What are some comparisons that Mr. Underwood makes about Tom's death and trial in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Several days after the prison guards killed Tom Robinson, B. B. Underwood wrote an editorial in The Maycomb Tribune. One key phrase that Scout picks up on is “senseless slaughter.” Scout notes that Underwood had referred to Tom as a “cripple”—a term that formerly was frequently applied to people with disabilities—and she initially assumes that his criticism is directed toward the guards because they shot a partially disabled person, which would be wrong whether that person was “standing, sitting, or escaping.” What prompts Scout to analyze the editorial further, however, is Underwood’s use of “slaughter” along with “hunters and children.” In this regard, Underwood is not only comparing the guards to predators and Tom to animal prey but also judging the guards’ actions as childish. Tom, in his estimation, resembles a “songbird.” While Underwood strongly criticizes the guards’ action, he avoids discussing the trial, and he explicitly omits any discussion of race. Scout makes those connections on her own.

In chapter 25, Scout mentions that the citizens of Maycomb were interested in the news of Tom's tragic death for two days before they forgot about it. However, Scout recalls reading an article written by Mr. Underwood in The Maycomb Tribune in which he expressed his displeasure and disgust at Tom Robinson's tragic death. Scout mentions that Mr. Underwood did not elaborate or speak on miscarriages of justice and simply believed that it was a sin to kill "cripples." In the article, Mr. Underwood likened Tom Robinson's death to the senseless slaughter of songbirds at the hands of merciless hunters.
Mr. Underwood's analogy directly corresponds to Atticus's lesson regarding the importance of protecting innocent, defenseless beings when he explains to his children that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird in chapter ten. After reading Mr. Underwood's article, Scout finally understands its meaning and mentions,

Atticus had used every tool available to free men to save Tom Robinson, but in the secret courts of men’s hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed. (Lee, 245)

How does having dreams and aspirations positively affect people's lives?

Having dreams and aspirations is incredibly important and can positively affect people's lives in a number of different ways, both on an individual basis and on a broader, global scale.
On a global scale, the civil rights movement in America began, for many, as a dream. Indeed, in his famous speech delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. declared that he had a dream to one day see "the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners . . . [sit] down together at the table of brotherhood." Many people at this time thought that racial equality was an impossible dream, and that black and white people would never be able to live with one another in peace and harmony. In fact, many people, including many black people, considered that the only solution was for all Americans of African descent to move to Africa. This was known as the Back-to-Africa movement. However, the civil rights movement, led by people like Martin Luther King Jr., believed in and fought for the dream of racial equality, and it is because of people like this that we are now much closer to that dream being a reality. One might even argue that we are as close as we are to that dream being a reality because Martin Luther King Jr. aspired to achieve equality through peaceful, nonviolent protest. Many others, like Malcolm X, believed that this was an unrealistic and unhelpful aspiration.
The civil rights movement, which began as a dream, achieved a number of goals which have positively impacted the lives of millions of people. In 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which made illegal any racial discrimination in the workplace or in schools. One year later, Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act, which brought an end to spurious legal barriers which had previously prevented black people from voting. Over fifty years later, it is certainly arguable that King's dream is yet to be fully realized, but it is indisputable that this dream has, nonetheless, positively impacted the lives of millions of Americans.
In addition to the accomplishments of the civil rights movement, there are plenty of other examples of global achievements which have positively impacted the lives of millions of people and which have begun as dreams or aspirations. Equality between the sexes began as a dream, for example. Like racial equality, it is not yet fully realized, but thanks to people like Emmeline Pankhurst (an English suffragette who helped secure the vote for women in 1918) and Susan B. Anthony (an American Quaker who campaigned for the vote for women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), millions of women now enjoy greater equality and have access to many more opportunities than was the case in the relatively recent past.
There are, of course, also examples of dreams and aspirations which have negatively impacted people's lives on a global scale. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party had an aspiration to ethnically "cleanse" Germany of Jews, Romani, and homosexuals, and this aspiration became a reality in which millions of people, including six million Jews, were brutally tortured and murdered in concentration camps. Not long after the atrocities committed by the Nazis, Chairman Mao presided over what is now known as the Great Famine of China (1958–1961), which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. This famine was in large part caused by Mao's aspiration to accelerate China's process of industrialization so that it could compete with the likes of America. The famine was also caused in part by policies enacted in the name of Communism, such as the forced collectivization of farms into communes.
Therefore, for every dream or aspiration that has led to significant positive impacts upon people's lives on a global scale, there will be an example of a dream which has led to significant negative impacts. The logical inference is that dreams and aspirations only positively affect people's lives if those dreams and aspirations are moral and seek to alleviate oppression and suffering, rather than add to or exacerbate that suffering which already exists.
On a more personal level, dreams and aspirations can also affect people's lives in both positive and negative ways, depending largely upon the nature of those dreams and aspirations and also upon the moral character of the individual who is pursuing the dream or aspiration. Having an aspiration to become rich, for example, could affect a person positively or negatively, depending upon how moral or immoral one is prepared to be to achieve that goal. On the one hand, the aspiration for wealth could make a person work harder and thus contribute more fully to society. On the other hand, aspiring to become rich could result in a person neglecting family, friends, or their own health.
The sporting arena is a good place to demonstrate and develop this point. Athletes work incredibly hard to achieve their dreams, whether it be an Olympic medal, a World Cup, the Super Bowl, or something else. Most who achieve their dreams do so by living healthy lives, persevering, and working hard. And for many, the result is wealth, perhaps fame, and the satisfaction and happiness one gets from achieving a dream. All of these consequences are, ostensibly at least, positive. There are also some athletes, however, who achieve their dreams by cheating. Lance Armstrong (an American cyclist who won seven Tour de France titles) is a good example of an athlete who allowed his dream of success to cause a negative impact. His desperation to win at all costs made him resort to blood doping. His cheating was uncovered in 2013, and he has since been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.
In summary, dreams and aspirations can positively affect people's lives in ways which are life-changing and enduring, but they can also affect people's lives negatively in ways which are devastating and horrific. Whether the impact is positive or negative seems to depend on two factors. The first factor is the moral character of the person or persons who have and work toward the dream or aspiration. If one is prepared to achieve one's goal in a fair and moral way, then it is more likely than not that that dream will have a positive rather than a negative impact. The second factor is the nature of the dream itself. If the goal of the dream is to reduce oppression rather than increase it and increase the scale of human happiness rather than reduce it, then it is possible that the dream, with the right people behind it, can have a huge positive impact.
https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

What did Dad get Leigh for Christmas?

Leigh misses his dad an awful lot. He doesn't get to see him all that much because a). his parents are divorced, and b). his dad drives a truck and so spends a lot of time out on the road. Christmas is a particularly difficult time of the year for Leigh as he's often so incredibly lonely. He wishes that he could have a normal family life like all the other kids instead of constantly wondering if maybe his dad will call.
Days go by and there's still no word from Leigh's dad. Leigh's becoming ever more disappointed; he's seriously starting to think that his old man won't get in touch this Christmas. However, Mr. Botts comes through for his son, sending someone to drop off a present for Leigh on Christmas morning. As we can imagine, Leigh's overjoyed to receive his gift, which is a quilted jacket with lots of pockets and a hood that zips into the collar. It's just what he's always wanted.

Discuss the importance of character and a good reputation in The Mayor of Casterbridge and explain how these values are representative of the era in which the novel was written.

Thomas Hardy explores the qualities of personal character and reputation in light of the Victorian era's changing class relations in England. The Industrial Revolution played a significant role in shaking up the traditional class structure. Rather than being born into high status and being wealthy as a member of the landed gentry, English people now had a greater opportunity to make a fortune and advance in society. The break from land and property as the bases of wealth also increased mobility. In addition, Britain's great naval prowess facilitated its overseas expansion, and fortunes could be made in trade.
The idea of personal integrity and merit, combined with that of self-reinvention, is clearly one of the underlying concepts that Hardy presents. While some of the positive qualities needed for success can be learned, others are innate; this combination also reflects the influence of evolutionism through the concept of Social Darwinism. The relative virtue in character and the related public esteem can be seen in two contrasting characters, Michael Henchard and Donald Farfae.
As the subtitle indicates, Hardy appraises the rise and fall of Henchard as "a man of character." Henchard settles in Casterbridge in hopes of having a comfortable if modest life—an escape from his alcoholic past, which resulted in his selling his wife and child. His dedication to hard work, combined with innate intelligence, propel him to much greater success.
The appearance of ethical dealings, or a reputation for fairness, are the underpinnings of his ongoing achievement. This reputation is a basis for his election to the council which is a stepping stone to becoming Mayor. Henchard's Church participation further cements his good name. The problem, however, is that all of this is built on a lie. Henchard did an unforgivable thing and, once his treachery to his family—the bedrock of all social interactions—is found out, he loses everything.
Donald Farfae, in contrast, arrives with ambition but no dark secret. He is who he says he is. As he does not cross the line into illegal behavior, Farfae embodies the spirit of honest competition as he displaces Henchard. Even his decision to strike out with his own business relates to his attitude toward a disabled person. The ethical question of turning away from true love toward apparently marrying for money is the gray area, although after Lucetta's death he returns to Elizabeth-Jane, whom he can now support.

Argue for one side of this point: we should have limits on our freedom.

We already do have limits on our freedoms in respect of the laws that we are expected to obey. Legally at least, I don't have the freedom to steal something that belongs to someone else, and nor do I have the freedom to hit someone if I feel aggrieved. In this sense, legal restrictions on our freedoms are absolutely necessary for a civil, ordered society that we can all live in peacefully.
Another restriction on our freedom that is legally enshrined in most democratic societies is the restriction of our freedom of speech. At first this may sound like a wholly undemocratic, autocratic restriction, but in fact some restrictions on our freedom of speech are necessary in order for a civilized society to function effectively. For example, employers should not have the freedom to ask about the religion or sexuality of a prospective employee, and advertisers, including politicians in campaign season, should not be free to make whatever outlandish, hollow promises they feel like. In other words, some restrictions on our freedom of speech are necessary to guard against discrimination or to hold people accountable for the promises that they make.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Justice of the American Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932, once said that "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." This is a proposition that I broadly agree with. It means that the freedom that somebody has to live their life as they choose extends only so far as it doesn't detrimentally impact the freedom of somebody else to live their life as they choose. This seems to me a rather good basis for any society.

Which laws in the USA don't allow freedom of speech?

Legally, there are limitations to US citizens' right to freedom of speech in the workplace, as members of the armed forces, or as elementary or secondary school students.
In almost all states, an employer can fire an employee without showing or naming cause. Employees are protected from being fired based on race, gender, and so on but not based on their opinions, whether on politics, company practices, or even sports.
People are also frequently fired for trying to join or form unions. In theory, that's supposed to be protected by the Wagner Act. In practice, that law was gutted by the later Taft Hartley Act, which made it legal to not recognize unions with "radical" members, like socialists. Most agencies dealing with labor disputes are staffed by pro-business members, if they are staffed at all.
Those in the military have their speech severely limited. It's common to be punished for what's viewed as insubordination, in the name of military order. Members also are limited in how they can participate in the political process while in uniform, backed up by court martial. There is also a strong custom, backed up by law, that active duty military officers stay out of politics. The alternative would be a place like Latin America, where the military often takes over to decide the nation's fate, often by force in dozens of coups.
The courts have also ruled that students' speech can be limited by administrators in the name of order. This includes hair and dress codes. The main remedy is in appealing to parents through school boards.

In the Rise of Silas Lapham, is Penelope a nonconformist?

As the title indicates, the novel chronicles Silas Lapham’s ascent, in wealth and status. It also traces his fall. Lapham, his wife, and their two daughters benefit from his riches as the family from rural Vermont adapts to metropolitan Boston. In doing so, they adopt the exterior trappings and, to some extent, the interior attitudes of the upper class. When Lapham loses his fortune, however, the family likewise must adapt to their reduced circumstances. Penelope, the older daughter, seems to be a nonconformist through much of the novel but it is possible that her attitudes were a phase or even a posture.
Penelope can be interpreted a nonconformist in the sense of embodying the modern or new woman, as understood in the late 19th century. Along with her mother and sister, she utilizes the family’s resources primarily to live a life of leisure. While upper-class girls often took up accomplishments such as music or embroidery, the Lapham girls prefer indolence. Penelope, not interested in fashion or flirtation, enjoys reading.
In Chapter 7, Penelope is said to be reading George Eliot’s Middlemarch, and getting books from the library—not something the other family members do. Tom, who works in her father’s business, is from a prominent but financially troubled Boston family, the Coreys. His mother disapproves of the Laphams as new money people, and criticizes them for borrowing rather than buying books. In this sense, the whole family does not fully fit in to Boston society, and Pen is exceptional in large part because of personal qualities Tom notices. As that type of behavior was not completely out of the ordinary for upper-class girls of the day, however, she might be considered as conforming to a specific set of trends.
At the novel ends (Chapter 27), she embarks on an apparently conventional path, as she marries Tom. Yet this courtship has its twists and turns; her sister is interested in Tom, and Penelope also claims she does not want Tom to be burdened with a poor wife. After he convinces her that this is not an obstacle in his mind, she consents to the match. Since his business ventures will take him to Mexico, she might have further opportunities to resist social conformity—and in any event, she says, she won’t find it harder to fit in among Mexicans than with his proper family.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/newwoman.html

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/154/154-h/154-h.htm