Why did the city of Birmingham close all of its parks, swimming pools, playgrounds, and golf courses in 1962?

In 1961, a federal court decreed that Birmingham, Alabama, was acting unconstitutionally by racially segregating its public spaces and ordered the city to integrate all of those spaces.
Rather than enforce the court's ruling, Bull Connor (Birmingham's infamous city commissioner of public spaces) decided instead to close sixty-seven parks, six swimming pools, thirty-eight playgrounds, and four golf courses. He had the holes on the golf courses filled with cement and was even prepared to sell Birmingham's public spaces to private individuals rather than enforce racial integration. Bull Connor said that the majority of people in Birmingham did not want integration and argued that to enforce integration would exacerbate relations between Birmingham's black and white citizens.
Ironically—and rather satisfyingly—Bull Connor's unashamed racism actually contributed, indirectly, to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Television footage of fire hoses and attack dogs being directed against civil rights activists in Birmingham (on Bull's orders) helped to highlight the vicious racism in many parts of the country and, in turn, galvanized the civil rights movement to achieve major legal changes.

Can someone please explain what this excerpt from Edmund Burke's "Of the Effects of Tragedy" means? I believe that this notion of our having a simple pain in the reality, yet a delight in the representation, arises from hence, that we do not sufficiently distinguish what we would by no means choose to do, from what we should be eager enough to see if it was once done. What does he mean by "simple pain" in the first line? And what kind of representation is he talking about? Does he mean artificial tragedy?

I think in order to understand what Burke is saying in this section, we need to look at it in context. Just before this quotation, Burke gives an example to illustrate how the power of imagined, or fictional, tragedy is different from that of a tragedy actually occurring in the real world. He suggests we imagine a day on which a "sublime and affecting" tragedy—meaning a play—is being performed by excellent actors, at great cost. However, he says, imagine that just when the audience is about to behold the spectacle, they are told that a high-profile criminal is about to be executed in the square next door. Burke suggests that everyone would flee the theatre in order to watch the execution, because although the "imitative arts" are powerful, our "real sympathy" is reserved for real events, and this is a different sensation.
Burke then says that this illustrates why we might have "a simple pain in the reality, yet a delight in the representation." He means that there are certain things which, if we were forced to think about them, or choose to do them, we would find painful, such as the idea of killing a person. However, when these things happen anyway, we are "eager enough" to witness them. This is why we like watching tragedies. We are not really able to distinguish in our minds between things we'd never do ourselves and things we'd never do ourselves but would still have a strange delight in witnessing if they were happening nearby. He goes on to say that he thinks nobody is so "strangely wicked" that they'd actually want to see something beautiful destroyed but that if something like that had happened, people would crowd to see it.
We like tragedy, essentially, even though we'd never wish these things to happen to people ourselves. There is still a strange power in watching them.
By "representation," here, Burke doesn't mean artificial tragedy as such—he doesn't really make a distinction between artificial and real tragedy. He means "when the thing actually happens," that is, when it is represented in the real world, on stage or off, rather than simply in our minds.

How do I understand Song: To Celia?

In this poem, the speaker is addressing his beloved. She does not return his love. In fact, we learn in the second stanza that she returned a wreath of roses he sent her; she clearly intends to communicate that she is not interested in him.
The narrator, however, is desperately in love and cannot give up on Celia. In the first stanza, he asks her for very little—he would like only for their eyes to meet in an understanding way, and he doesn't need a real kiss from her. He only asks that she leave a kiss for him on a "cup" of wine. He is, in other words, willing to accept a spiritual relationship if that is all he can get. However, when it comes to the divine, he gladly would trade "Jove's" (Zeus's) nectar for her physical sweetness.
In the second stanza, the speaker insists that the rosy wreath Celia returned to him does not wither but, instead, blossoms from her sweet scent having been breathed on it. The wreath is therefore a symbol of their relationship and, according to the speaker, is radiating "hope."
In sum, this is a poem of unrequited love, in which the speaker is doing his best to elicit any response from his beloved that might keep them in some sort of relationship.

It may seem surprising that such a simple poem could cause difficulties in trying to understand it, yet it seems to do just that on at least two or three points. In such a case, it is best to begin with an overview of the poem. It is also good to keep in mind that this poem was not original to Jonson: He borrowed the ideas from a love letter written by ancient Greek writer Philostratus, either the Philostratus of Athens or the one of Lemnos; which one wrote the love letter is not known.
In "To Celia," the poetic speaker is trying, so far unsuccessfully, to sway his lady love to share his feelings. It is evident that she as yet does not love the speaker because she immediately returns the rose wreath token of love spoken of in stanza two; she does not keep it. She does not love him. The theme of this poem, then, is unrequited love. The poem, with an inclusive "And" beginning the second and fourth lines, is an attempt to win the lady to his heart.

Drink to me only with thine eyes, And I will pledge with mine;Or leave a kiss but in the cup, And I’ll not look for wine.

We don't have any indication in this poem of its effectiveness, but we can identify the ploys the speaker uses to try to win the lady's love. Remember that in the courtly love fashion of Jonson's day, poetic extravagance was a ploy used to express love and to win love. Edmund Spenser used the same means to try to win Elizabeth Boyle as his beloved during the same era. To understand this poem, we'll start with a slight prose paraphrase.
SLIGHT PROSE PARAPHRASE
Please do you drink to me only with your eyes, AND I will pledge my love to you with mine. Or, if you wish, place a kiss in the cup that you hold, and, giving it to me, I will not look for wine to drink: I will have your true love elixir to drink. The thirst that does rise from my soul, asks a drink divine to quench it, BUT, if I were offered Jove's immortalizing nectar to sip, I would reject it and cling to your divine though mortal elixir of love.
I sent you lately a wreath of roses that, while honoring your beauty and sweetness, I promised a hope that in your hands they would live and not wither. BUT you kept them not: you breathed on them only and sent them directly back to me. Since returning to me, the wreath of roses grows, and smells, I swear it to be true, not of its own nature but because of thy breath upon it (it will not withered be because you breathed upon it).
THE POEM ANALYZED
The two conjunctions, "and" and "but" play a pivotal role is sorting out the ideas Jonson presents in compressed poetic form. It is good to remember that "and" is used to connect ideas that are meant to be understood jointly, while "but" introduces a contrasting idea that opposes what has already been stated. "And" joins ideas while "but" sets up opposition between ideas.
Jonson develops, firstly, an elaborate love trope in which love--both hers and his--is compared to a quenching drink, then, secondly, a breath trope in which her breath is compared to the source of life.
The setting is not given so may be one of a few possible scenarios. (1) They may be at a public gathering where direct communication might be difficult. When cups are raised to drink, he hopes that she will drink to him with her eyes to reveal to him her love. (2) On the other hand, they may be at a gathering where speaking directly is quite possible; he may be standing near her speaking to her. (3) It's also possible that, at one of these types of gathering, he is following courtly fashion by playing a lute or other string instrument and singing to her.
He needs only a sign from her eyes to encourage him to plight, or pledge, his love and troth to her. To pledge is to commit to a solemn promise. He is suggesting that she but drink to his love with her eyes--make a toast, as it were, to his love with her eyes--AND then he will pledge with a solemn promise his undying love for her.
To transition to the greater idea that her love is the drink that quenches his soul's desire, he invites her to leave a kiss in the cup that she holds and he will not look or ask for wine to fill his cup with. Related to setting, whether the cup gets back to him somehow is not stated, but perhaps this makes a case for them speaking face-to-face. Nonetheless, since his speech is all metaphor and at one with courtly love fashion, he could still be imagined as being distant from and singing to her or as being across a banquet table speaking to her.
He explains himself by saying that the thirst of his soul for her love needs not wine to quench it but needs a "drink divine." BUT, it needs only her divine drink of love elixir to quench it, because, even if the god Jove were to offer him the nectar that is for immortals, all else is inadequate for quenching his soul's thirst. To quench his soul's thirst he must have only her love, her eyes and her kisses.
In the second stanza, the poetic trope changes to one of life giving breath.
He sent her a wreath of roses as a love token and to honor her beauty, though, since roses can't compare to her beauty, he promised the roses that in her care they could not wither.
She received the rose wreath BUT did not accept it. She kept it only long enough for her breath to fall on it and sent it straight beck to the speaker as a sign of her rejection of his love. Now we know why he is so earnest in describing the depth of his love to her: she has rejected him. Undaunted, he claims that since the roses have returned to him, they live and grow under the sweet influence of her life-giving breath.
He began with her eyes as a sign of her love, then posited her kisses as the elixir of her love. Now he is asserting that even her breath gives the gift of her love, if even only to the roses and not to him.

How did England's state affect William Blake?

Blake lived from 1757 to 1827. During that time, England was the most powerful empire on the planet. They defeated the French first during the Seven Years' War, and then they fought Napoleon during another series of wars for most of Blake's life. England also lost the American colonies and witnessed the nearby French Revolution. It was a nation ruled by commerce, but also with a strong series of passionate religious movements. The official state church was the Church of England. but there were also Puritans, Anabaptists, Methodists, Quakers, and many other English Dissenters, which included Blake's parents.
All these had a great influence on Blake and on his art, writing, poetry, and beliefs. Blake was inspired and then disillusioned by the American and French Revolutions. Blake was anti-war and anti-elite. It has even been argued that Blake was an early anarchist. He was opposed to organized religion and strongly rejected some forms of marriage and most restrictions on human sexuality. Despite these unique views, he passionately believed in God and constructed his own theology.

Why did Spain become intolerant towards the Jewish and Muslim religions from the 14th century until the 16th century?

There are numerous reasons for Spain's intolerance towards these groups during this period. Both Jews and Muslims were widely viewed as enemies of the state. This view enabled the Spanish monarchy to strengthen its power and crush opposition. Antisemitism has a long history—both in Spain and elsewhere—and it became particularly virulent during this period. Antipathy towards the Muslims dated back to the Crusades, which began in 1095. Another reason for the brutal suppression of these groups was the tyrannical tenure of Tomas de Torquemada (1420–1498) as the Grand Inquisitor of Spain.
Between the 11th and 14th centuries, Christian Europe was preoccupied with the Crusades. The goal was to retake the Holy Land from its Muslim occupiers. In the end, the Christians failed. The hostility between Christians and Muslims did not end with the Crusades, however. The centuries-long Crusades inculcated religious intolerance in Christian Europe. War against Muslims continued both in Eastern Europe and in Spain. In fact, the war against Muslims in Spain did not end until 1492.
Muslims had lived in and ruled southern Spain for centuries prior to 1492. For centuries, they had lived in harmony with both Christians and Jews. Remnants of the once-vibrant Muslim presence are evident in places like Alhambra, a fortress and palace in southern Spain. As Christians gained ascendancy on the Iberian Peninsula, religious tolerance declined. The beginning of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 was the death knell of the Muslims and Jews.
Antisemitism predated the onset of the Spanish Inquisition. The Jewish community had thrived and prospered in Spain for centuries in spite of intermittent outbursts of antisemitism. In 1391, there was a pogrom in Spain, and Jews were pressured to convert to Christianity: baptism or death. Those Jews who converted became known as conversos. Even conversos were widely viewed with distrust by the authorities.
Muslims, too, had to convert or suffer the consequences. By 1500, there were few practicing Muslims left in Spain.
This era of intolerance and rising Spanish power set the scene for Torquemada. He became confessor and adviser to Spain's rulers in 1483. His power was immense, and torture was widely practiced. He persuaded Spain's government to expel all Jews in 1492. Many were killed in what amounted to a genocide. Property of the accused was seized. Torquemada was so vicious that the Pope tried to restrain him.
The persecution of Muslims and Jews is a sad and tragic chapter in Spain's long history.

Explain metaphors and personifications.

Metaphor and personification are forms of figurative language. You will see both used frequently in poetry and prose when the author is attempting to create an evocative image to help convey his or her point, or to describe something. Personification is, in fact, a subset of metaphor, but is usually identified separately in literary analysis.
A metaphor is a comparative figure of speech in which something is described as if it were something else—not like something else, as in a simile, but simply something else. So, for example:
a) Simile: The moon was like a round cheese in the sky.
b) Metaphor: The round cheese of the moon was a pale yellow.
In both the simile and the metaphor, as you can see, the same comparison is made, but the metaphor only implies the comparison, rather than making it explicit.
In personification, something which is not animate, or incapable of having thoughts or feelings, is given human attributes and motivations. We might personify death, for example, or time—abstract concepts. Or, to continue on our theme, we might personify the moon.
The easiest way to spot personification is often when the author has used "his" and "her" instead of "its" (e.g., Death took up his scythe). But there are subtler forms of personification, too. If we say that the moon was laughing down at us, this is personification of the moon, which cannot really laugh. It is laughing metaphorically. Laughter is something we associate with humans. Therefore, this is an example of personification, which is itself a type of metaphor.
To sum up: personification and metaphor are connected, but while personification is a type of metaphor, not all metaphor is personification.

How are individual and collective human experiences presented in George Orwell's novel 1984? The answer needs to be supported by textual evidence and analysis of literary techniques used in quotations from the book.

One could argue that the chief factors governing both individual and collective experience in 1984 are the emotions of uncertainty, terror, and hopeless isolation. When Winston begins his diary, his realization is that "the thing he was about to do was not illegal . . . nothing was illegal, for there were no longer any laws." The reader's reaction to this is often one of surprise, because our assumptions might be that the obvious feature of a totalitarian world is that activities we take for granted are forbidden and therefore against the law. But in Oceania, "law" is a concept made obsolete. If nothing is explicitly defined as right or wrong, then everything is suspect and everything is dangerous. The power of a totalitarian regime is completely arbitrary, so one is kept in a state of uncertainty and terror about one's actions. The individual is isolated totally, unable to communicate a sense of this terror to anyone else.
But what in the text describes Winston's reactions to this fact? From all the interior monologues of Winston's thoughts, if I had to select one excerpt, it would be his crucial observation about Syme. Winston, perhaps ironically, likes Syme and enjoys his company, though Syme's thinking is completely "orthodox" with respect to the Party line. "Unquestionably," Winston tells himself, "Syme will be vaporized." Syme is too intelligent; he sees things too clearly, and the Party gets rid of such people. On the other hand, Parsons is also orthodox, but in an unintelligent way. "That bloody fool," Winston senses as the subtext of Syme's observation in the canteen: "Here comes Parsons." When Parsons is arrested, Winston is astonished, and in Parsons's blurting out "Thoughtcrime!" as the reason the police have picked him up (Parsons is "almost blubbering" as he speaks), Winston realizes that no one is safe in this world, even a simple, harmless, and dimwitted man like Parsons.
Each of the above quotes and episodes illustrates the terror that is exercised by the Party and forms the core of the individual's life. And in Orwell's prose there is a uniformly quiet, matter-of-fact tone that is sustained throughout. Orwell's description of Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon as a novel with a "grownup" quality, lacking "surprise or denunciation," is true of much of his own writing. Winston knows from the beginning that he is doomed, that he, and then Julia as well, will ultimately be destroyed by their defiance of the Party. The narrative style corresponds to the hopelessness of their circumstances.
And yet, the "collective" experience of people, as Winston observes it, is described as if "the masses" are completely subservient and have not the slightest sense of how appalling their world has become. When Winston is attending a rally and the speaker suddenly declares that Eastasia is the enemy and Eurasia the ally—and that this has always been so, contrary to what Winston knows to be the facts—the crowd does not even react, does not seem to notice that anything is wrong or has changed. And what is curious, Winston observes, is that the speaker makes this shift in his announcement without any interruption, without blinking an eye. Winston himself does not react overtly either, of course. We are told at the start of the scene that Winston "was participating in a demonstration." He plays his role as part of the herd in the same way everyone else does. Yet, with the exception of Julia, Winston is mentally cut off from every person in the world. In spite of his awareness that he's doomed, his heart still leaps at the meeting with O'Brien in his flat: His excited "They had done it!" then becomes more pathetic in retrospect when the truth about O'Brien is revealed. In the holding cell after he is arrested, when O'Brien appears, Winston cries, "They got you too!" to which O'Brien responds, "They got me a long time ago, Winston." To me this has always seemed one of the most horrifying and yet poignant moments in the story. The bottom has dropped out, and Winston's position is emblematic of the individual's complete powerlessness in that one instant. But it is almost as if O'Brien is a victim too, as the ironic but seemingly rueful description he gives of himself reveals.

What is a summary of "The Mother" from ¡Yo!

"The Mother" tells the story of immigration from an unnamed Latin American island to the United States. Because of the author's background—she is a Dominican author who grew up in New York, who often draws upon her own experience for her work—we can reasonably guess that the story is set in the Dominican Republic.
The narrator of the story describes her challenge with the English language, saying that only fools would speak such a confusing language. She goes on to say that each member of the family has had a unique experience, finding their greatest challenges in different aspects of adjusting to American life.
She describes how her family lived as a clan—not only the "nuclear family," but also the extended family living together as a support system for each other, no matter how tumultuous.
She reflects upon a trick that she played on her family when they lived on the island that she called "putting on the bear."
The narrator owns a fur coat given to her by her mother. One day, she decides to wear the coat and tell her children that she is a bear from the North Pole that Santa sent to visit them. However, the plan goes awry when the children are terrified upon seeing their mother in the coat, and later tell their mother that they saw the Haitian bogeyman "El cuco."
She starts to use the trick to encourage her children to behave because each time, they are equally as terrified. Eventually, she hopes that they realize that she is not actually "El cuco," but the trick lasts quite a while.
Her most precocious child, Yo, is the one who finally realizes that her mother is not "El cuco," but is a woman in a fur coat. The mother realizes that Yo has been rummaging through her and her husband's closet. The mother sees a gun and asks her husband in a panic to get rid of it. He agrees to move it to a different location, wraps it in the fur coat, and puts it in his car.
Later, the mother asks Yo if she saw anything interesting in the closet, but Yo does not recall a gun. The mother begins to feel overwhelmed by everything—the English language, the trauma her husband has experienced, and especially the arguing of her children.
She resorts to locking them in closets when they are whining and fighting, for a short amount of time. Yo tells her teacher stories about being locked in the closet after she is locked up with the mink coat that had once terrified her and that her mother had promised she would never see again.
A social worker visits their home, and the mother takes a Valium in the hopes of impressing her. She and the social worker have a discussion about the challenging conditions on the island, and the social worker is sympathetic to their experience. She tells the mother about how Yo has been telling disturbing stories about bears mauling children and about being locked in closets.
In the end, the social worker gives them a positive review, and Yo's mother looks to the future.

How is Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar ironic?

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare gives his audience a masterful lesson in the variations of irony in literature. The plot is rich in situational irony, and scene after scene illustrates the effectiveness of dramatic irony. In Antony’s funeral oration, the power of verbal irony is manifested as he contemptuously praises Brutus and the conspirators again and again as “honorable men,” turning the Roman citizenry into a mindless mob set on vengeance.
Just as life is filled with ironic situations and outcomes, so is the play. Brutus must commit dishonorable acts in order to preserve his honor. Caesar can defeat his enemies on the battlefield, but he fails to recognize his greatest enemy—his own ego. He trusts most those he should trust least, and he rebuffs those whose advice would have saved his life. Cassius cleverly manipulates Brutus into joining the conspiracy and then discovers he is powerless to manipulate or even influence Brutus after Brutus commits to murdering Caesar. Cassius believes the conspiracy cannot succeed without Brutus, only to be destroyed by Brutus’s disastrous decisions. Instead of preserving freedom in Rome, Caesar’s assassination creates civil war and a political power vacuum that is filled by an ambitious, self-serving Antony.
Since the audience already knows how Caesar died and who killed him in 44 B.C., the entire play is infused with dramatic irony. In two particular scenes, the dramatic irony is developed at length, emphasizing the deception of those caught up in the political intrigue of Caesar’s assassination and its aftermath. In Act II, Scene ii, when the conspirators come to Caesar’s house to escort him to the Senate, the audience, knowing their intent, watches as they play on his ego and ambition and as he finally succumbs to their manipulation. Preparing to leave for the Capitol, Caesar, in good humor, tells the conspirator Trebonius to stay near him in the Senate. “Caesar, I will,” Trebonius replies,” adding in a chilling, ironic aside, “And so near will I be / That your best friends shall wish I had been further.” After Caesar’s murder, the audience knows Antony’s hidden rage and his secret intent to “let slip the dogs of war” to avenge Caesar’s death. Thus the drama in Act III, Scene i, when Antony shakes the bloody hands of the conspirators and receives permission to speak at Caesar’s funeral, is intensified.
Driven out of Rome into Greece and battling the armies of Antony and his ally Octavius, Brutus and Cassius endure a final—and fatal—irony, each committing suicide in the mistaken belief that they have lost the war. The final irony in the play, however, is reserved for the victorious Antony and Octavius. Standing over Brutus’s body, Antony praises the character of the conspirator he once hated, and Octavius declares that the virtuous Brutus will be afforded the “respect and rites of burial” that an honorable soldier deserves.

Discuss Shylock's dramatic function in The Merchant of Venice.

Despite Shakespeare's iconic greatness as a dramatist and poet, in his comedies, especially, he used the same stereotypes and stock characters that were part of the popular consciousness of his time. On one level, in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock functions simply as a villain for the crowd can jeer at. He is the principal antagonist of the play, and the main conflict that drives the plot stems from the problem Antonio has in paying back the loan Shylock has made to him. Unfortunately, Shakespeare depicts Shylock in a manner that employs typical anti-Semitic stereotypes, just as Marlowe portrays the title character of The Jew of Malta.
That said, the ironic thing about the depiction of Shylock is that it is ambivalent. One could even argue that it is sympathetic, to a degree. This is where Shakespeare, as in other factors, rises above his contemporaries. He clearly portrays Shylock as a victim, despite Shylock's "villainy" in wanting to extract the "pound of flesh" from Antonio. If anything, the message that comes through, at least as strongly as negative stereotyping, is that of the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Christians toward Shylock and toward Jews in general. The famous "I am a Jew" monologue is as clear a statement as possible about the injustice of religious and ethnic bigotry. Nevertheless, the play sends mixed signals, as the other characters rejoice in Shylock's defeat at the end.

What are Soapy's crimes?

He has a good dinner at a fancy restaurant and doesn't pay for it. We get the impression that Soapy's done this before as he seems to know exactly how the scam works. (Or should work, at any rate). The idea is that, when he doesn't pay for the meal, the waiters will call for the police, he'll be arrested, go before a judge, and then—voila!—he'll be sent to a nice warm prison cell for the winter. But the head waiter takes one look at Soapy's shabby clothes and shoes and turns him out the door before he's had a chance to sit down;
Soapy throw a big stone through a shop window. Surely, a cop must arrest him now! But when an officer of the law turns up, he flat-out refuses to believe that Soapy could've broken the window. After all, criminals who break windows tend to run off straight away; what they don't do is hang around and wait for the cops to arrive;
Soapy tries to pull the restaurant scam again. This time, he's able to get his foot in the door and has himself a slap-up meal. But even after Soapy tells the waiters he doesn't have any money, they still don't call the cops; they simply throw him out into the street;
Then Soapy tries a different tack. He approaches a young woman browsing at a shop window display. The plan is that she'll get spooked by what she thinks is a weirdo and complain to the beat cop standing nearby. But instead of running off, the woman‚ much to Soapy's exasperation, takes his arm and smiles. It's not spelled out explicitly, but the suggestion is that the woman is a prostitute who's glad to have found another customer;
Soapy's getting increasingly desperate now, but with the winter coming on, he can't give up his quest for a warm place to sleep just yet. So outside a theater he starts shouting and hollering, pretending to be drunk. But the cops still won't lay a glove of him. They ignore him, thinking he's just a harmless college kid in high spirits;
Finally, Soapy steals a man's umbrella. But we get the impression that the man stole it himself and so naturally doesn't want to get the police involved. So he walks off, leaving Soapy angry and dejected. His plan seems to have failed, miserably.

Soapy commits (or tries to commit) several non-violent crimes in his attempt to be sent to jail on Blackwell's Island for the winter. First, he tries to eat a meal at an expensive restaurant (though he cannot pay for it), but he is thrown out by the waitstaff. Then, he throws a brick through the window of a shop on 6th Avenue, but a cop does not think Soapy did it. He later eats at a less expensive restaurant and cannot pay for it, but the waiters just throw him out of the place. He attempts to speak to a young woman, thinking she will call the cops, but she just takes his arm.
Later, he yells outside a theater and tries to swipe a man's umbrella, but the man and admits that he had found the umbrella in morning in a restaurant and hurries away. Ironically, Soapy is arrested when he is standing outside the light of an old church, loitering only to make the decision to change his ways forever.

O. Henry wanted to have Soapy commit a series of petty crimes in the hope of getting arrested and sentenced to spend the harsh winter months in jail. The author saw that these petty crimes would need to have variety in order to keep the reader interested. Soapy could not just keep going into restaurants and then revealing he could not pay for what he had eaten and drunk. One of the things that makes "The Cop and the Anthem" interesting is the variety of misdemeanors Soapy either commits or attempts to commit.
First he goes into an expensive restaurant intending to order the best the place has to offer. O. Henry itemizes Soapy's prospective banquet in order to characterize both the man and the establishment. "A roasted mallard duck, thought Soapy, would be about the thing—with a bottle of Chablis, and then Camembert, a demitasse and a cigar. One dollar for the cigar would be enough." But the head waiter escorts him out after seeing the condition of his shoes and trousers.
Next Soapy throws a cobblestone through a plate-glass window and stands waiting for a policeman to respond to the crash. But the cop who arrives on the scene will not believe that the culprit would still be standing at the scene of the crime.
Next Soapy goes into another restaurant "of no great pretensions," where his clothing will not prevent him from being seated and served. "At a table he sat and consumed beefsteak, flapjacks, doughnuts and pie. And then to the waiter he betrayed the fact that the minutest coin and himself were strangers." But instead of having him arrested, two waiters toss him out onto the sidewalk.
Then Soapy pretends to be a "masher" with a cop standing only a short distance away. Soapy probably expects to get arrested for disorderly conduct or possibly even assault, but the young woman he approaches turns out to be a prostitute, although O. Henry probably never used that word in print. The young woman walks off with Soapy as if they are old friends, and he has failed for a fourth time to get arrested. He could hardly have gone into another restaurant after gorging on beefsteak, donuts, flapjacks, and pie. O. Henry specifies that Soapy consumes four heavy items in order to make it understandable to the reader that Soapy would have to give up his restaurant trick for at least long enough to digest what he had consumed.
Soapy decides to go solo on his next attempt at getting arrested. "On the sidewalk Soapy began to yell drunken gibberish at the top of his harsh voice. He danced, howled, raved and otherwise disturbed the welkin." But the cop who observes his performance decides that he is a college boy celebrating a football victory and leaves him alone. The reader may wonder how Soapy has managed to get himself arrested over the past years. Has he tried all these tricks before? Does he have other tricks up his sleeve?
As his last attempt at fulfilling his goal of getting arrested immediately, Soapy steals an umbrella right in front of the umbrella's owner—but it turns out that the owner had stolen the umbrella himself and was afraid to call the policeman who was standing right on the corner.
Not only is there variety in Soapy's crimes and attempted crimes, but there is a sharp contrast between the comical tone of the first part of the story and the ironic tone of the end. Irony is usually like something that would be funny if it were not painful or sad or even tragic. Soapy was funny at first, but he becomes pathetic when he remembers his better days and then gets carted off to jail for loitering and vagrancy.
Soapy will be released in a few months, but winter will come around again. If he has lost some of his former jauntiness and bravado, he might end up having to spend next winter out of doors, in which case he could be found frozen to death on his park bench in Madison Square.

Who is Dane in The Thorn Birds most like in A Thousand Splendid Suns—Maryam or Tariq?

Dane O'Neill is the illegitimate son of Meggie and Ralph, the priest. He strongly resembles his father, with whom Meggie is desperately in love, and because of this resemblance, Meggie cares for and adores him above her other children. Unfortunately, because of his origin, he does not have a close relationship with his biological father until Ralph comes to visit, once Dane is several years old.
He shares some superficial similarities to Maryam in A Thousand Splendid Suns, the most prominent of which is that they are both born out of wedlock. Their parentage is a fact that is concealed from them, and eventually from others, because it is considered shameful. However, aside from these similarities, there is little in common between the characters. Maryam is cold and uncaring toward most of the other people in the novel (until after the rise of the Taliban and her eventual murder of her husband to save Laila). She does not enjoy a close relationship with either of her parents. Dane, however, is adored by his mother and eventually enjoys a companionship with his birth father, going so far as to follow his footsteps into ministry.
Tariq is a neighbor of Laila's who is closer to his family and enjoys a level of affection that the others in the story do not get to see. Tariq is gravely injured while working in the mines at a young age. While their parentage and some aspects of their lives do not coincide, Dane has a similar personality and attitude to Tariq—they are both caring and are loved by their families. They both fall victim to serious injuries—Tariq loses his leg to a landmine and Dane drowns in the Mediterranean Sea—but they also both end up with joy in their lives (however short Dane's ends up being). Dane is able to enter ministry and follow his passion for serving God and people prior to his early demise, and Tariq is eventually able to marry the woman he loves and helps her rebuild an orphanage and start a family.

What are the similarities and differences between Laura Wingfield of the Glass Menagerie and Hester Prynne of The Scarlet Letter?

This is an answer for which, at first view, one might think we'd have to drive our analogies rather too forcefully in order to draw a true connection. In The Glass Menagerie, Laura is a sheltered young woman, kept out of contact with others and disabled. Hester Prynne, by contrast, is the proverbial "fallen woman" of the old patriarchal system of judgment. Not only has she had a child out of wedlock, but from the very first, we can see it as a deliberate defiance of the system, in the (apparently) proud and elaborate way she had sewn the "A" on her dress.
The similarity between Laura and Hester, however, is that both are outcasts. A girl living at home, isolated and destined to become a "spinster," was judged and marginalized in a way not altogether differently from a woman who violated the sexual codes of those earlier times. Both women are the Other, in outwardly opposite ways which paradoxically merge into the same position unfairly judged by society.
Williams based the character of Laura to some extent on his own sister, who was diagnosed with a mental disorder. There is something eerily similar in the exclusion of Hester from Puritan society, as if "lapses" with regard to the moral code of that time were treated as a kind of mental illness. Both Hawthorne and Williams are making a statement about the especially unfortunate status of women who are judged for being different from what is expected of them.

Story telling and modern society: comparing between Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" and Virginia Woolf's "The Mark on the Wall".

One important method of storytelling amongst modernist writers like Woolf and Kafka is their use of stream of consciousness narration. Many modernist writers wished to capture the world precisely as human beings perceive it: through tiny details that overwhelm an incessantly wandering mind. Humans typically do not think like the traditional narrators in books. We do not sequence thoughts in an organized and chronological order, but rather allow them to pass through us, regardless of whether not they are related or even make sense. As such, modernist society concerned itself with portraying the world accurately as we perceive it — along with all the fear, anxiety and confusion that comes along with it.
For example, in Kafka's The Metamorphosis, the main protagonist wakes up as an insect. Instead of proceeding with an action induced narrative, Kafka makes Gregor, now in bug form, learn the difficulties and pain of his new way of life in real time. Similarly, Woolf's short story The Mark on the Wall does not feature much regarding the discernible action. Instead, the narrator has an unhealthy fixation with what a spot on the wall is. We follow their mind as it hypothesizes different possibilities, which then leads their mind to thoughts of society and politics, quite removed from the original topic.
So, one way these stories both comment on modern society is their use of their main character's personal pain, rather than joint, collective pain. We can guess at the trials that others in these character's universe are going through, but, through the curse of personal subjectivity, we can only know our pain. What do the two endings of stories have in common? What type of anxiety do they represent?

Who moved west in the latter half of the nineteenth-century and why?

During the latter half of the nineteenth-century millions of settlers moved out West. Primarily, they wanted to make new lives for themselves. The conquest of the West had made available vast tracts of fertile farmland, inspiring millions to live out the dream as independent homesteaders with a plot of land to call their very own.
Back East, towns and cities were becoming dangerously overcrowded due to rapid industrialization, which had accelerated in the late nineteenth-century. Although the industrial economy had generated considerable wealth and new jobs, it had also created numerous social problems such as crime, poverty, and disease. Many urban-dwellers were recent immigrants who'd come to the United States in search of a better life. But for most of them, dreams of making it big in America quickly turned sour, and so they increasingly looked to the West to make their fortune. As well as abundant farmland, the West also offered potential settlers new career opportunities. New industries quickly sprung up, encouraged by the rapid growth of the railroad network. As such, during the late nineteenth-century, the West became a place where people could achieve what they no longer could back East.

What literary devices are used in "What You Pawn I Will Redeem"?

Jackson Jackson, the protagonist in Sherman Alexie’s story, states that “we Indians are great storytellers and liars and mythmakers.” To support this claim, he uses literary devices to paint a vivid story about his quest to attain his grandmother’s regalia, which he finds in a pawn shop. One of these devices includes anecdotal flashbacks, wherein Jackson recalls the stories his grandmother used to tell about her life. However, there are also many sentence-level devices that serve to illustrate Jackson's personality and outlook on life.
Jackson, an alcoholic Indian in Seattle, briefly describes his life leading up to the actual events of the story: “I didn’t break hearts into pieces overnight. I broke them slowly and carefully.” Alexie uses hyperbole, likening the failure of a romance to a literal broken heart, to establish Jackson as an honest narrator with a rough background. The narrator’s sense of humor shows through in the line “bought three bottles of imagination,” in which he substitutes the euphemism “imagination” for “whiskey.” This line shows the attachment Jackson has to alcohol and signals to readers that this story deals heavily with the alcoholism plaguing Indian communities. Jackson later confirms that “Indian alcoholics are either sprinters or marathoners.” This metaphor comparing alcoholics to highly trained athletes suggests that the people in the story view alcohol not just as a pastime but rather as something dominating their thoughts and actions.
Jackson uses another hyperbole when he states that his friend Rose of Sharon “is a big woman, about seven feet tall if you’re measuring over-all effect and about five feet tall if you’re only talking about the physical.” Although five feet and seven feet are two very different heights, Jackson views his friend as a strong-willed woman, and/or perhaps someone with a large personality, which in his mind warrants the label of “seven feet tall.” We can guess that Jackson judges people more on personalities than on appearances. However, the next few lines contradict this assumption, for Jackson explains that his other friend Junior “gets me jealous, jealous, and jealous” because “He’s got those great big cheekbones that are like planets, you know, with little moons orbiting them.” Jackson admires Junior’s appearance so much that he uses a simile to compare his cheekbones to planets, which are mysterious, beautiful, and unattainable. His repetition of the word “jealous” mimics jealousy itself, an emotion that causes us to think about something or someone over and over again.
In keeping with this theme of admiration and longing, Jackson says, “I love the smell of ocean water. Salt always smells like memory.” The setting of Alexie’s story is centered not on the pawn shop, but rather near the ocean on the wharfs of Seattle. Jackson uses a simile to compare the smell of the ocean to a memory, so he must have a fond relationship with the ocean. Perhaps Alexie keeps this association vague, avoiding what type of “memory” the narrator is referring to, in order to emphasize the symptom of memory loss in alcoholics. Near the end of the story, when getting his grandmother’s regalia back seems impossible, Jackson uses another ocean-related simile when he states that “that pawnshop seemed to have sailed away like a ghost ship.” Since some of the Indians in this story view ships as an escape from their misery, this comparison (along with the modifier "ghost") emphasizes Jackson's feeling of loss.

What are the themes of "The Human Abstract"?

“The Human Abstract,” which William Blake offered as a satiric counterpart to “The Divine Image” in Songs of Experience, critiques virtues such as mercy, peace, and love. Rejecting the notion of these divine qualities, Blake instead focuses on the theme of self-interest as a motivation for behavior. He shows that truly good, moral behavior is all-too-easily corrupted by false incentives to action. The theme of human intent dominates his exposition of the endorsement of virtues: man, not the gods, is the source of such behaviors.
The specific themes that he analyses by following this line of thought include peace versus war. Peace, Blake proposes, is not a natural occurence; humans will it into existence through their fear of war. A related theme is the human capacity for self-deception. In our desperate need to believe that our actions are properly motivated, we humans invent divine inspiration for actions that, when scrutinized, prove to be morally indefensible.

How does Steinbeck's description of the life under the sea differ from that of life on land in The Pearl?

In The Pearl, the land is generally the realm of concrete fact and the undersea a world of possibility. On land, John Steinbeck describes many settings in detail, which gives the reader a solid sense of such things as Kino’s and Juana’s living situation. With small details, such as Kino watching the ants dig traps and fall into them, the author both gives an impression of how Kino approaches life and offers metaphors for the human condition. Outside their home as well, specific items fill out the image of their world, such as the domestic chickens contrasted to the wild doves. This type of detail is used in describing the town as they walk through it and the doctor’s much fancier house.
Under the sea, the author also provides details, but the atmosphere is different because only natural things are described. There is an aura of mystery and uncertainty, accompanied by Kino’s hopes and anxiety that are expressed through his song. While diving, Kino always hears “the Song of the Pearl That Might Be, for every shell thrown in the basket might contain a pearl.”

Which groups were missing in the Constitution? How does this reveal a contradiction in this document?

There really are very few specific identity groups, as we would think about them today, mentioned in the original Constitution, and none are mentioned extensively. Even enslaved African Americans were only mentioned euphemistically as "other persons" (in the notorious 3/5 compromise), a "person held to service or labor" in the Fugitive Slave Clause, and, even more obliquely, as "persons" subject to "importation" in a clause referring to the slave trade. Native Americans were only mentioned in a clause empowering Congress to regulate trade with them. Women are not mentioned at all.
What this tells us is that the Constitution was a product of its time, and that it was not intended to promote freedom for African Americans, equality for women, or recognition of land rights for Native Americans. It was a document, rather, created by and for white male landowners and even at that was seen by many lower-class white men as a threat to their well-being; they feared that the consolidation of the federal union would lead to policies that privileged the wealthy (especially creditors) over their interests.
We view this as a contradiction today, but it was simply not viewed in that sense by the vast majority of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century white land-owning men. These contradictions eventually emerged with force in the nineteenth century, as abolitionists in particular criticized the Constitution as a "covenant with death" due to the fact that it countenanced slavery.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/user/login?destination=node/81849

What is the publication information for the poem?

The poem "Still I Rise" is the title poem of And Still I Rise, the third volume of poetry published by African American author Maya Angelou (1928-2014). It was published by Random House in 1968. It displays the writer's typical themes of hope and determination in the face of oppression, and is widely assigned in classes on African-American women's poetry and experience.

Why was Gerald Ford picked to be Vice President when Spiro Agnew resigned?

In the early years of the American Republic, the job of the Vice President of the United States was considered so insignificant that several potential candidates turned the job down when nominated: eighteen American presidents served without a vice president. Over time, the job took on new meaning as the government became more complex and some presidents allowed the vice president to assume more critical duties. Added to the improved status was the idea that the job of vice president was a natural path to the becoming President of the United States.
Fourteen presidents were former vice presidents, with five of those being elected and eight serving when the president died in office. Only one assumed the office after the resignation of the president: Gerald Ford became President of the United States when Richard Nixon resigned. Ford's rise to the highest office in the land was a combination of unique events, some of which took place many years before Nixon became President of the United States.
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 2 states, "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." Gerald Ford was nominated and confirmed by both Houses of Congress to replace Spiro Agnew as Nixon's Vice President and eventually replaced Nixon as President.
Here is the historical irony of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment concerning Nixon. The amendment passed after the assassination of President Kennedy. Kennedy defeated Nixon in the 1960 presidential election. Appearing before a Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Nixon argued that the Electoral College results should be used to select a Vice President in the event that a vacancy occurred.
Up until 1962, the order of succession was the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. In Nixon's view, this was a problem, since either person could potentially be a member of the opposite party and would therefore place a partisan in an office which, increasingly, was evolving into a position with significant agency to carry out presidential policy. Nixon therefore proposed that the Electoral College elect the next Vice President, thereby assuring a member of the same party would assume the role.
The Senate, as is often the case in political matters, rejected the advice of Nixon and instead adopted the language found in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In addition to clarifying what happens when the Vice President is unable to serve, the Senate tweaked the amendment to include the language of what happens when the President is temporarily unable to serve (illness, surgery, etc.). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was ratified in February of 1967. The irony, of course, is that Gerald Ford rose to become President of the United States under the additions to the amendment which Nixon had argued against.
The answer to your question is that Gerald Ford was well liked by his colleagues in the House. Ford was a Republican and the House Minority Leader. He was considered to be a man of principle, but willing to make a compromise. Ford was calm, experienced, and non-controversial, which made him the perfect pick to counter the volatile Nixon in the throes of a scandal. Former Vice President Spiro Agnew was being investigated by the United States Attorney on suspicion of criminal conspiracy, bribery, extortion, and tax fraud. He was accused of soliciting and accepting kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland.
Gerald Ford became Vice President indirectly as the result of the assassination of John Kennedy and the United States Senate amending the Constitution to formalize a process for choosing a Vice President in the event one was needed. The Senate rejected Nixon's proposal in favor of the Amendment, and it was Nixon that Ford eventually replaced. The irony is that distrust of Nixon played a role in Ford's rise to both offices.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/gerald-r-ford/

Where do the Pequod and its crew meet their end?

The Pequod and its crew meet their end in a fierce sea battle with Moby Dick, the great white whale against which Ahab is determined to get revenge at any cost. When the Pequod has its encounter with Moby Dick, the ship is on the equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Ahab and his mariners had seen Moby Dick before in the Atlantic and Indian oceans:

To the credulous mariners it seemed the same silent spout they had so long ago beheld in the moonlit Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Ishmael, the sole survivor who lives to tell the story, describes the Pacific as, ironically, mild and sweet as the ship is about to meet Moby Dick. When the crew spots the whale, the sea is still calm, a contrast to the monstrous creature:

And thus, through the serene tranquillities of the tropical sea, among waves whose hand-clappings were suspended by exceeding rapture, Moby Dick moved on, still withholding from sight the full terrors of his submerged trunk, entirely hiding the wrenched hideousness of his jaw.

After a three-day chase, Moby Dick wins, sinking the ship. Ishmael describes the ship's very end as follows:

And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight.

What is Patrick and Mary's marriage like?

"Lamb to the Slaughter" can be read as a portrayal of the love-hate relationship that exists in many marriages. George Meredith wrote about this painful kind of relationship in his long series of sonnets titled Modern Love. The first lines of the first sonnet in the series show the tension that exists in the marriage Meredith is chronicling (undoubtedly his own).
By this he knew she wept with waking eyes:
That, at his hand's light quiver by her head,
The strange low sobs that shook their common bed
Were called into her with a sharp surprise,
And strangely mute, like little gasping snakes,
Dreadfully venomous to him.
In "Lamb to the Slaughter" Patrick Maloney is withdrawing from his wife. He no longer wants to be with her. The more he withdraws, the more attention she gives him. Is it really love on her part, or just dependence? The more attentive she becomes, the more her husband withdraws. The marriage is dying. It would have died "of natural causes," so to speak, if she hadn't ended it so finally and dramatically with a frozen leg of lamb. She seems to become a "liberated woman" with that fatal blow. It is as if a different person concealed inside her is released from captivity and servitude.

If one were to look only at the Federalist Paper #10, does Madison agree with Hamilton or Jefferson on this issue?

The Federalist Papers were published under the author Publius, but individual authorship has been determined for the discrete papers. Federalist No. 10, which was written by James Madison, continues the theme of Federalist No. 9, written by Alexander Hamilton.
The Federalists were in favor of a strong union, or republic. They saw this as a way to protect the young nation and to ensure more equal participation of all areas. The strength of the union would offset what they saw as the likely danger from diverse factions that could prevent further development or, at worst, tear the country apart.
Madison used the concept of "republic" in reference to organized units of governance of various scales, especially states and countries. He worried that an individual state might gain too much power. Jefferson, in contrast, saw a powerful, controlling federal government as a greater danger. He was in the anti-federalist camp.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

In the Federalist Paper #10, Madison agrees with Hamilton regarding the structure of government and its relation to controlling mob mentality and violence, and as such, encourages the ratification of the US Constitution. In the Federalist Paper #10, Madison believes that a strong centralized government, which Hamilton supported, will result in curtailing mob rule that he believes would occur in a decentralized, direct democracy form of government. Madison is concerned that factions, which he acknowledges will occur in any form of political system, will not be as charged and powerful under a centralized federal government. Madison clarifies that he does not seek to hinder liberty or create a politically or socially homogenous society but, rather, is interested in how to control the effects of factions, from groups, to organized political parties, through a strong federal government.

Offer a critical analysis of Dante's Inferno.

The idea of literature representing unity and symmetry is present in Dante's Divine Comedy. Dante is unabashed in rejecting fragmentation and disunity in the name of an ordered configuration to being in the world. Dante is admittedly in the midst of a "dark wood" as his journey starts. His embrace of both Virgil as his guide and the power of Christian redemption enables Dante, the pilgrim and author, to find a sense of unity and symmetry in being. The vision of paradise as one where all opposites are merged is critical in such a construction.
Dante's vision of unity is significant on a couple of levels. The first is that it is challenging to find a more comic text. While it is not very difficult to find tragedies littering the literary landscape, it is a bit more of a struggle to find a work that is more emphatic of a comic condition to being than Dante's Divine Comedy. In outlining the different aspects of being, Dante suggests that individuals can find a sense of unity in being if they identify with something larger than themselves. By the end of his journey, Dante is no longer dispirited and isolated pilgrim. Rather, he has found purpose and meaning in the world of the divine, embodied by Beatrice. The fusion of all opposing notions of the good and embrace of totality is significant. Few other works are so emphatic and passionate in their embrace of the unity that is found in The Divine Comedy.
The embrace of spirituality is matched by the embrace of intertextuality. Dante is deliberate in having Virgil as his guide. Through this, Dante embraces the idea that works of literature are interrelated and connected to one another. Dante's inclusion of works like Homer helps to further this connection. In Dante's world, unity is present when the individual artist recognizes the sequence in which they are a part. Literature is an endeavor where one is not in isolation. There is interconnection and interrelated condition within literature that Dante embraces in his work. This is further reflection of the essence of comedy intrinsic to Dante's work.

How old was Benjamin Franklin when he died?

There is some debate as to the date on which Benjamin Franklin was born. Most sources mark the date as January 17th, 1706. However, in 2006 the Boston Globe claimed that Benjamin Franklin was actually born on January 6th, 1706. There is a reasonably straightforward explanation for these different dates. In September, 1752, in order to be in line with the rest of Europe, Great Britain changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. In the process, Great Britain and its colonies in America moved their calendars forward by eleven days. Benjamin Franklin accordingly moved his birthday from January 6th to January 17th.
Franklin died, indisputably, on April 17th, 1790, less than three years after signing the American Constitution. He was, therefore, eighty-four years and three months old, give or take a week, when he died.

MacDonald's play Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is a comedy that incorporates two times, two places, and two perspectives; the play contrasts Shakespeare's verse with modern prose and patriarchal England with a feminist North American present. Discuss how the tension between these competing perspectives generate humor.

Constance is thrown into Othello, a play she is familiar with, and the comedy emerges as she tries to adapt her speech to fit in. When Constance arrives in Cyprus, Iago is telling Othello that Desdemona gave Cassio the handkerchief, and that Othello should murder Desdemona for her infidelity. Constance interrupts:

Um . . . You're about to make a terrible mistake . . . m'Lord.

Constance tries to sound like them as she adds in m'Lord. There is also comedy when Constance's native speech is up against Shakespeare's words:

Iago: My Lord, I can explain—
Constance: Omigod, what have I done?

This is comedic because Constance utters phrases that we would not expect to hear in Shakespearean plays.
MacDonald uses actual text from Othello and Romeo and Juliet in her play, but sometimes it appears in a different context. At the end of act 2, Desdemona says,

How shall I kill her Iago?

In Othello, this line is spoken by the title character, but now Desdemona says it of Constance.
In patriarchal England, there are societal standards and expectations that are broken in modern North America. MacDonald creates comedy by taking things that are normal to us and placing them in Shakespeare's time. For example, it is normal for women to wear pants. But in the classical Romeo and Juliet, women would only wear skirts. As Constance leaves Othello and journeys into the next play, Desdemona's sword catches her skirt. Thus, Constance enters Tybalt and Mercutio's sword fight

minus her skirt, now wearing just her longjohns, boots and tweed jacket.

As a result, the boys think that Constance is a boy. This creates comedy as she interacts with the characters.

Comment on the racism depicted in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

In recounting the story of Henrietta Lacks and her experience with the medical profession, Rebecca Skloot reveals the inhumane treatment experienced by African Americans in the course of their medical treatment, and she exposes the institutionalized racism that characterized the American healthcare system during the Jim Crow era. Henrietta was a poor African American woman undergoing treatment for cancer, and she was victimized by medical professionals who failed to involve her in decisions that affected her body and health. The attitude of the white, affluent doctors reflected their low opinion of her intelligence, which in turn reflected their belief that African Americans lacked intelligence in general. Henrietta Lacks was poor and under-educated, and she thus conformed to their stereotypical views. She was treated at a charity hospital in an exclusively black ward, as few hospitals during this time period admitted African Americans.
Henrietta’s victimization by the medical professionals continued after she died. They used her tissues for research and won awards for their achievements, but they failed to identify Henrietta as a person—they only referred to her as a specimen known as HeLa. She received no recognition for her contributions to medical science, and her family received no relief from their grief, as they never knew of her contributions or her significance to medical science. As African Americans, like Henrietta, they were treated as insignificant themselves.

Explain how grassroots civil rights groups like the SCLC and groups focused on the court system like NAACP shape the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? From Eyes on the Prize episode 4- No Easy Walk

The Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) adopted two different strategies in the fight for civil rights in the 1950s. The NAACP was a national organization with a large membership. The leadership of the NAACP attacked the legal foundations of segregation in courts via lawsuits that challenged the constitutionality of the laws that established it. The most visible outcome of this strategy was the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn segregation laws based on race in public schools in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954. This was the culmination of hundreds of lawsuits brought by the NAACP. At the same time, grassroots organizations like the SCLC began to emerge. Their strategy was using nonviolent direct action and boycotts to challenge segregation. The SCLC emerged from the Montgomery bus boycotts in 1957 and essentially sought to coordinate the efforts of local, grassroots groups that were themselves organized around local black institutions, especially churches. This two-pronged approach continued throughout the fifties and early sixties. For example, the Freedom Riders, organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) were an attempt to test the enforcement of a Supreme Court decision in 1960 that ruled segregation in interstate buses unconstitutional. This case, like Brown v. Board, was argued by NAACP lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/southern-christian-leadership-conference-sclc

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/freedom-rides

What words characterized the literary themes of the ancient Greeks?

The ancient Greeks used important and specific words to encompass huge, overarching, and vital themes in their literary and moral worlds. These are the most important themes of the Iliad:


Kleos: "glory." The type of fame and renown that a hero strives for through impressive feats and deeds. Your accomplishments told by other people, even after your death, mean more than anything. Achilles chooses kleos over a long, happy, and normal life.


Hubris: "pride." Specifically, the type of excessive ego that makes a human think they can best a god. Humans will always be punished for hubris.


Menis: "rage." So important that it is the first word of the Iliad in the original Greek. The first word of an epic poem signifies its greatest recurring theme. The rage of Achilles (for the loss of Briseis, and then the loss of Patrocles) is what drives the entire narrative. It determines the fate of all those fighting in the Trojan War. Most significantly, the word menis is traditionally ascribed to gods only. It does not describe normal human anger, but the wrath of a godlike figure.

How is the tundra different from the desert?

Tundra and desert are two of the five major biomes that exist on Earth. The others are the forest, aquatic, and grassland biomes. The desert and tundra biomes are the most similar of the five, since both receive little precipitation, support minimal vegetation, and have significantly lower nighttime temperatures. However, there are major differences that warrant the tundra and desert being classified as distinct biomes.
The major difference is the average temperature of the region. Deserts are found where temperatures are hot in the daytime. Tundra is only found in cold regions, including at high elevations in mountain ranges. Three types of tundra include arctic tundra, which is near the North Pole; antarctic tundra, which is near the South Pole; and alpine tundra, which occurs above the treeline in mountain ranges of high elevation. Deserts occur mainly at lower latitudes (nearer the equator), but some "cold" deserts occur farther north or south—for instance, in Utah and western Asia. Coastal deserts are found along the ocean—for example, in Chile.
Another difference between the two biomes is the biodiversity they support. While both have sparse flora relative to other biomes, the desert supports a greater variety of plant life—about 2,500 different species—compared to tundra, which supports only about 1,500 different species. Desert and tundra biomes have many similarities, but they have significant differences as well.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/deserts.php

https://www.reference.com/science/desert-similar-tundra-62b5728a5aed3f6

According to Kant, one can do what is right and that action still may not have "moral worth." True or false?

The statement is indeed true. This is because, for Kant, what matters is not just the intrinsic good of the act concerned but the motivation behind it. It is possible to carry out nothing but good acts, yet each and every one of them will still lack moral worth if they're performed on the basis of ulterior motives.
Kant uses the example of the fair-dealing merchant. The merchant may have gained a stellar reputation for dealing fairly with his customers—such as not over-charging them, for example—but that doesn't necessarily mean that his actions have moral worth. For all we know, the merchant may have only been acting fairly for purely selfish reasons. Perhaps he's calculated that it's in his best interests to be fair to his customers: that he'll lose business if he tries to cheat them.
Unless the merchant acts fairly out of duty, then it cannot be said that his actions display moral worth. And the same moral standard applies to each and every one of us.

How did General Zaroff justify or explain the reasons for inventing his new type of hunting?

During his first dinner with Rainsford, General Zaroff elaborates on his affinity for hunting and discusses his exploits hunting dangerous, exotic animals from around the world. Zaroff then mentions that he became bored hunting animals because they could only rely upon their natural instincts, which were no match for his intellect. After contemplating his issue, Zaroff decided that he needed to hunt a quarry that could reason and match his wits. He then purchased Ship-Trap Island, where he began to hunt humans. Zaroff's confession appalls Rainsford, who calls him a murderer. Zaroff responds by saying that he is surprised that Rainsford holds such naive, "mid-Victorian" views regarding the value of human life. The general then justifies his actions by telling Rainsford,

Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. (Connell, 8)

Ironically, the general's justification for hunting humans on his secluded island corresponds to Rainsford's earlier comments to Whitney about the world being made up of two classes, "the hunters and the huntees." Essentially, General Zaroff feels that he is justified for murdering weaker humans because he is stronger than them. It seems he genuinely believes that "inferior" people were put on the earth to give him pleasure.

One evening at dinner, General Zaroff intrigues Rainsford by telling him that he's found a new kind of quarry, one that provides him with the most exciting hunting you can possibly imagine. This animal is a true match for Zaroff's wits: it's courageous, cunning, and—above all else—has the capacity for reason. Much to Rainsford's horror, he discovers that the animal Zaroff is referring to is man.
Rainsford immediately puts Zaroff in his place, telling him that this particular kind of hunting is nothing more than cold-blooded murder. But Zaroff simply finds Rainsford's objections amusing. He goes on to attempt to justify his murderous new hobby, arguing that life is for the strong, and that the weak were put on this earth to give the strong pleasure. As Zaroff regards himself as one of the strong, he thinks that this gives him the right to hunt those he deems to be weak and inferior.

How will the tree overcome the hacking and chopping?

The speaker actually says that one can "hack and chop / But this alone won't" kill the tree. Even after being hacked and chopped, the tree's "bleeding bark will heal," and new "green twigs" will sprout and grow bigger and bigger, as long as they are left alone. The tree, then, does not have to do much to overcome the damage done by any hacking and chopping, because it is so very strong to begin with; it will naturally be able to continue on with its life. It takes so much more than that to kill it. In order to be done any real significant damage, the tree's roots would have to be pulled from the earth. Only when the tree's roots are exposed and destroyed can the tree itself be killed.

When will Sandel in "A Piece of Steak" learn to be a more thoughtful and economic fighter like Tom King?

With a question such as this, it might be useful to consider just how much of this story focuses on King's own musings concerning his declining career, and of the contrasts of age and youth. Indeed, this interplay between age and youth is perhaps this story's defining theme, one which is embodied in the fight between King and Sandel.
Taken from a purely thematic standpoint, I'd suggest this story is quite clear in providing an answer to this question. Age is associated with wisdom and experience, while youth is associated with raw vitality: the former can only be won at the expense of the later. Thus, one can expect that, with time, Sandel will become a much more intelligent and strategic fighter, but in order to get to that point, he would have lost much of the physical powers associated with youth. In that respect, you would expect Sandel's career will mirror King's own.
Here, however, we should stop and consider the degree to which King's insights are sufficient in providing an answer to this question. Remember, this entire story is filtered through his own personal context and history as fighter (and no one else's). With that in mind, we're not actually discussing Sandel's future as a fighter so much as we're discussing King's expectations concerning that future.
But remember, expectations are not equivalent with reality. In that respect, this question might ultimately be an unanswerable one. After all, we don't know how Sandel's career will proceed: those details are outside of the story Jack London tells.

London's story is one that pits age and the experience and knowlwdge that come with it against youth and sheer power, and in this case, age loses.
The point is made again and again in the narrative that Tom King is on the way out. He's an "old 'un," basically finished as a boxer, and he knows it. His "smarts" in the ring are what give him a chance, at least, against the younger fighter, but even so, it's only a small chance. Tom's recollection of his career, his past glory and his carelessness with money when he was flush with it serve as the backdrop for his last gasp as a boxer. With time and experience Sandel will become the calculating and economic fighter Tom is, but for this fight, it doesn't matter that he's not, because youth wins the day over age.
Tom's reflection that he would have won the fight "if only I had had a piece of steak" for supper is less bitter than it is simply melancholy and rueful. This is the way life is, the message of the story goes, as in London's works as a whole. The battle is won by the one who is stronger, whether in boxing, or in the wilderness of the Yukon, where a dog survives and a man does not in "To Build a Fire" and, conversely, a man survives and a wolf does not in "Love of Life."

The short story "A Piece of Steak" by Jack London tells of an aging prizefighter, Tom King, who eats only some bread and gravy before an important fight while his wife and kids go hungry. He knows that if he had a piece of steak to eat he would be much stronger, but there is nothing he can do about it; his family has no money and no credit left. He goes up against a much younger fighter named Sandel who has the advantages of stamina and the ability to recover quickly from King's hits.
In "A Piece of Steak," London brings out the differences between old and young fighters: between those on their way up in their careers—easy and careless—and those more experienced fighters who have more responsibilities and higher stakes if they lose.
As the fight starts, Sandel attacks immediately and rapidly with many punches while King bides his time. The experience of age has taught King to be a thoughtful and economic fighter. He doesn't have the reserves of strength and stamina that Sandel has, so he must wait for the right moments to be aggressive. While he holds back, though, he is analyzing his opponent's moves so he can get the maximum advantage out of everything that happens. London writes that Sandel will only learn to be a thoughtful fighter like King when he is older, and then it will be too late:

Sandel would never become a world champion. He lacked the wisdom, and the only way to get it was to buy it with Youth; and when wisdom was his, Youth would have been spent in buying it.

Sandel, with the strength of youth, goes on to win the fight. In summary, however, we can see that Sandel will not learn to be a more thoughtful and economic fighter until he is old and has lost much of his strength.

From whose perspective in the story "The Capital of the World" narrated?

Ernest Hemingway uses an unnamed omniscient third-person narrator in this short story. The author does not include anything to suggest that any one person’s specific perspective is provided. Instead, Hemingway uses a neutral tone and avoids emotional language to make the fictional story seem like fact. Omniscience is indicated by the narrator’s access to information about many current and past aspects of the Luarca hotel and the lives of its guests. One example of this is the simultaneous presentation of the events in the dining room, where Paco is on duty, and in the cowardly matador’s room, where Paco’s sister is fending off his advances. Another example is the narration of events in the dining room, where the narrator reports the conversations of the wait staff and the priests, a situation in which any one individual would not have had that full access.

What were the arguments that arose from the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan?

The Virginia and New Jersey Plans were put forward at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They were both designed, in their own unique way, to provide a workable structure for the future government of the United States. The Virginia Plan advocated the establishment of a bicameral legislature—a legislature with two chambers. The Virginia Plan also proposed that representation should be based on the population of each state. So, under this new system, Virginia, for example, would have more representatives than Delaware.
Unsurprisingly, this specific provision proved controversial. Smaller states worried that they'd be outvoted by the larger states and that their sovereignty would accordingly be compromised. It was in response to these concerns that the New Jersey Plan was put forward. Under its provisions, the new government would consist of a unicameral legislature—a legislature with only one house. Furthermore, representation in this single chamber would afford equal representation to all states, irrespective of population. The overriding concern of the New Jersey Plan was to maintain the ultimate sovereignty of the states within the American system of government.
Critics of the New Jersey Plan, such as Edmund Randolph and James Madison, argued that it would perpetuate the inherent weakness of government under the Articles of Confederation, which was no longer thought fit for purpose. The final draft of the Constitution ended up more closely resembling the Virginia Plan, establishing a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Yet the approach to apportionment set out in the New Jersey Plan was enshrined in the composition of the United States Senate, in which state has two Senators, irrespective of its population size.

Who is Toto? How can you tell?

Toto is Dorothy’s dog in the novel and film The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Early in the book, we are presented with Dorothy and her small dog. As it states on page 10 of the book, Toto is “a little black dog, with long, silky hair and small black eyes that twinkled merrily on either side of his funny, wee nose.”
Toto is Dorothy’s closest companion throughout the story, being the only individual who comes along to the land of Oz with her. It is a good assumption that Toto is a miniature schnauzer or some similar breed of dog based on the description, which is accurately portrayed in the original film. Toto acts as an extension of Dorothy at times, such as when he fights or bites her enemies for her when she is unable to fight. Toto also reveals the identity of the Wizard of Oz by pulling back the curtain behind which he is hiding.

What new problem does Matassaip present to the group as a major threat?

In chapter 6, the village chief, Kimki, has been gone quite awhile. He took a canoe across the ocean to try and reach a land he had been to as a boy (probably Southern California), to get help for his tribe, which was decimated in a fight with the Aleuts, who had deceived the tribe after gaining permission to use the island while hunting seals.
Matasaip is acting chief while Kimki is gone. Supplies have begun to run low, especially fresh water. Some villagers are panicked, but Matasaip tells them, "There are other things more important to ponder." He is referring to the return of the Aleuts. The tribe knows it is too weak to fight again, so the people have made plans to flee in canoes in case the Aleut ship comes again with its tell-tale red sail.
At first, that's what appears to happen. A ship approaches the island, and Matasaip assumes it's the Aleuts. Upon closer inspection, he realizes that this ship is smaller than the Aleut ship, with a white sail instead of red. It turns out the new ship was sent by Kimki; it is full of white men to take them to the place Kimki has gone. So what appeared at first to be a major problem was instead the villagers' salvation.

What is the background of "Meeting at Night"?

Background of "Meeting at Night"
The paired poems, "Meeting at Night" and "Parting at Morning," originally formed one single poem when first published in Browning's Pomegranates and Bells in 1845. They were listed in the table of contents as one poem and were titled "Night and Morning; I. Night; II. Morning" as one single, but two-part, poem. It was in the 1849 reissue of the collection under the now familiar title Dramatic Romances and Lyrics that Browning separated the poems and presented them as individual poems under the present titles "Meeting at Night" and "Parting at Morning." In a sense, this set the poems at an analytical disadvantage and gave a disadvantage to future readers who may be unaware of the two parts and the relationship between them. To illustrate, while it is clear from the last line of "II. Morning"/"Parting at Morning" that Browning alludes to the Victorian cultural emphasis upon the separation of the world of men from the world of women, the division of the poems into "Meeting at Night" and "Parting at Morning" isolates that theme to "Parting," whereas a reading of them as one unit might illuminate "I. Night"/"Meeting at Night" under the light of the same theme. As individual, separate poems, however, this theme is not present in the text of "Meeting at Night" alone.

Based on the prescribed theory studied, evaluate whether adult learning is “part” of HRD or an academic discipline on its own. Why do you, as an HRD student, need to have knowledge of adult learning?

"Adult learning" is a general term that could entail many specific educational models such as adult "continuing education" programs offered by universities and community colleges, as well as trade or technical schools.
In the context of Human Resources Development, adult learning could be seen as a subcategory within the field of HRD. Contemporary human resources development encapsulates various subfields such as education and training of employees.
Since today's economy and job market requires education attainment as a parameter or qualification for employment, it would be easy to assume that adult learning should be part of human resources development.
Adult learning is already a subfield within the broader education field and therefore it arguably does not need to be a discipline of its own. However, adult learning, along with the psychology subfields that analyze learning mechanisms of adults, should be studied by HRD students.
It is important for HRD students to understand the various levels of education that employees attain and that employers or organizations seek. Learning this subfield will also allow HRD students to evaluate the skills of the employees.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ983774.pdf

What are the character traits of Romeo in Romeo and Juliet? Provide textual evidence.

In Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet, Romeo goes on an emotional journey from a shallow, irresponsible, love-struck teenager to a more mature, deeply passionate, and compassionate young man.
Romeo is ordinarily level-headed, thoughtful, and relatively mature (for a teenager), as evidenced in his attempt to reason with Tybalt to avoid fighting him.

ROMEO: Tybalt, the reason that I have to love theeDoth much excuse the appertaining rageTo such a greeting. Villain am I none.Therefore farewell. I see thou knowest me not.
TYBALT: Boy, this shall not excuse the injuriesThat thou hast done me; therefore turn and draw.
ROMEO: I do protest I never injur'd thee,But love thee better than thou canst deviseTill thou shalt know the reason of my love;And so good Capulet, which name I tenderAs dearly as mine own, be satisfied. [3.1.61–71]

To mediate between the two hotheads, Tybalt and Mercutio, Romeo says the following:

ROMEO: Gentle Mercutio, put thy rapier up.
MERCUTIO: Come, sir, your passado!
They fight.
ROMEO: . . . Gentlemen, for shame! forbear this outrage!Tybalt, Mercutio, the Prince expressly hathForbid this bandying in Verona streets.Hold, Tybalt! Good Mercutio! [3.1.82–88]

Romeo also takes responsibility for Mercutio's death after his ill-advised and ill-timed intervention in Mercutio's sword-fight with Tybalt.

ROMEO: This gentleman, the Prince's near ally,My very friend, hath got this mortal hurtIn my behalf . . . [3.1.109–111]

Tomeo is deeply concerned about Juliet after his banishment, and when she learns that he killed Tybalt, he says,

ROMEO: Spakest thou of Juliet? How is it with her?Doth not she think me an old murderer,Now I have stain'd the childhood of our joyWith blood remov'd but little from her own?Where is she? and how doth she? and what saysMy conceal'd lady to our cancell'd love? [3.3.97–102]

Romeo is changeable, sometimes from moment to moment. At the start of the play, Romeo is lovesick for Rosaline.

ROMEO: The all-seeing sunNe'er saw her match since first the world begun. [1.2 96–97]

That is, right up until the moment he falls in love with Juliet at first sight:

ROMEO: O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight!For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night. [1.5.46–55]

Interestingly, Romeo's language takes on greater maturity after he meets Juliet.
Talking about Rosaline, Romeo's language is far more artificial and superficial than when he talks about Juliet, from expressions of utter rejection and over-the-top despair at his unrequited love for Rosaline...

ROMEO: Griefs of mine own lie heavy in my breast . . .Love is a smoke rais'd with the fume of sighs . . .Being purg'd, a fire sparkling in lovers’ eyes;Being vex'd, a sea nourish'd with lovers’ tears.What is it else? A madness most discreet,A choking gall, and a preserving sweet.Farewell, my coz. . . .She is too fair, too wise, wisely too fair,To merit bliss by making me despair.She hath forsworn to love, and in that vowDo I live dead that live to tell it now. [1.1 186-194, 223-226]

...To a more mature, more passionate—and more poetic—love for Juliet...

ROMEO: But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,Who is already sick and pale with griefThat thou her maid art far more fair than she . . .Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven,Having some business, do entreat her eyesTo twinkle in their spheres till they return . . .The brightness of her cheek would shame those starsAs daylight doth a lamp; her eyes in heavenWould through the airy region stream so brightThat birds would sing and think it were not night . . .With love's light wings did I o'erperch these walls;For stony limits cannot hold love out,And what love can do, that dares love attempt. [2.2.2-6, 15–22, 70–72]

Romeo is impetuous. His impetuous and sometimes rash behavior is evident throughout the play, from the time he first trespasses on Capulet property to see Juliet to when he marries Juliet just one day after their first meeting. As he tells Friar Laurence,

ROMEO: Then plainly know my heart's dear love is setOn the fair daughter of rich Capulet;As mine on hers, so hers is set on mine,And all combin'd, save what thou must combineBy holy marriage. When, and where, and howWe met, we woo'd, and made exchange of vow,I'll tell thee as we pass; but this I pray,That thou consent to marry us to-day. [2.3.58–65]

Later, Romeo pulls his dagger and contemplates suicide when the Nurse tells him that Juliet is distraught because he killed Tybalt.

ROMEO: As if that name,Shot from the deadly level of a gun,Did murder her; as that name's cursed handMurdered her kinsman. O, tell me, friar, tell me,In what vile part of this anatomyDoth my name lodge? Tell me, that I may sackThe hateful mansion.Draws his dagger. [3.3.107–113]

He drinks a vial of poison when he mistakenly believes that Juliet is dead:

ROMEO: . . . Here's to my love! Drinks. O true apothecary!Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die. [5.3.199–120]

Yet after fatally wounding Paris at Juliet's tomb, and even in the depths of his own grief in believing that Juliet is dead, Romeo compassionately fulfills Paris's dying wish.

PARIS: . . . If thou be merciful,Open the tomb, lay me with Juliet.Dies.
ROMEO: In faith, I will. . . .I'll bury thee in a triumphant grave. [5.3 72–83]

Read the passage that begins "Yes, Miss Louisa—they always remind me of stutterings" and ends "'Merrylegs;' she whispered the awful fact; 'is his performing dog'" (book 1, chapter 9). How does Dickens make the extract a moving one?

Dickens makes this passage a moving one by focusing on Sissy Jupe as an emotional being. In the Gradgrind world of utilitarianism and rationality that she has entered, Sissy thinks primarily with her heart and her imagination, and though the school has already taught her that this is very, very wrong, she fails at aligning herself with its way of thinking. By the time we are done with this passage, we, as readers with hearts, are on her side.
In this passage, she is speaking with Louisa about the problems in school that make her "low spirited." She has already revealed her empathy with the starving, and now she tells Lousia that she gave the wrong answer when she was asked at school to provide the percentage if "only" five hundred people of a hundred thousand died at sea. She replies with the answer, "nothing." She is thinking with her heart, not her head, because by "nothing" she means that cold percentages mean nothing at all to the heart-broken relatives of the people who were killed. In making statements like that, Sissy is unwittingly showing the hard-heartedness of Gradgrind's "greatest good for the greatest number" utilitarian philosophy. She is pointing out the weakness of utilitarianism, which is that it cuts the human sympathy and imagination out of life. Sissy, part of the magical and imaginative world of the circus, places putting herself into the skin and heart of people who are suffering ahead of treating them as statistics.
Louisa goes on in this passage to coax out of Sissy the story of her father, who has deserted her. This kind of personal, emotion-based conversation that veers away from facts and figures is forbidden, but Sissy nevertheless moves us by speaking of her love and compassion for her father. She tells Louisa he was a clown, though she has been taught by Gradgrind that being a clown is a useless thing, and that though he made people laugh he was also a sad, despairing man. She raises our sympathy too in revealing he was treated cruelly:

But they wouldn’t laugh sometimes, and then father cried. Lately, they very often wouldn’t laugh, and he used to come home despairing. Father’s not like most. Those who didn’t know him as well as I do, and didn’t love him as dearly as I do, might believe he was not quite right. Sometimes they played tricks upon him; but they never knew how he felt them, and shrunk up, when he was alone with me. He was far, far timider than they thought!

We also are moved to find out that Sissy lost her mother as a baby, and that Sissy would comfort her father at night by reading him the kind of romantic fiction that Gradgrind abhors as useless, such as the Arabian Nights:

he used to forget all his troubles in wondering whether the Sultan would let the lady go on with the story, or would have her head cut off before it was finished.

We are moved by Sissy's innocent love for and loyalty to her father.
In sum, Dickens uses sentiment, or the reliance on feelings, to move us as readers. He does this by showing Sissy putting compassion for individuals ahead of facts and figures and by revealing her courage and caring in struggling bravely through a hard existence without a mother and with a depressed, despairing father. Dickens knows that details convey emotions, and so he gives us the details of Sissy's life. Rather than telling us that utilitarianism is a harsh, dehumanizing philosophy, he shows us through Sissy's caring, kind heart what is missing when life is reduced to statistics, which Sissy rightly calls "stutterings." In fact, they mean nothing against lived human experience, relationships, imagination, and love.

I have to do an essay on Antigone, the two subjects I am considering is the strong feminist character of Antigone or the relationship between Antigone and the male members of her family. I am having a difficult time coming up with a thesis statement for either of these subjects. Any help would be appreciated!

Antigone, as portrayed in the eponymous play by Sophocles, is certainly a strong and independent-minded female character. She refuses to compromise her belief that her brother should have a proper burial, even though she faces death as punishment for her actions. While she is a strong woman, the word "feminist" is often used as a specific term that refers to much more recent women’s liberation movements, so she probably can’t be called a feminist, per se. Her character could, however, be examined through the lens of contemporary feminist writing and criticism.
Some contemporary feminist media critics, such as Anita Sarkeesian, look closely at portrayals of female characters in video games, movies, plays, and TV shows. They ask questions such as the following:
Are the women in this media portrayed as passive objects to whom things happen, or do they take action to influence their surroundings and affect the outcome of their situation?
Are they idealized? That is, are they presented as having traits that cater to a male concept of perfection, or do they come across as real people?
How do these women relate to male characters? (This would pertain to your idea of looking at how Antigone relates to her male family members.) Are they portrayed as having a role that merely props up male characters, or can they stand alone as characters in their own right, with their own histories, strengths, and flaws?
Asking these questions and others like them—you may want to look up Anita Sarkeesian, Roxane Gay, and other feminist media critics—will likely help you with structuring your thesis statement. One example of a rough thesis might be “Although Antigone is a tragic character, she is not a passive figure but rather acts to change the outcome of her life—and death.”
There are also extensive character and plot analyses on this site. Reading through these may jog your mind in terms of the character and her relationships, or might send you in another direction entirely!

On page 205, in chapter 18, Louise comments about the David and Ray episode to Will: “All that over a jacket!” However, the symbolism of the red AIM (American Indian Movement) jacket makes it much more than just a jacket. Describe two things that it symbolizes or represents.

The AIM jacket symbolizes David’s attachment to other AIM activists and his participation at the Wounded Knee occupation. The jacket was one of David Plume’s proudest possessions. When David first comes to Will’s studio, the jacket is one thing that clinches his identification.

I had never met David, but I knew the jacket. It was an ordinary club jacket, red nylon with knit cuffs and waistband. Across the back in large white letters was the word AIM . . .That jacket was famous. People who didn’t know David, like me, knew the jacket.

David is enormously attached to the jacket because it was a gift from the legendary AIM founder and leader, Dennis Banks (Ojibwe). He tells Will this when he asks him to help copy and enlarge a photograph in which he appears with Banks and several other AIM members at Wounded Knee.
When David later turns up at a bar, wearing the jacket and "bragging” about his time at Wounded Knee, Ray mocks AIM, and David calls him a coward. They get into a fight that is far from fair, as four men gang up on David. After they beat him, Ray takes the jacket and not only puts it on but also rips it. Afterward, David gets a rifle and starts shooting at Ray, but he misses. Ray dies, but this is from cutting himself on a broken bottle.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xzdmDwAAQBAJ&dq=aim+jacket+medicine+river&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Analyze how the point of view contributes to "The Tell-Tale Heart's" overall meaning. Come up with a thesis statement, and back up your argument with specific observations about the text. Incorporate at least three quotations, and document them.

In "The Tell-Tale Heart," Poe uses a first-person narrator, as he often does in his Gothic tales, to highlight the psychological processes and the breakdown of the protagonist/narrator. The narrator begins by addressing the reader directly:

True! — Nervous — Very very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease has sharpened my senses — not destroyed — not dulled them.

He admits that he has a "disease" and is "dreadfully nervous," but he feels that this gives him an advantage. He goes on to explain how he "heard all things" and asks the reader to "observe how healthily — how calmly I can tell you the whole story." This statement, ironically, highlights his insanity precisely because he seems so oddly insistent on his sanity. He recognizes that the reader might find him insane and thus unreliable. He is immediately defensive about how "calm" he is.
The story goes on as the narrator tells his account of a murder. He plans his crime very diligently, even admitting to being "kinder to the old man . . . during the whole week before I killed him." The narrative style continues to read as frantic and excitable as the narrator tries to convince the reader he is no "madman." However, the syntax and tone indicate just the opposite.
After the murder, the narrator hides the body of the old man and cleans the crime scene. He is very proud of his work and feels invincible ("for what had I to fear?"). He even seems joyful about the prospect of the police coming to investigate the room, because he thinks he has outsmarted everyone. However, it's here that his extraordinary hearing comes back to haunt him: the narrator thinks he hears the old man's heartbeat beneath the floorboards, where the body is buried. He relies how he speaks to the police "with a heightened voice" as his frenzy builds. The repetition of the word "Louder!" and its accompanying exclamation show the panic inside the narrator's mind as he is tortured by this supposed heartbeat. He is compelled to reveal the murder by lifting the floorboard to unearth the mysterious sound.
The narrative perspective allows Poe to illustrate to the reader how the narrator talks himself into his own delusions and how his extrasensory "gifts" are a double-edged sword that lead to self-incrimination. The first-person narrative exposes the internal monologue of the character so that we can understand his madness and the irony of the final scene.

What responsibilities do individuals in wealthier nations have toward people in poor countries? How has reading about Paul Farmer’s work in Mountains Beyond Mountains impacted ideas about responsibility or obligations toward people who are poorer than you are?

As he describes his humanitarian work in Mountains Beyond Mountains, Paul Farmer emphasizes the importance of attending to the people who contribute to the creation of wealth through their labor but reap relatively little benefit. One element of responsibility lies in the over-developed countries’ quest for resources to support their industrial growth; the human and environmental costs of the globalized economy weigh most heavily on those who are already disadvantaged.
While imbalances may seem to be most extreme between countries, inequality is also pronounced within a given country. As a physician and an anthropologist, Farmer is committed to reducing the size of that gap. Such efforts require looking at a society and economy as interlocking systems. Understanding health as the ability to acquire basic necessities and not just the absence of disease is part of such a systemic worldview.
Numerous nonprofit organizations are dedicated to encouraging individuals to make contributions relative to their own status, such as through service or contributions of time, even when they cannot make a financial contribution. Farmer established Partners in Health, for example, as a nonprofit that could both coordinate with state-level and international organizations and operate more efficiently on independent projects.