Discuss the representation of exile and migration in Breath, Eyes, and Memory. Be sure to relate your response to the novel's political context (Duvalier's Haiti) and to address the predicament of the novel's three protagonists, the Caco women: Sophie, Martine, and Tante Atie.

Breath, Eyes, and Memory is the story of the protagonist Sophie Caco, a girl living with her aunt Atie in Haiti. Sophie's mother Martine has migrated to New York in search of a better life. When Sophie's mother sends a plane ticket for Sophie to join her in New York everyone around her is happy for her, but Sophie is not happy to leave. At the airport, there is a riot protesting the corrupt government of President Duvalier and the staff rush Sophie onto the plane with a hysterical boy whose father has just been killed by the protesters. His father had been an official in the corrupt government. Sophie's apprehension at leaving her home is presented by the author against a backdrop of the poverty and corruption. These troubles have prompted Martine and Sophie's exile and migration.
In New York, Martine reveals to Sophie that she was raped by a stranger when she was sixteen in the cane fields of Haiti and that Sophie is the child of that rape. At dinner with her mother's Haitian boyfriend Sophie feels she is a product of her mother's past and feels further alienated because she doesn't look like other members of the family. Migration alone cannot solve Sophie's main struggle with her own identity. Sophie goes to school and eventually finds male companionship with a musician next door who is forthright and kind to her. Her mother, carrying on a practice that she had received from her own mother, begins to check Sophie regularly to see if she is still a virgin. Sophie becomes depressed. She feels caught between the new world of her life in New York and the old customs of her Haitian mother and the baggage of her mother's past. Sophie decides to ensure she will not pass the test although she is not sleeping with any man and Martine kicks her out of the house.
She goes to her friend Joseph but eventually leaves him to return to Haiti. The conditions there have not improved and Atie has turned to alcohol in the chaotic conditions where government Macoutes patrol the markets and murder people at will. Sophie has not spoken with Martine for two years but Martine's mother arranges a reconciliation. Sophie's child looks like the family so perhaps the curse that Sophie has felt from her mother's past might be drawing to a close. Back in New York Martine is pregnant by her boyfriend but begins having nightmares of the rape. She believes the baby is talking to her with the rapist's voice and ends the pregnancy and her life by stabbing herself.
At the funeral in Haiti Sophie runs from the side of her mother's grave into the cane fields (where her mother had been raped). The story has come full circle yet Sophie now feels free for the first time. It turns out that whether or not Sophie stays in Haiti or goes to America she will have to struggle to come to terms with her own identity as a woman, a lover, and a mother. It is perhaps significant that her resolution comes about on her native soil in Haiti.

Help writing a biographical sketch on Claudius focusing on his deceit.

We don't know much about Claudius's background, so you will have to work backward from clues in the play. We know that Claudius was the younger brother of the late King Hamlet, and we know from the play, at the end of act 3, scene 3 (where Claudius is praying), that he can't repent and ask forgiveness for the sins of murdering his brother and marrying his brother's wife. He can't repent, because he isn't sorry he did either one: he loves being king, and he loves being married to Gertrude.
A biographical sketch aims to paint a picture and to have a point of view, but it must be fact-based. It is typically organized chronologically, from birth to death. The focus, as you have indicated, is along the lines of the deceit. You might call it something like "The Deceitful Prince" or "The Deceitful Younger Brother."
It would be important to note that Claudius was a few years younger than King Hamlet. He probably grew up in his shadow, as Hamlet was destined to be king, and Claudius was the "spare heir." You could use evidence from what Prince Hamlet says (noting that it might be unreliable) to say that the late king was the one who shone like the sun: Prince Hamlet likens him to "Hyperion." We can understand how Claudius might be very jealous of his older brother, who not only got to be king but was handsome and athletic, got the beautiful girl, won the fight with Norway, and seemed to have it all. You could mention that the only way Claudius saw to get ahead was to become deceitful—he couldn't win by challenging his popular brother openly.
Since among the only facts we have is the story of how Claudius poisoned King Hamlet, you could talk about that and surmise that he bought the poison, waited until young Hamlet was away at the university, and then looked for his opportunity. You could then describe how the murder took place, as described by the ghost in act 1.
You can provide more detail about what happened after the murder, as then young Hamlet comes home and the action of the play begins. You would want to focus on how Claudius continues to use deceit, pretending to like and welcome young Hamlet, while simultaneously spying on him and being fearful of him. You would want to mention the deceit, after the Mousetrap play, by which Claudius tries to kill Price Hamlet, both through the letter he sends with him to England and by persuading Laertes to poison the tip of his rapier. You would definitely want to end with Claudius's plans backfiring and his being being murdered by the dying young Hamlet.
Good luck with this.

What are the three types of colonial government?

Between the start of the "age of discovery" in the mid-1400s and the independence of most of the last major European colonies after World War II, European powers like Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands developed a wide variety of methods for controlling their colonies. The first European empires, like Spain, simply expanded the feudal method of rule (where land and the labor of people living on the land was given to loyal members of the noble class and/or the church in exchange for their support of the monarch) to the New World. However, this quickly proved to be an inefficient way of governing wide-ranging overseas territories and generating revenue for governments back in Europe. Over time, three major methods developed for European countries to govern their overseas territories.
The first of these was company rule. Joint-stock companies were some of the first modern economic institutions to develop in Europe. Where a single individual couldn't afford to invest in the labor, equipment, and other necessities of a business venture (such as a trip to the East Indies to get spices to sell back in Europe for a profit), several people with liquid capital (that is, capital in the form of money or some other form that can be easily transferred between people and places, unlike land and other older, more fixed forms of property that dominated the feudal era) would invest in a company, sharing the liabilities and the profits. This meant that joint-stock companies could engage in larger and more risky (and profitable) ventures than old feudal landlords could. Therefore, they were key to the establishment of European colonies around the world. The first way that European powers learned to govern their colonies was simply to give a joint-stock company a monopoly over colonial operations in a particular area and allow it to act like a sovereign power. An early example of this was the Massachusetts Bay Company that helped settle English colonists in New England in 1630. While the Plymouth Colony had been established ten years earlier by religious dissidents fleeing persecution, it was the Massachusetts Bay Company that firmly established New England as a colonial society by making the venture profitable. Companies like the Massachusetts Bay Company usually had a "charter" from the monarch of the country whose colony they governed. The most famous and probably the most important instance of company rule was probably the East India Company, by which the British gradually established control over India between the early seventeenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries.
As colonial ventures became even larger, however, they eventually exceeded the scope of what company rule could do. Just as companies represented a higher level of collective cooperation by the European ruling class than the individual ventures of feudal lords had, it became necessary to have a higher level of coordination and cooperation than companies had made possible. This was because colonial rule was becoming larger and more complicated. European settlers, especially where they were present in large numbers (as in North America and parts of Africa), needed to be governed. Colonies needed to be protected from rival countries, as was dramatically shown in the decades following Dutch independence from Spain in the 1560s, when the Dutch seized most Portuguese colonies other than Brazil (Portugal was under Spanish rule at the time). Moreover, where native people resisted colonial rule, they needed to be put down. In this regard, India was again a bellwether for the rest of the modern world. In 1857–58, the so-called "Sepoy Mutiny" (or the India Rebellion of 1857) nearly threw the East India Company out of India after the hired native soldiers turned on their colonial masters. In the wake of the rebellion, Britain replaced company rule in India with the British Raj, which was direct rule over India by the British government itself. This was the next level of ruling class collaboration after the advent of the joint-stock company. While the joint-stock company brought together more resources and individuals for greater and riskier colonial ventures than feudal lords, the modern state was able to establish greater levels of collaboration among the members of the European ruling class than companies had been able to facilitate and thus carry out colonial ventures of which the companies had been incapable. Where companies had dominated the colonial order in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the state came to dominate colonialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
This came in two forms—which are the other two of the three forms of colonial rule, besides company rule, that I'm going to talk about here. The British Raj was an example of what is called "direct rule." This is where a European country would simply conquer a colonial territory and administer it as though it were part of the European mainland. The British also established direct rule in parts of Africa (most notably Kenya) and East Asia (e.g., Hong Kong and Singapore). The major country to use direct rule, however, was France, which created "overseas departments" in almost all of its colonies. A "department" was the French term for a province. Creating overseas departments was not at all unlike the way that, as the United States expanded westward, it encouraged territories to become states. Also like the United States, only Europeans living in France's overseas departments, not native people who had already lived there before the French arrived, were considered citizens. In 1924, the US extended full citizenship to indigenous peoples living in its conquered territories (and to the descendants of former slaves in 1964). Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, just as the civil rights movement was heating up in the US and many European colonies were gaining independence, France tried to do the same thing, offering to make all inhabitants of its overseas departments French citizens if they would remain a part of France. However, the colonies opted for independence and, in 1960, 14 of France's overseas departments in Africa became independent countries. France would not, however, allow for the same arrangement in Algeria, which had a large number of "Pieds-Noirs" (European settlers, called "black feet" in French because their feet were on the soil of Africa). This led to a protracted war, one of the bloodiest independence struggles in the modern world, and the collapse of the fourth French republic.
The case of Algeria demonstrates one of the key problems of direct rule: it brings problems in the colonies "home" to Europe. If European colonies really were part of European countries, that could create major problems for those countries. At the bare minimum, it meant developing a huge civil service and military bureaucracy to administer the colony, as the British did in India. At most, as was the case in Algeria, it could effectively plunge a colonial power into civil war. Many European countries, especially Great Britain, decided to reserve direct rule only for their most important colonies (such as India). For the remainder, Britain especially, as well as other major powers, used what was called "indirect rule," the third major form of colonial governance that I want to cover here. Here, local rulers would continue to rule their own people on behalf of the colonial power, which would often station some military and civil service personnel to "advise" the locals. This was the relationship that Britain had with many of its African territories, including Sudan, Zanzibar, and the so-called "fleas in the Queen's blanket" in Southern Africa—Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutoland (Lesotho), and Swaziland. This was also the way that Britain governed much of the Middle East prior to World War I. Because they had an internal government, many of the colonies that had been governed by "indirect rule" gained independence with the least violence or chaos and have had some of the most prosperous postcolonial futures.
These, then, are the three most important ways that European powers governed their colonies: company rule, direct rule, and indirect rule. For more information, you might read Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein's The Modern World System and Martin Meredith's The State of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence.

What are the areas where HR professionals can have a major impact on ethics within a company?

Human resources professionals can have a major impact on a company's ethics, so long as they are empowered and supported by the individuals in charge of managing the company. Human resources professionals are generally in charge of evaluating potential employees and conducting the onboarding process. This allows them to perform an initial screening and exclude individuals with prior ethics issues from continuing further in the hiring process. The onboarding process is an opportunity to make the rules and values of the company clear. Human resources professional can emphasize ethics at this point to ensure that all new employees understand the importance of ethics within the company.
For current employees, human resources professionals can hold semi-frequent ethics training events that require employees to review the ethical rules. This can be done with practical problems to highlight how employees are expected to respond. Finally, when an employee acts in a manner inconsistent with the ethics of a company, human resource professionals should provide support for an action to discipline or remove the employee.
While human resource professionals can have a significant impact on the ethics of a company, their work will be unsuccessful if the day-to-day life in the company shows that unethical actions are rewarded or ignored by management.

What are the neoclassical elements in "The Vanity of Human Wishes" by Samuel Johnson?

Neoclassicism is, like the classical poetry it tried to imitate, characterized by objectivity, rationalism, and realism. This is in contrast to the much more emotional emphasis of Romantic poetry. Neoclassical poetry is also often didactic, meaning that it tries to educate the reader. Stylistically, neoclassical poetry is characterized by heroic couplets; historical, religious, and biblical allusions; and restrained, concrete language.
In Samuel Johnson's "The Vanity of Human Wishes," there are several academic allusions, whether it be historical ("Democritus, arise on Earth . . . In full-blown Dignity, see Wolsey stand, / Law in His Voice and Fortune in his Hand"), mythological ("Though dancing Mountains witness'd Orpheus near") or literary ("The Tenth Satire of Juvenal"). These allusions are to lend the poem weight and gravitas.
Johnson's poem is also didactic in that it attempts to draw attention to the ignorance and fickleness of the British people who:

ask no Questions but the Price of Votes;With Weekly Libels and Septennial Ale,Their Wish is full to riot and to rail.

Johnson's message here is that the British people should be more inquisitive and, by implication, less accepting of the corruption of their rulers, who, Johnson implies, cynically purchase their votes. He also criticizes the British public for wanting nothing more than to satisfy base instincts by drinking and rioting. Later in the poem there is more didacticism as Johnson rails against avarice, describing dismissively the greedy man who "Unlocks his Gold and counts it till he dies."
The poem is also written (in accordance with the neoclassical style) in heroic couplets, which are pairs of rhyming lines written in iambic pentameter. An iamb is a metrical foot of poetry, in which a stressed syllable follows an unstressed syllable. Pent (from the Greek "penta") means five, so there are five iambs in each line. For example:

Let Ob/servat/ion with/ exten/sive View,Survey/ Mankind,/ from Chi/na to/ Peru

The syllables I have highlighted in bold are the syllables which are stressed, and you can see that the syllables are in pairs, or iambs.

What will happen if one is idle according to the speaker in Ploughman by Khalil Gibran?

According to the speaker, one cannot be aligned (or enjoy closeness) with God if one is idle.

For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life's procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.

In the poem, the speaker maintains that we truly love life when we learn how to labor. By extension, loving life through labor is the only way to be "intimate with life's inmost secret."
The speaker highlights the importance of the secret that all must discover in order to enjoy life's greatest fulfillment.

And I say that life is indeed darkness save when there is urge, And all urge is blind save when there is knowledge, And all knowledge is vain save when there is work, And all work is empty save when there is love; And when you work with love you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to God.

From the above, the speaker asserts that one must not labor with an indifferent spirit or worse, with distaste. He argues that being joyful in one's work is the surest way to draw close to God; it is the secret to fulfillment. It is also the way to stay in harmony with our fellow human beings. Essentially, our joy in our work produces the greatest benefit to mankind.

For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man's hunger. And if you grudge the crushing of the grapes, your grudge distils a poison in the wine.

How did Anne Frank resist the Nazis?

On the surface, one might conclude that because Anne Frank was in hiding that she did not play a role in resisting the Nazis. The goal of the Nazis was to murder all Jews in Europe and remove all traces of their culture. The fact that Anne Frank remained a committed practicing Jew in the face of the dangers of doing so, showed her commitment to resisting her oppressor. It can be easily argued that if she would have obeyed the decrees from the German Church it could be understood that she lacked a personal faith conviction. Additionally, her diary as a form of resistance. Clearly, throughout her writings, she detailed the horrors of Nazi German leadership. Her family did not adhere to the law of the land and listened to the BBC Radio and as loyal Dutch compatriots refused to read or speak German. They could not control much but did what they could to control their speech, thoughts, and faith.

As a young Jewish girl hiding in a secret annex, there's not a great deal that Anne can do to challenge the Nazis directly. However, she does defy them in her own unique way. Many people in her situation could be forgiven for being bitter and full of hate. But Anne's not like that. She shows her defiance towards her persecutors by trying to lead as normal a life as possible under very trying circumstances. Indeed, what's remarkable about the character of Anne as it emerges from the diary is just how incredibly normal she is. She experiences most of the feelings and emotions, the hopes, dreams, and insecurities normally associated with adolescence. Yet at the same time, Anne's also an extraordinary young lady, and it's her considerable maturity, compassion, and humanity that, in their own special way, constitute an act of resistance against the Nazis and their evil.