metcalf does his best to look on the bright side of things, but Mrs. Boyle's pessimism eventually wears him down, and he takes the first opportunity to get away from her, even if the opportunity is to shovel snow away from the back door.

MAJOR METCALF: I'll give you a hand, what? Good exercise. Must have exercise.

When he returns to the others, he learns that the police have been summoned, shortly after Paravicini dropped the poker in the fireplace, startling Major Metcalf, who, according to the stage notes, "stands a though paralyzed." This might be a hint as to a lingering effect of Major Metcalf's wartime experience.
Later in the scene, a policeman, Sergeant Trotter, arrives. He says he's been sent to investigate "the Longridge farm case," and he questions everyone at the Manor about the case.

MAJOR METCALF: ... Read about the case in the papers at the time. I was stationed in Edinburgh then. No personal knowledge.

Without knowing much about the case, or so he says, Major Metcalf accuses Mrs. Boyle of being the magistrate who sent three children to a foster home at Longridge Farms, where they were abused and one child died. Mrs. Boyle admits that she was the magistrate, but she denies she did anything wrong and argues that she was simply doing her duty.
Mrs. Boyle is found dead, murdered, at the end of act 1.
In act 2, Major Metcalf tries to be helpful to Sergeant Trotter's investigation of Mrs. Boyle's murder, but his efforts seem to serve little purpose. In fact, suspicion for the murder falls on Major Metcalf for a time, but he holds up well under the pressure.
In due time, the murderer is revealed, as is Major Metcalf's true identity.

MAJOR METCALF: ...I've had my suspicions about him [the murderer] all along.
MOLLIE: You did? Didn't you believe he was a policeman?
MAJOR METCALF: I knew he wasn't a policeman. You see, Mrs. Ralston, I'm a policeman.

Major Metcalf explains his suspicions, how the Longridge Farm incident relates to Mrs Boyle's murderer, and how he discovered who the murderer was.

Major Metcalf's intention throughout the play is to investigate. He investigates the other people trapped in the house to figure out who's committing the murders. In each scene, his intention is to discover the truth.
Major Metcalf appears as a traditional English gentleman. He is first seen sitting on a couch and reading a book, and he seems like a positive person: he is happy with the breakfast he's eaten that morning and explains that his wife made it all herself. While Mrs. Boyle complains about the food, Major Metcalf finds things to compliment about it.
He's quick to help and volunteers to shovel snow, saying that he needs the exercise. He's kind when he comforts Christopher. He smokes a pipe. His only relationship with the characters in the play is that of a detective to the suspects, the victims, and the murderer. He's friendly to everyone and easy to get along with.
He is startled by things like the loud sound a poker makes when it drops. He is also loud when he's surprised or incredulous, like when calling the police is suggested and he asks again, a few moments later, why the police are coming. (He knows that he's the police officer who's supposed to be there and that Trotter, the man who appears, isn't with the police.)
Major Metcalf leaves the room often, and that appears suspicious. However, he's actually investigating the case; he's the police detective trying to figure out who's committing the murders. He uses chores as excuses to leave and investigate. This can be seen throughout as he subtly questions people with direct statements about their actions. We can also observe this in the way he moves around a room—like a detective interviewing a witness. He's often up, down, and navigating around the room.