How does the detail "And someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles" contribute to the text in "The Lottery"?

The significance of this detail begins in the second paragraph of the story when the narrator notes that "the children assembled first, of course" for the lottery. Inherent in this ritual is a fascination with the blind acceptance of tradition that the impending stoning doesn't frighten the children of the town. Instead, they rush to gather, stuffing their pockets full of stones and choosing the best ones. There is no sense in the children's actions of dread. No one talks about the possibility that someone they love could be chosen. Instead, they blindly begin preparations for a murder without any sense of guilt, much the same as the adults in their town.
Davy Hutchinson is so young that he hasn't even gathered his own stones, and someone hands him a few "pebbles," the word itself connoting that he isn't capable of holding or throwing larger rocks. Davy is being swept into the next generation of those who will participate in the lottery each year, and there is no sense of remorse evident that the townspeople are asking Davy to stone his own mother. Furthermore, there is no note by the author that Davy resists the idea.
This line represents the power of a controlling majority to remain in power through the intentional manipulation of the youngest members of its society.

What this excerpt illustrates is just how much the ritual of the lottery corrupts the innocence of the town's youth. They are active participants in this annual human sacrifice, playing their full part in stoning the sacrificial victims to death.
Exposed to communal violence by their parents from an early age, they've come to see such barbarism as perfectly normal. The town's elders know that, if the lottery is to survive, it's important that the next generation keeps up the old traditions. That means catching them young, inducting the town's children as early in their lives as possible into this grotesque display of atavistic savagery.
What's even more disturbing about the children's involvement in the lottery is that they're expected to participate in stoning even when it's their own family members who are the victims. That's what the above excerpt is alluding to; Davy Hutchinson's been given some pebbles that he's going to throw at his own mother, this year's "winner" of the lottery. In this small town, loyalty to the old traditions trumps loyalty to one's family.

Davy's mother, Tessie Hutchinson, has unfortunately chosen the slip of paper with the black spot on it, which means that she will become the community's scapegoat and die a brutal death. After Tessie has "won" the lottery, her family members, neighbors, and friends gather stones to hurl at her. Jackson writes:

The children had stones already. And someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles. (7)

This significant detail contributes to the startling, unsettling nature of the lottery and underscores Jackson's message regarding the dangers of blindly following traditions. The fact that Davy will participate in his mother's death by throwing stones at her is a jarring image which appalls the reader. By commenting on Davy's participation in his mother's stoning, Jackson highlights the lack of civility, complete violence, and utter depravity of the senseless, brutal ritual. Jackson also creates further sympathy for Tessie's character by describing Davy's participation in her death. The fact that Tessie's own children turn against her emphasizes her isolation and increases the audience's sympathy for her character.

This detail is significant because Davy's mother, Tessie Hutchinson, has been selected as the winner of the lottery after her husband draws the slip of paper with the black spot.
This means that Tessie will be stoned to death by the villagers, including her own family.
Jackson includes this detail because it contributes to the ominous, somber mood of the text. This detail is meant to make the reader feel a mix of pity and horror at the fact that Tessie's own children will participate in her murder. Because young children are often portrayed as innocent, it goes against expectations to have a young boy like Davy directly participate in the violence that takes place in the story.
Therefore, this detail underscores Jackson's message about tradition, society, and the danger of blind acceptance.

What powers do the president and Congress have to enforce their policies and laws?

The US Constitution gives the legislative branch of the federal government (i.e., Congress) the primary power to make the nation’s laws. The executive branch, which is headed up by the president, is primarily responsible for enforcing or carrying out those laws.
In addition to the president, who is both head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces, the executive branch includes the vice president, the Cabinet, 15 executive departments (Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veteran’s Affairs), and various independent federal agencies (including the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, and Securities and Exchange Commission).
The president can sign or veto legislation passed by Congress but can also exert influence and enforce the nation’s laws through executive actions, which include executive orders, proclamations, and presidential memoranda. The departments and agencies that belong to the executive branch are responsible for carrying out the regular enforcement and administration of federal laws and executive actions. Each is led by a department head, chosen by the president and confirmed by the US Senate, and given a specific budget each year to enforce federal laws.
https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/

Discuss Cleanth Brooks's close reading of "Fifty Grand."

Cleanth Brooks is identified with the concept of “close reading.” According to Wikipedia:

Brooks was the central figure of New Criticism, a movement that emphasized structural and textual analysis—close reading—over historical or biographical analysis.

And an essay in Cleanth Brooks and the Rise of Modern Criticism (ed. Mark R. Winchell) states:

Cleanth Brooks, chief architect of America’s first real school of criticism, was an advocate of “close reading,” if nothing else. . . .Brooks’s essays loosely demonstrate a joy in “close reading” through a gentle and urbane writing style as Southern in its way as that of Faulkner, Welty, or other Southern writers Brooks admired.

How close is close? Here is Brooks’s complete summary of Ernest Hemingway’s short story “Fifty Grand” in Brooks’s book The Hidden God:

The hero of this story is the aging heavyweight champion who is having difficulty getting in shape for the championship fight and who, finally aware that he is certain to lose the fight, decides to fix the fight and to bet against himself. He is going to lose his title anyway, but by betting against himself he will at least realize some profit out of the end of his boxing career. It is a sordid sellout to be sure, even though Hemingway has made it plain that the boxer is a good home man who loves his wife and children and who is primarily anxious to provide for them. But a sellout it is, and the fact that we accept it as such will in no wise interfere with our apprehension of the artistic merit of the story.
The gamblers, however, have given the double cross a further twist; they have actually arranged to have the challenger lose by fouling the champion. During the bout, therefore, the boxer suddenly finds himself utterly torn apart by a low blow in the groin, physically sickened with the pain and sick too with the stunning realization that his fortune—he had bet heavily against himself—has in an instant vanished. But the plan of action forms immediately in his pain-numbed mind, and with an almost superhuman courage he holds himself together long enough to carry it out. He is able to summon a sick smile to his face as he assures the referee that he has not really been hurt, that the low blow directed by the challenger was purely accidental, and that the fight should be allowed to go on. He actually manages to convince the referee; the fight does go on, and goes on long enough for him to launch a low blow himself, a blow which fouls his opponent so thoroughly and so cripplingly that the fight is over and his own defeat assured.

Brooks says that Jack “decides to fix the fight” because he is “certain he is going to lose.” Jack doesn’t fix the fight. How could he? Why should he if he is sure to lose? Lew Morgan and Happy Steinfelt, the two gamblers who come out to see him at Danny Hogan’s health farm in New Jersey, talk him into betting fifty thousand dollars against himself. Brooks calls this “a sordid sellout.” How can it be a sordid sellout when Jack is certain to lose regardless of whether he bets on Walcott or not?
Brooks, who doesn’t understand this story, says “the gamblers have given the double cross a further twist.” What double cross? The only double cross is having Walcott try to lose the fight on a foul, which must have been their original intention. Jack isn’t double crossing anybody.
Brooks says that Walcott delivers “a low blow to the groin.” Any blow to the groin is a low blow. According to the narrator, Walcott hit Jack a full five inches below the belt.
Brooks says that Jack realizes “his fortune . . . has in an instant vanished.” Jack might lose fifty grand, but that is not his entire fortune. He tells Jerry Doyle: “I worry about property I got up in the Bronx. I worry about property I got in Florida. . . . I got some stocks and I worry about them.” Jack is extremely tight with his money and has been champion for a long time. The fifty grand probably only represents a tenth of his total assets.
Brooks tells us that Jack “is able to summon a sick smile to his face” Where did Brooks get that sick smile? Didn’t he expect his own readers to read him closely? Jack simply says, “It wasn’t low. . . It was a accident. . . . “I’m all right.” Then: “Come on, you polak son-of-a-bitch.”
The champion, Jack Brennan, is not a heavyweight, not a light heavyweight, not a middleweight, but a welterweight. Hemingway even shows him weighing in with the challenger, Jimmy Walcott, but Brooks must have missed that scene during his close reading. Jack weighs 143 pounds and Walcott weighs 146. A welterweight is between 140 and 147 pounds. If Jack were a few pounds lighter he could qualify as a lightweight. If a heavyweight fouled Jack the way Walcott did, Jack might never recover. Of course, Brooks might not know much about boxing, but a close reader should guess that these men were far from being heavyweights.
If Cleanth Brooks considers this a “close reading,” then it seems apparent that Brooks was looking closely for what he wanted to find—his so-called “hidden god,” who certainly seems well hidden.
Brooks does not understand boxing or Hemingway’s plot. Brooks does not even try to explain why two bookies would want Jack to bet on Walcott, when they would have to return the $50,000 plus $25,000 if Walcott, the two-to-one favorite, wins. Nor does Brooks attempt to explain how Jack gives them fifty thousand dollars cash when they are way out in what was then the open country. He would have to pay cash for at least two reasons: (1) such betting was illegal, and (2) a check could turn out to be incriminating evidence that Jack had bet on his opponent.
If Brooks only wants to concern himself with what is specified in the text—which is the essence of “close reading”-- then perhaps he shouldn’t be looking for a hidden god.

How can adult mental health be managed in a health care setting in the US and the UK?

Though the United States and United Kingdom overlap in many areas of policy, they differ dramatically in their approaches to adult healthcare. The UK implements socialized medicine, which means that access to healthcare is universally available and paid for by the state through progressive taxes on income and capital.
On the other hand, the US healthcare system is privatized. Citizens do not have a right to healthcare, not to mention affordable healthcare. Healthcare and insurance providers in the US tend to prioritize their financial interests over any moral imperative to administer healthcare to those who can't afford it. As a result, at least 50 million Americans are presently without any coverage. Another consequence is that the US healthcare system systematically privileges white, affluent demographics over poorer minority demographics, exacerbating an already difficult wealth inequality epidemic. Recent plans, such as the Affordable Care Act (discontinued under the Trump administration) seek a more socialized approach to healthcare by forcing providers and insurers to act in citizens' best interests.

What were some of the psychological effects of “living in two worlds” on the Author Wes in The Other Wes Moore? How do you think he was able to deal with living two lives?

Wes’s quote “I was becoming too ‘rich’ for the kids from the neighborhood and too ‘poor’ for the kids at school. . . . Thinking way too much in each situation and getting tangled in the contradiction between my two worlds” epitomizes his feelings about his constant role as the “other.” Much of Wes’s alienation stems from his mother’s decision to send him to Riverdale. As an attendee of Riverdale, Wes is different from his community—separated; this makes him feel isolated and caught between the two worlds of home and school because he does not truly fit in in either place.
Although attending Riverdale is a “privilege,” he does not feel that way. This is exemplified when he says, “My mother saw Riverdale as a haven, a place where I could escape my neighborhood and open my horizons. But for me, it was where I got lost.” Wes loses his identity as a tough kid from the Bronx, because a truly tough kid would attend public school, not a “white” school for rich kids.
In his neighborhood, Moore has friends—his crew. And yet while he has a sense of inclusion in the neighborhood, he will never really be part of it, because of where he goes to school. He develops different coping mechanisms to deal with the alienation. For example, Wes embellishes the story of his suspension from Riverdale for fighting as a way to gain street cred with the other boys in his tough neighborhood. But, while he is at school, Wes does everything he can to blend in and minimize his differences from the other students. The kids at school come from mostly wealthy families and live privileged lifestyles. On the other hand, Wes lives in a rough neighborhood and adopts a thug-like persona to survive street life.
Both of these scenarios give Wes a sense of inadequacy. As a result, his grades suffer, and his mother is disappointed in him. Rather than using the adversity he faces as motivation to rise above, he begins to head down a path of bad choices and excuses, although he does eventually head down a more positive road. This theme—of roads not taken—becomes central to the book.

What does "no man born of a woman would have the power to hurt Macbeth" mean?

This is one of the three additional prophecies the three witches offer to Macbeth in Act VI, scene 1. It is meant to confuse Macbeth, and give him false confidence that he will triumph over his enemies.

Showing him the apparition or vision of a bloody child, the witches tell Macbeth that no man born of woman will be able to hurt him. Macbeth takes this at face value, thinking it means that he is safe from harm. After all, all men are born of women, so it seems nobody can lay a finger on him.

However, the witches are speaking in riddles. What they really mean is that a man born from a Ceasarean section will hurt him. This does seem to be splitting hairs about birth in an unfair way, as one could argue that even a child born by Caesarean is still born of a woman, but the witches at this point actively want to harm and trick Macbeth. They are therefore defining "birth" only as going down the birth canal and being born the natural way.

Th witches are becoming cruel to Macbeth and out and out trying to destroy him. This is because Hecate, the head or "mistress" of the witches, appears in Act III, scene 5, and angrily scolds the three for having prophesied to Macbeth about becoming king without consulting her, and moreover, having done it out of an attempt to help, not hurt Macbeth. She says he is just as bad as other humans, thinking only about himself. He is spiteful and angry and doesn't care a bit about the witches:


And, which is worse, all you have done
Hath been but for a wayward son,
Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,
Loves for his own ends, not for you.

Therefore, Hecate tells them to step up their game and deliberately confuse Macbeth, which is what they do. They follow her command that they:


Shall raise such artificial sprites [visions, apparitions]
As by the strength of their illusion
Shall draw him on to his confusion.

How are Cesaire’s ideas of colonialism and imperialism relevant to African liberators today?

In his Discourse on Colonialism, Césaire talks at length about how imperialism both exploits the colonized and corrupts the soul of the colonizer. In some cases, the oppressor makes no promises to the oppressed and simply takes what he wants in the form of human bodies, natural resources, trade routes, and cultural treasure. Césaire argues that this is a more honest transaction than that of the oppressor who promises something in return for his plunder. Some examples of these false promises include military protection, infrastructure, capital, or some form of salvation.
I believe the reference to the African liberator is taken from Mmusi Maimane's 2015 speech in Senegal. When accepting the African Freedom Award on behalf of his organization the Democratic Alliance, the South African organization of which he is the leader, Maimane pointed out that time after time, so-called liberators are elected to rule African nations on false promises. The liberators speak of delivering opportunity, infrastructure, and economic stability to their respective nations, but inevitably, these leaders are corrupt, leaving their nations in the same or worse straits than before.
In this context, Africa's so-called liberators are actually co-conspirators in the continued oppression of African nations. Because these leaders make false promises to gain control and then use their positions for personal gain, they are the same as the oppressors Césaire speaks of.
https://www.da.org.za/2018/11/to-be-free-africa-must-be-liberated-from-its-liberators/