What does Alexander Pope mock in his poem An Essay on Man, and what techniques does he use?

An Essay on Man, unlike many of the other works for which Pope is best known, is not a satire. Mockery is thus not a prime feature of the poem, as it is in The Rape of the Lock or The Dunciad, for example. The ideas in the Essay, however, are put forward partly by showing the falseness of opposing kinds of thought, which Pope does hold up to ridicule, but not with the kind of sardonic or acerbic expression we find in the satires. It's more in a sad or regretful way that Pope demonstrates, or attempts to do so, that those who disagree with his views are misguided.
Though the "best of all possible worlds" philosophy of Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz was later much ridiculed (sometimes in a caricatured version) by Voltaire, for example, in Candide, this forms the basis of much of Pope's thinking. Pope's view is that it is wrong to regard the negative aspects of the world, the imperfections of life, as evidence that God is unjust—or worse, that God does not exist. To Pope, it is a sign of naivete or foolish pride for anyone to expect the world to be perfect, without problems and challenges for man to solve. It's also a sign of narcissism for man to think the universe was created for his personal benefit or comfort, because we have no way of knowing exactly what God's larger plan or overall purpose was in creating it. It's the self-centered, prideful view that Pope holds up to ridicule, through striking metaphors and, as with all great poets, his brilliant and beautiful word choice.

Ask for what end the heavenly bodies shine,
Earth for whose use? Pride answers, "'Tis for mine:
For me kind nature wakes her genial power,
Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower . . .
Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,
My footstool earth, my canopy the skies."

Pope's language is so striking that even those who don't agree with his views find it difficult to avoid quoting him once they have read his work. This is why Samuel Johnson (who disliked the Essay on Man despite his view that "if Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found?") referred to the "blaze of embellishments" with which Pope had expressed a philosophy Johnson himself considered absurd. Pope does not so much mock as express in sublimely powerful verse his view of those who disagree with him as unfortunately misguided and unrealistically prideful. As noted, there is a sad, regretful tone that dominates much of the poem in contrast to the slashing, merciless style of Pope's satiric works.

Translate act 2, scene 2, lines 85–127, between Romeo and Juliet into modern-day text messages that you would send via phone, but leave readers able to recognize some of the famous lines from the text.

There are a few ways we can tackle this assignment! One option is to look at each line of Shakespeare's text and directly translate the words and phrases into words and phrases that teens would use today. Another option is to review a summary of the scene and then write your own exchange based on the summary and without directly "translating." This version may end up being shorter, as you will get to the heart of what they are saying, but text messages do tend to be shorter than Shakespeare's lines.
Something else to make your writing stand out is to consider the characterization of Romeo and Juliet. Your task is to turn their lines into text messages, so consider their texting styles. Does Romeo have spelling mistakes in his rush to get his words out? Does Juliet use emojis as symbols for her words? Do they both use abbreviations, or just one of them, or neither of them? Consider what you know about their characters, and then try to imagine how this would come across over text.
Finally, your assignment is to make sure the famous lines are still recognizable, so before beginning your translation, you may want to highlight these so you make sure they stand out.
Let's review the context of this exchange. Romeo and Juliet have met at Capulet's party. This is the first time they interact, and it seems to be love at first sight. Their families are enemies, but this does not seem to stop them. Romeo sneaks into Juliet's backyard, where he gives a soliloquy about how much he loves her. He overhears Juliet's soliloquy about how she loves Romeo despite the fact that he is a Montague. Romeo calls out to Juliet, which startles her, and she asks how he got there.
In lines 85–127, Romeo says love led him to her balcony. Juliet admits she is blushing in the darkness. If he says he loves her, she'll believe it—but she also recognizes that he might be lying. She admits she has feelings for him too. Romeo swears that he loves her, and she stops him from swearing.
Here's an example of what I imagine their text exchange might look like. Yours will be different, based on what texting style you ascribe to them.
JULIET: How'd you get this number?
ROMEO: Love, bby <3
JULIET: aw, I'm blushing. Do you love me?
JULIET: don't answer, I know you'll say yes, and I believe you, but what if you're lying?
JULIET: I like you too. I think I like you too much. omg i'm triple texting you how embarrassing!
ROMEO: girl i swear by the moon i love u
JULIET: lol don't swear by the moon it's always changing!!!
ROMEO: wat should I swear by?
JULIET: Don't swear at all!
JULIET: on second thought, if you're gonna swear, then swear by yourself because that's what I hold highly, then I'll believe you <3
ROMEO: (...)
JULIET: wait this is all so sudden!
JULIET: i like you, but this is moving too fast, so i'm gonna sign off for the night :3

What an interesting question! I’m having trouble thinking of two forms of English more dissimilar than Shakespearian English and the vernacular used in texting and on social media! The first thing I would recommend is that you exclude or reword the instances where the characters imply that they can see each other. For example,

Thou knowest the mask of night is on my face,Else would a maiden blush bepaint my cheek

Here, you might say,

im blushing, lucky its dark here.

Or, where they talk about their physical location—

Lady, by yonder blessed moon I vow.

You might say,

I swear on the moon I can see out the window.

Unaltered, such references don’t make sense in text conversations, where we should assume that the participants are in different places.
A second technique you might think about using is abbreviation. You could take a word like “love” and transform it to “luv.” Since the language used in texts is a dynamic language which people are adding to all the time, you can be really inventive here. As one more example, each time a character uses the word “too,” as in

It is too rash, too unadvis’d, too sudden,

You might substitute the number 2 in its place.
Shakespeare’s dialogs are typically written in long iambic lines meant to express elaborate ideas, a style of writing that does not lend itself at all well to texting. One solution to this disjunction might be to take ideas that, due to the elaborate language he used to express them, Shakespeare had to put on different lines, and simplify them so that they fit into single sentences:

Dost thou love me? I know thou wilt say, “Ay,”And I will take thy word; yet, if thou swear’st,Thou mayest prove false: at lovers’ perjuries.

Here Juliet does three things. Firstly, she poses Romeo a question when she asks him if he loves her. Then, she states her belief that he will say yes and that she will believe him when he says it. But then she backtracks by saying that, in fact, if he does say he loves her, he might not be speaking honestly. By moving things around, I can make these three things fit neatly into one comparatively short sentence:

Do you love me? I think you’ll say yes, and I’ll believe you if you do, but you might not be telling the truth.

See how Juliet’s words, which would take far too long to express in the form of a text message, can be reduced into a far more manageable form?

Communications Theory in Therapy

Communication theory, adapted from the field of cybernetics or systems theory, was formulated by Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland (1956). The idea was that schizophrenia in one patient arose because of the communication style that was characteristically carried out by the family over time. In this style of communication, family members communicated with the individual with schizophrenia in a way that used a "double bind." In this style of communication, individuals in the family communicated in a way that involved confusion and contradictions and in which there was no way of winning. Essentially, communication in these families resembled a catch-22 situation. For example, a parent might tell a child to be sure to tell people how she feels, but the child might be punished for admitting her true feelings. In this style of communication, the person simply can't win. Though schizophrenia has been shown to be likely be caused by genetic and other factors, this theory has affected family therapy and has emphasized the model of a family as a closed system.
The idea behind the communication theory, which has been a central tenet of family therapy, is that the family is a system. Therefore, dysfunction in one part of the system—such as confusing or unclear messages—can cause dysfunction in other parts of the system. In a more functional family, messages are clearer, and they are used in a consistent manner. However, in a family with dysfunctional communication, one or more family members may develop psychological or other problems.
Sources:
Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley, J. & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251-264.
Nichols, Michael P. Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods, 10th Edition. Pearson, 2012.

What is similar and what is different between Hobbes, Locke, and Shakespeare's concept of the ideal ruler in The Tempest? What makes a good ruler?

The similarity between each concept of an ideal or good ruler in the views of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Shakespeare, is, in general, power. In other words, the concept of an ideal or good ruler within each view has some power by which each view shares similarity with the others. That is to say, all three views emphasize power as something essential, or something constituting, what it means to be an ideal or good ruler.Of course, the differences between the expression of power in each particular view is worth identifying. The political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) suggests that a ruler's power over a commonwealth ought to minimize society's "State of Nature"; therefore, an ideal ruler ought to have an exact 'totalitarian power' (2.17). The political philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704) suggests that a ruler's power ought to preserve "life, liberty, health and property of its citizens"; therefore, an ideal or good ruler ought to have a certain 'governing power' (4.4). Lastly, Shakespeare's (1564-1616) philosophy of power in The Tempest is one that suggests a ruler's power, like that of the character Prospero, is something magical and effectively cunning; therefore, an ideal or good ruler ought to have a certain 'imaginative power' (1.2). While it is crucial to account for each theory having similar concepts of an ideal or good ruler with respect to a similar shared power, so too is it crucial to account for each theory having distinct concepts of what power is.

Shakespeare's The Tempest, although a fictional product of the playwright's imagination, contains deep and varied allegories that explore the nature of power and the qualities of a ruler. These are concepts that Shakespeare returned to again and again in his plays—kings gone mad, rulers usurping other rulers, and the constant plotting of one group against another to seize power.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two other Englishmen who became prominent in the 1600s, just after Shakespeare's time, were equally fascinated by these questions. As philosophers, rather than playwrights, they attempted to address the nature of power and the social organization of humankind through argument and study, and came to have influential theories about politics and human nature.
Hobbes is best known for his belief that, left to their own devices, individual people with no government resort to a merciless free-for-all. In the "state of nature," what he believed was the original human condition, power and violence was the governing principle of human life. This idea led him to a belief in strong centralized power.
Locke, on the other hand, is known as the father of modern liberalism. He wrote that in a state of nature, all men are created equally, and have certain natural rights. When men enter into a social contract, it is not out of fear, as Hobbes would say, but out of a desire to organize civil life more productively. It is from this understanding of human nature that Locke decried the divine right of kings, as a source of power that has no place in human governance.
Scenes and characters in The Tempest show that Shakespeare is working out the same underlying questions that would later fascinate Hobbes and Locke. The incessant scheming and plotting, not only by Prospero but by his brother, Antonio, and the King's son Sebastian, and many other parties, seem to demonstrate Hobbes' belief that power is only acquired through strong power, rather than through reason or divine right. However, Prospero's scheming reveals a fairness and decency that is surprising from an all-powerful sorcerer, and his triumph over the myriad plots against him, with relatively little ill-will could be seen as more in line with Locke's thinking about the fundamental decency of people.
Complicating these ideas, though, is the historical context. Shakespeare, Locke and Hobbes were all living in a time of profound colonial unrest, as new colonies in America shifted the balance of the world and produced unsettling thoughts about human nature. The slave character, Caliban, in particular has been re-examined as an allusion to slavery in the New World, and his untouched island eden may also have been a reference to colonial reports from the Caribbean and elsewhere. Likewise, Hobbes and Locke both based their ideas of "the state of nature" on what they imagined to be the conditions in the New World, and many of their ideas about early human life came from shallow understandings of Native American cultures.
In these ways, The Tempest can be read from many different perspectives, and shows that Shakespeare was grappling with many of the same questions about power and rulers that has fascinated philosophers and politicians for millennia.

Name one thing the Happylife Home can't do in "The Veldt."

In "The Veldt," The children's playroom in the Happylife Home is programmed to respond to the children's thoughts. It operates based on telepathy to create the environment that the children imagine. The Home cannot really take the parents' place because it cannot make moral and ethical judgments, which include decisions about providing guidance or disciplining the children.
When George or Lydia want to change their children's behavior, their only option is to turn off the Home. Peter, however, has figured out how to program the Home to override the parents' input. With the Home unable to reject the telepathic instructions it is receiving, it is inevitable that it enacts the spoiled children's fantasy of killing their parents when they are not getting their own way.

Does the US Constitution limit fractiousness?

While the US Constitution does not prevent fractiousness (no constitution can), it can limit fractiousness by seeking to make the American government more broadly representative than just simple majority rule. Pure majority-rule democracy was widely regarded by the Founding Fathers as a direct threat to the rights of the minority, so they put safeguards into the constitution to protect certain key rights of all Americans, regardless of who was voted into power by the majority. This was meant to prevent the majority from tyrannizing and oppressing the minority.
The Constitution thus reduces fractiousness in creating a system more broadly representative by making sure the voice of the minority is taken into account and not just that of the majority. One way it achieves this goal by having two houses of Congress. If the Founding Fathers had wanted simple majority rule, they could have had 535 legislators in one chamber, in which a majority would be sufficient to pass new legislation. Instead, they gave us a Senate, in which 51 members could block the votes of the other 49 Senators as well as all members of the House, providing a major check on a potential "tyranny of the majority."

Why does Orwell choose to describe the condemned prisoners's cells as looking "like animal cages" and the handling of the prisoners as "like man handling a fish"?

When Orwell describes the prisoners and handling men, he chooses to employ words that convey cruelty and a cold, callous nature. The theme of the novel is that the government has stripped the citizens of their humanity and orchestrates daily life with a calculated cruelty, scripting everything that occurs and erasing everything subversive to their cause. The prisoners have had their humanity stripped from them, and they are caged like animals in a shelter. This description shows how far they have fallen and how despicably they are treated by the government and thought police.
The men who are handling them, on the other hand, typically are acting in a state of quasi-ignorance, not truly knowing or believing what the government's real purpose is with the prisoners—so they are, on the one hand, treating them cruelly like animals (fish) that are being tossed about only to be sliced up later, but they are also treating them efficiently and coldly, like a fishmonger performing a job. Their actions are naive, not necessarily intentionally cruel.

In George Orwell's novel 1984, the condemned prisoners are treated like animals, which is reminiscent of Orwell's novella Animal Farm. This scene illustrates the state's cold, mechanical treatment of people, thus providing a stark contrast between the revolutionaries and the government.
Orwell, who was an officer in British-controlled Burma, witnessed firsthand the interactions between a powerful state and the people it oppresses. Thus, this scene is also a criticism of such imperialism, as well as of authoritarian governments during Orwell's day, such as the Soviet Union.
In both quotes, the prisoners are likened to animals, whether a farm animal in a cage or a fish caught after a hunt. Orwell uses this type of vivid language to show that the prisoners, as well as the overall citizenry, are vulnerable in the hands of the dictatorial state.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/4.html