How do citizens find their matching spouses in The Giver?

Jonas's uniform, highly structured society is founded on the principles of Sameness and tightly controlled by the Committee of Elders. The Committee of Elders is responsible for making every significant decision in the community, which includes controlling the birthrate, matching spouses, organizing households, and deciding specific occupations for each citizen in the community. In Jonas's society, independence and human agency are virtually nonexistent. Citizens do not get to choose their spouses and must apply for a spouse. After applying for a spouse, the Committee of Elders carefully examines the citizen's personality traits and compatibility factors in order to choose the perfect, most compatible partner for them. The citizens have absolutely no say in who they marry and the Matching of Spouses is controlled by the Committee of Elders. Once a couple is matched, they are monitored for three years before they are allowed to apply for a child, which is also out of their control and chosen by the Committee of Elders.

In The Giver, everything is controlled, from what jobs the citizens have to how many children they can raise. One example of this is the ceremony called the Matching of Spouses. The Committee of Elders, who run the society, oversee these kinds of ceremonies. Just like they determine what job each twelve-year-old is best suited to, they also assign spouses. The Committee of Elders considers each person's personality, as well as "disposition, energy level, intelligence, and interests." A person can apply for a spouse, and it may take a long time before the Committee of Elders decides upon a suitable match. They want the husband and wife to complement each other.
Once a pair has been married and observed for three years, they may apply for children. They can be granted one male child and one female child, who are birthed by Birth Mothers.
In this society, citizens don't have choice, because the Committee fears that people will choose wrong. They cannot choose who they marry. Their spouse is assigned to them.

After Rikki-tikki-tavi kills Karait, how does he feel?

Prior to killing Karait, the young mongoose named Rikki-tikki-tavi has encountered the big black cobra Nag and his "wife," Nagaina. He is feeling quite proud of himself at this time and is increasing in confidence because he is able to avoid an attack from the rear by Nagaina.
Rudyard Kipling spends time in this story from The Jungle Book developing the character of Rikki-tikki-tavi. He explains that it is the character of a mongoose to not be afraid of anything.

It is the hardest thing in the world to frighten a mongoose, because he is eaten up from nose to tail with curiosity. The motto of all the mongoose family is "Run and find out," and Rikki-tikki was a true mongoose.

Rikki-tikki-tavi was raised by his mother to know the purpose of his life was to kill and eat snakes. She also taught him how desirable it is to live in the house of men, so Rikki quickly bonds with the family that saves him.
After his encounter with Nag and Nagaina, Rikki encounters Karait. The narrator tells readers that Karait is more dangerous than Nag and Nagaina because his body is so small. If Rikki misses or strikes Karait in the wrong place, he could die. Before the encounter, Kipling explains that the idea that a mongoose knows about a magic herb to protect it from a snake bite is a myth. All they have is their courage and quickness in defense against an attack from a snake.

He went away for a dust bath under the castor oil bushes, while Teddy's father beat the dead Karait. "What is the use of that?" thought Rikki-tikki. "I have settled it all"; and then Teddy's mother picked him up from the dust and hugged him, crying that he had saved Teddy from death, and Teddy's father said that he was a providence, and Teddy looked on with big scared eyes. Rikki-tikki was rather amused at all the fuss, which, of course, he did not understand.

This passage explains how Rikki is feeling after killing Karait. He doesn't understand why Teddy's father strikes at the snake, because he knows with total confidence that he killed the snake himself. He also doesn't understand Teddy's mother's crying. The parents think that it has been divinely ordained that Rikki has come into their lives to keep their family from the danger of snakes. But to Rikki, he's simply doing what mongooses do—and that is killing snakes. He thinks about eating Karait after killing him, which his mother taught him to do, but the family is keeping him well fed with eggs, bananas, and raw meat, so he is satisfied, and decides that eating the snake will only slow him down.

After he has killed Karait, we are told that Rikki-tikki-tavi is "thoroughly enjoying himself." He doesn't seem to experience any guilt or remorse for killing the snake. On the contrary, however, we are told that the snake is very dangerous and could have done significant damage to the family. Rikki-tikki-tavi seems to draw impulsively upon his instincts as a mongoose, knowing that he should not eat the whole snake because this would make him full and would slow him down. Instead, he springs onto the snake's back and delivers a bite which paralyzes him, and then leaves the snake. Feeling that he has settled the matter, he is puzzled by Teddy's mother's screams, but enjoys the subsequent petting and fuss he receives for having dispatched the dangerous snake and saved Teddy from death. He doesn't understand why he is being petted, as to him the killing of the snake was simply instinctive and not a valorous act, but he enjoys it all the same.

Why do you think the Akkadians and other invaders adopted Sumer's culture?

I believe that the Akkadians adopted Sumerian culture because it was considered to be more sophisticated and advanced compared to theirs. Sumer was viewed as the place where civilization began. Sumerians had developed a writing system and took part in the development of architecture, sciences, and mathematics. For example, they built walled cities that were characterized by public buildings, unconventional and innovative water systems, and agricultural land. In addition, Sumerians had the cuneiform writing system, which was later adopted and used to develop the Akkadian writing system.
Akkadians moved to the south of Mesopotamia, where they took control over Sumer. As with many invasions throughout history, it is likely that the Akkadians adopted Sumerian culture because it made them more powerful and dominant compared to their neighbors in the region.

How do the constant bird references fit into Cervantes's theme of Chicano identity?

"Beneath the Shadow of the Freeway" is a poem by Lorna Dee Cervantes. Cervantes was born in San Francisco with Mexican and Native American ancestry. Much of her writing deals with themes of identity, especially as she considers what it means to be Chicano.
In this poem, she talks about her mother and grandmother, and the different advice they gave her. Birds are often a symbol of freedom. In her poem, I believe that they they can symbolize beauty, hope, and/or renewal.
The first reference to birds comes in the third section with the mention of seagulls. Before this, at the end of the second section she says:

Myself: I could never decide.

She then describes the seagulls as having "indecisive beaks." Based on these lines, it might indicate that the speaker sees herself in the seagulls, and possibly connects the flocks of birds to the "flock" of the women in her family.
The male mockingbirds in the third section are a way for the speaker's grandmother to talk about the missing men in her life without having to focus on the negative: the beautiful image of mockingbirds "singing" for their wives is used in contrast to mention of the drunken man who left.
The image of mockingbirds returns again at the end of the fifth section, and again it feels like an attempt to find beauty despite the pain.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/lorna-dee-cervantes

How does the story "A Rose for Emily" exemplify modernism?

The story exemplifies the tension between the New South and the Old, between a world of certainty and order and the much more chaotic modernist world, where all the old uncertainties have been undermined.
We see this tension illustrated right throughout the story. Miss Emily represents the old world, and she is placed on a pedestal by the townsfolk as the last surviving link to a supposedly more gracious past. Yet modernity cannot be stalled forever. The town needs to function and taxes raised for that precise purpose. This means that Miss Emily must contribute her fair share. However, because of her exalted status in town, Emily is able to cut a sweetheart deal with the local authorities which means she doesn't have to pay any taxes. That's definitely a win for the Old South.
Another win is Miss Emily's being able to buy rat poison without specifying the precise purpose for doing so. Modern laws require her to do precisely that, but Emily triumphs in her brief battle of wills with the pharmacist and once again gets a pass.
Modernism eventually triumphs over the forces of the Old South, but by then it's too late. It's only when the source of that revolting stench emanating from the Grierson residence is finally revealed that the modern world triumphs over the old. We can see this as a prime illustration of a key aim of modernist literature, namely to reveal what's really lurking beneath the surface of the ostensibly ordered, respectable world in which we live.

In multimedia, watch the video "Woman Slaps Man, Rejects Advances." Then compose an analysis of any intentional torts present in the video. If you find that an intentional tort was committed, please indicate who committed the tort, the criteria for that tort to be successful, and how the actor's actions fit the requirements of the tort. https://youtu.be/WBflMuarvk4

According to the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell, "common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Here we definitely have a battery by the man against the woman. The elements of battery are (1) harmful or offensive, (2) contact, and (3) without consent. The woman is clearly offended by the man's "familiarities" in caressing her cheek and repulses his overture forcefully. With battery, the contact need not be harmful. If someone spits on a purse being held by a woman, that could be a battery. The contact must have been intentional; if the man had had a seizure and had touched the woman involuntarily, that would not be a battery.
However, when the woman slaps the man, was that also a battery? It was intentional and harmful contact, but in being so familiar, did the man consent to the possibility that he might be rejected with a slap, or did he waive his right to complain? An argument can be made for either battery or not against the man.
We may also have an assault, but only if the man intended that the woman fear or feel threatened by his contact. According to LII, assault "is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." A successful argument would show that the woman felt some fear or apprehension as the man moved forward to complete his contact. Again, there are arguments for and against.
We should also consider the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), not only by the man against the woman, but also by the woman against the man, because the woman tells the man she "once ruined a man's career," which implies she could also ruin his if she chose. According to the LII, the elements of IIED are that (1) the defendant acts, (2) does so outrageously, (3) the act is done for the purpose of causing harm so severe that it affects the plaintiff's mental health, and (4) the plaintiff's mental health is so affected by those acts. Here, the woman has indeed acted, but it is not clear that the other elements have been met. Likewise, the man appears to be aggressively flirting, but it would be hard to prove that he intended to cause mental harm to the woman.
A good law school answer to this question will go through all of the elements of battery, assault, and IIED and explain why the elements have or have not been met. But because the question asks about "intentional torts," an excellent answer would also briefly address the other intentional torts (false imprisonment, trespass to land and chattels) and why they do not apply in this case.

What is the significance of the ointment gift from Haymitch in The Hunger Games?

At this point in the plot, Katniss has been trapped in a tree by the Careers with a tracker jacker nest over her head. She has been badly burned and does not have much hope of escape or survival in her precarious situation. During the anthem, Katniss tries to saw the limb which holds the tracker jacker nest but doesn't quite finish before the anthem's conclusion. She slides back to her fork in the tree when she finds a gift: the ointment.
This is significant because it gives her hope in a couple of ways. First, she had begun to feel that Haymitch had given up on her. Now she is certain that he is outside the arena fighting for her and with her, securing gifts on her behalf. Second, it provides insight that she has a base of support outside the arena. This ointment is almost miraculous; it heals injuries on contact almost immediately. When Katniss rubs it on her wounds, it "transform[s] all the angry red patches to a soft baby-skin pink" and helps her leg wound as well, though that one takes a bit more medicine because it burned deeper.
Katniss realizes the extreme cost of such medicine and knows that "many sponsors have contributed to buy this one tiny pot." Since it provides her the physical ability to continue in the games, it is "priceless" to Katniss.