How would you create a flow chart to explain the different steps involved to pass an ordinary bill compared to a money bill?

All bills, except money bills, may begin in either the House of Representatives or Senate. To make it easier, I will share the steps that a money bill must follow in order to become a law. The steps are the same for all bills, but a money bill must start in the House of Representatives.
The bill must be introduced into the House of Representatives.
Once the bill is introduced, it will go to a committee in the House of Representatives. This committee will decide if the bill should move forward. If the committee doesn’t feel the bill should move forward, then it will kill the bill by voting not to present it to the entire House of Representatives.
If the bill clears the committee, then the full House of Representatives will vote on the bill. If it passes, it will go the Senate.
Once the bill passes the House of Representatives, it will go the Senate and be introduced there.
It will then be assigned to a committee of the Senate. This committee will decide if the bill should move forward. If the committee doesn’t feel it should move forward, then it will kill the bill by voting not to present it to the entire Senate.
If it passes the Senate committee, it will go to the full Senate for a vote. If it passes the Senate, the bill will move forward.
If the bill has the same wording in the Senate and the House of Representatives, it will go to the President. If the wording is different, a conference committee will work out the differences so both houses can pass the bill with identical wording. Then it will go to the President.
If the President signs the bill, it will become a law.
If the President vetoes the bill, it will go back to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If both houses pass the bill with at least a two-thirds majority, the veto is overridden. The bill will then become a law.

What is the theme of Freak the Mighty?

I would argue that the central theme of Freak the Mighty is friendship. Kevin and Max are both misfits who do not fit in with their peers due to their respective physical and learning disabilities (and Max's murderous father). The author shows that because of their respective disabilities, each child is capable of seeing the other child as a human being and potential friend. Kevin and Max in many ways become one person to overcome their respective limitations. Max utilizes his physical strength to help Kevin navigate the world more easily, and he also thinks Kevin's crutches and leg braces are cool. Kevin uses his imagination and intellect to give Max hope and encourage him in managing his learning disability. Both children become stronger (as individual units and as a team) because of their friendship.

In The Pioneers by James Fenimore Cooper, what statement does this story make about the relationship between man and nature, and do all the characters share the same view?

The Pioneers mourns the loss of the wilderness of Natty's youth to the forces of farming, overhunting, and settling. Roads have arrived, and Natty comments on the destruction of animal life that has come with the influx of settlers:

“Ah! The game is becoming hard to find, indeed, Judge, with your clearings and betterments,” said the old hunter, with a kind of compelled resignation.

Characters feel differently about nature. On one side are people such as Natty, who regret the way the wilderness is changing and especially resent the greed and carelessness with which many of the new settlers are treating the treasures of nature. Natty advocates for living in harmony with nature rather than dominating it. The Mohican Chingachgook also believes in preserving the careful balance of nature and taking only what you need. Judge Temple mirrors Natty's point of view about conservation and supports the idea of laws to limit the destruction being wrought on the natural world:

“The Legislature have been passing laws,” continued Marmaduke, “that the country much required. Among others, there is an act prohibiting the drawing of seines, at any other than proper seasons, in certain of our streams and small lakes; and another, to prohibit the killing of deer in the teeming months. These are laws that were loudly called for by judicious men; nor do I despair of getting an act to make the unlawful felling of timber a criminal offence.”

Others believe that these laws cannot be enforced. These people, represented by the attitude of Dick Jones, believe nature exists to be dominated and exploited for human profit. Jones, for examples, uses a cannon to kill pigeons en masse, an example of the "overkill" and disrespect toward the natural world that Natty and the judge deplore. Natty, who has known what it means to be hungry and who lives off the land by carefully marshaling its resources, looks askance at newer settlers who have lived soft lives and are naive about the challenges of the frontier.
The novel comes down on the side of love and the careful stewardship of nature. Natty and the Judge are nostalgic, looking back with longing on their memories of a wilderness that is fast disappearing. The Judge, for instance, recalls a time when he was awed by a view from what he calls Mount Vision:

The leaves were fallen, and I mounted a tree and sat for an hour looking on the silent wilderness. Not an opening was to be seen in the boundless forest except where the lake lay, like a mirror of glass. The water was covered by myriads of the wild-fowl that migrate with the changes in the season; and while in my situation on the branch of the beech, I saw a bear, with her cubs, descend to the shore to drink. I had met many deer, gliding through the woods, in my journey; but not the vestige of a man could I trace during my progress, nor from my elevated observatory. No clearing, no hut, none of the winding roads that are now to be seen, were there; nothing but mountains rising behind mountains. . .

In regretting the loss of the wilderness, the novel preserves an idealized view of what it once was like. It comes down on the side of conservation and harmony with nature, equating the moral worth of characters like Natty and the Judge with their sensitivity to the wild land and animals.

How does Anne justify being boisterous and reckless most of the time?

Although Anne Frank is living in a most dire situation with her family, her diary reveals that she is still a teenage girl who is expressive, opinionated, and bordering on ostentatious at times. She writes about her fellow family members in hiding and their frivolous behavior given their situation. While writing about her annoyance with such actions, she uses such conduct and previous resentments with family members to justify her own reckless behavior.
Anne Frank's entries also show the typical conflicts experienced among siblings with various personality types. While Margot is attractive, well-liked, and well-behaved, Anne demonstrates a more rebellious attitude that causes tension with her mother. Anne uses this tension to justify her more eccentric behavior, and the fact that her father does not openly disapprove of her gives Anne all the more reason to feel justified in her actions.
However, we also see Anne's humanity, as she can recognize these qualities about herself. In an entry on January 19, 1944, she writes, “Isn't it awful of me to be preoccupied with myself?” Although mostly independent and self-justifying throughout the diary, Anne Frank occasionally demonstrates that she is aware of her own shortcomings.

Anne justified being boisterous and reckless by saying that is in her genes. She justifies this with the example that her mother was also talkative.
"I wrote the three pages Mr. Keesing had assigned me and was satisfied. I argued that talking is a female trait and that I would do my best to keep it under control, but that I would never be able to break myself of the habit, since my mother talked as much as I did, if not more, and that there's not much you can do about inherited traits."
Page numbers are different for different books. This is at the beginning of the book when she is talking about her life in school and how she is the class clown. She is so talkative that even the teachers laugh at it. That is just how she is and everyone accepts it.

Anne, being the youngest and most spirited resident in hiding, makes no excuses for her actions, even though she is well aware that often she annoys many of the others. Her behavior is typical of a young girl in that she has a contentious relationship with her mother and adores her father, who sets fewer limits and encourages her imagination. When her mother laments that Anne is not more like Margot, Anne's sister, Anne's only justification is that she is who she is, and it is impossible for her to change. She accepts the shortcomings of others and expects them to show her the same courtesy. Her passion, curiosity, and creativity are both endearing and aggravating to each of the residents on some level, but she makes no apologies for the latter.

What role does national identity play in The Crossing, specifically in Billy's struggles with national identity towards the end of the novel as well as divisions between America and Mexico that become apparent at the beginning of the novel?

In the novel, conflicting national identities highlight divergent approaches to life. Basically, the role of national identity in The Crossing is to draw attention to the stark differences in philosophy that separate two cultures. The rugged individualism of the American West is personified in Billy Parham (our sixteen year old protagonist), while the primitive wildness of the Mexican landscape is embodied by the she-wolf.
At the beginning of the novel, Billy manages to track down and catch a pregnant she-wolf. He tells us that the wolf had crossed the "international boundary line" to track her own kind: "She was moving out of the country not because the game was gone but because the wolves were and she needed them." Billy asserts that the she-wolf knew nothing of "boundaries."
Her main purpose was to reconcile with her own kind and to thrive. On her arduous journey to New Mexico, she subsisted on nothing but carrion for two weeks. By the time she reached the Peloncillo Mountains, she was close to starving. So, her feasting on veal calves was a desperate attempt to survive, however cruel the devastation caused to the American cattle ranchers.
For his part, Billy willingly braves the perilous journey to Mexico to return the she-wolf to what he considers her natural habitat. At a local fair in Mexico, Billy gets his first inkling that he has deeply underestimated the political divide between America and Mexico. A local hacendado (farmer) quips "You think that this country is some country you can come here and do what you like." The question of differing national identities and psyches exerts itself: Mexico is a separate country with unique social codes, and borderlines are not just geographical boundaries; they also mark the divisions between cultures.
Billy learns this too late: his beloved she-wolf is soon confiscated by Mexican authorities and turned over to fight packs of dogs for sport. By the time he manages to get to her, "her head lay in the dirt and her tongue lolled in the dirt and her fur was matted with dirt and blood and the yellow eyes looked at nothing at all. She had been fighting for almost two hours and she had fought in casts of two the better part of all the dogs brought to the feria." Incensed at the cruelty of the Mexicans, Billy takes up his shotgun and performs a mercy killing.
By the end of the novel, Billy has crossed into Mexico three times. His first journey was made to return the she-wolf to Mexico, the second journey was made to recover the family's stolen horses, and the third journey was made to retrieve Boyd's body. Each of the journeys reinforces in Billy the lesson that borderlines and national identities have very little to do with personal identities. In his conversation with Quijada towards the end of the novel, Billy comes to understand this.
When he tells Quijada that he wants to take Boyd's body back to America to "bury him in his own country," Quijada tells Billy that "the dead have no nationality."

And it is because these names and these coordinates are our own naming that they cannot save us. That they cannot find for us the way again. Your brother is in that place which the world has chosen for him. He is where he is supposed to be. And yet the place he has found is also of his own choosing. That is a piece of luck not to be despised.

So, in the novel, the subject of national identity has two main roles:
1) It highlights the political and social divide between two cultures.
2) It stresses that boundaries cannot circumscribe (limit) the human spirit. 
Source: The Cambridge Companion to Cormac McCarthy edited by Stephen Frye.

From which epic is the title Arms and the Man taken?

Arms and the Man takes its title from Virgil's Aeneid.
The reference is somewhat ironic because of the difference between George Bernard Shaw's story and Virgil's story. Aeneid is a classical epic with fierce heroes and spectacular battles. It glorifies war and military life. It's the story of the founder of Rome after the events of the Trojan war; the Trojans eventually settle in Italy after difficult battles. The heroes are heroic and the war has a purpose—even if it led to more war.
In Arms and the Man, however, war and heroes are used differently. It's a comedy and a love story with the backdrop of a war. The heroes are comedic figures who are incapable of figuring out their own lives; one is even a deserter from the military. Sergius is stubborn and is often seen as disloyal. The characters aren't romanticized and give the reader a more obviously negative view of war.

Shaw's work Arms and the Man is derived from the opening line of Virgil's Aeneid. The epic poem which tells the story of Rome's eventual foundation following an exodus of people is a very militaristic work. Virgil openly praises the militarism of the people and discusses their exploits and adventures, lauding them for the amazing feats they have accomplished. This puts it squarely at odds with the modern work by George Bernard Shaw.
In Shaw's play, he explores the lives and experiences of several far more cowardly characters. There are characters who desert the military and others who are completely incompetent in their roles therein. It focuses much more on Romanticism and the relationships these men form—taking a clear approach at he phrase "lovers, not fighters." The title thus constructs a central ironic tension by drawing such a clear parallel and contrast between the men from the Aeneid and the men in this story.

Arms and the Man comes from Virgil's Aeneid, a famous epic poem about the founding of Rome. Shaw uses the Aeneid's opening line "Of arms [warfare] and the man I sing" ironically. While Virgil celebrates military valor, Shaw comically deflates it and shows would-be romantic soldier "heroes" like Sergius as bumbling and incompetent. The true "hero" of the play is Bluntschli, who climbs into Raina's bedroom one night as he deserts from the army, carrying chocolate rather than bullets in his pockets.
Shaw also puns on the double meaning of "arms." Arms are weapons, but they are also body parts, and lovers embrace using their arms. This is a love story as much as an anti-war play, in which Sergius is engaged to Raina, and the two pretend to have romantic love, but Raina's servant Louka is Sergius's true love. Many times he takes Louka into his "arms" to embrace her when Raina is not around. In the end, the proper lovers get sorted out in this light-hearted, if seriously themed, comedy.

The title of George Bernard Shaw's play Arms and the Man comes from the first line of Virgil's epic poem, the Aeneid. The first line of the poem in Latin is Arma virumque cano, which is often translated as "Of the arms and the man I sing." Shaw's use of the phrase from the Aeneid is ironic. Whereas Virgil's epic poem glorifies Aeneas's heroic struggles in founding the city of Rome, Shaw mercilessly satirizes the profession of arms.
There's nothing remotely heroic about soldiers in Arms and the Man. As the Swiss mercenary Captain Bluntschli candidly tells Raina, "nine soldiers out of ten are born fools," and Bluntschli's certainly one of them. His cowardice and status as a "chocolate soldier" (a weak soldier incapable of fighting well) presents a stark contrast to the super-human heroism of Aeneas. Shaw's characterization of the hapless Bluntschli is entirely in keeping with the play's stridently anti-war theme.

Is time a dimension?

The concept that time represents the fourth dimension is widely accepted in the science and math community. Einstein theorized that the four dimensions were inextricably connected, introducing the concept of “spacetime,” which greatly expanded scientific and mathematical understanding of the universe.
The recent discovery of Gravitational Waves has served to solidify Einstein’s theories regarding a four-dimensional physical universe. However, the fourth dimension is a difficult idea to wrap one’s mind around because it is not something that is easily visualized. Time cannot be sped up or slowed down, or moved from place to place like an object on a three-dimensional plane. It may be simpler to think about the fact that an object must exist in a certain location (space) at a given time in order to be seen (observed) in the physical universe.  

why is the setting so importent in The Scarlet Ibis.

The background setting of World War I is essential to the short story "The Scarlet Ibis" because it connects to the theme. The author, James Hurst, wanted readers of his short story to consider how the war fought among "brothers" in Europe paralleled the conflict between Doodle and his brother. Hurst felt that there is always harm done when people try to force others to transform into images of themselves, whether within a family or among countries.
It is only after many months of working with Doodle, teaching him to swim and row a boat, that the brother finally realizes that the small boy will never compete with others as an equal. In bitter disappointment, the brother hurries ahead of Doodle after the rowing lesson despite Doodle's cries not to leave him. Finally, because of his exhaustion, the brother stops and waits for Doodle. When Doodle does not appear, the brother retraces his steps and, unfortunately, finds Doodle sitting with his face buried in his arms that rest on his bent legs. Like the scarlet ibis that dropped from the tree, Doodle is dead. He has bled from his mouth, and the front of his shirt is scarlet with his blood. In his shame, the brother then shelters his "fallen scarlet ibis from the heresy of the rain." Tragically, it is only then that the brother recognizes the rare and beautiful qualities of Doodle, finally understanding that his efforts to remake his brother have been not only wrong but devastating.
His misplaced shame in Doodle, rather than an appreciation for the magical ibis-rarity of the boy, is what leads the brother to the destruction of the delicate creature. Likewise, in war the beautiful artifacts and structures of a country are also lost. The country's identity is attacked and people lose much of what they love as their culture is challenged.

Making specific reference to details or devices in the poem "A Display of Mackerel," discuss the author's view on the theme of individuality versus conformity as expressed through humans versus fish. Is "the price of gleaming" too high?

In the poem "A Display of Mackerel," Doty is posing a deep and focused philosophical question about conformity versus individuality when he writes:

Suppose we could iridesce,

like these, and lose ourselvesentirely in the universeof shimmer—would you want

to be yourself only,unduplicatable, doomedto be lost?

The speaker is, in essence, asking whether we would rather be a part of a beautiful group of something that all looks the same (the mackerel) or "be [ourselves] only," "unduplicatable, doomed to be lost." Here, he seems to fall on the side of conformity, choosing to lose himself "entirely in the universe of shimmer" rather than be an individual "doomed to be lost." Doty uses bright, beautiful words to describe the group, describing the fish as "each a foot of luminosity" with their "radiant sections / like seams of lead / in a Tiffany window." The "Tiffany window" refers to beautiful stained-glass windows. Grappling with the question of whether the "price of gleaming is too high," the speaker seems to think not, saying the mackerel are "all exact expressions / of the one soul / each a perfect fulfilment / of heaven's template," noting "how happy they seem, / even on ice, to be together, selfless / which is the price of gleaming."
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47251/a-display-of-mackerel

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.6, Section 3.6, Problem 18

Determine $\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$ of $\displaystyle \tan(x-y) = \frac{y}{1+x^2}$ by Implicit Differentiation.

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} \left[ \tan (x-y) \right]= \frac{d}{dx} \left(\frac{y}{1+x^2}\right)$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dx} \left[ \tan (x-y) \right] &= \frac{(1+x^2) \frac{d}{dx} (y) - (y) \frac{d}{dx} (1+x^2)}{(1+x^2)^2}\\
\\
\sec^2 ( x-y ) \cdot \frac{d}{dx} (x-y) &= \frac{(1+x^2)\frac{dy}{dx}-(y)(0+2x)}{(1+x^2)^2}\\
\\
\left[ \sec^2(x-y) \right] \left( 1-\frac{dy}{dx} \right) &= \frac{(1+x^2) \frac{dy}{dx} - 2xy}{(1+x^2)^2}\\
\\
\sec^2(x-y) - \sec^2(x-y) \frac{dy}{dx} &= \frac{(1+x^2) \frac{dy}{dx} - 2xy }{(1+x^2)^2}\\
\\
(1+x^2)^2 \left[ \sec^2(x-y)-\sec^2(x-y)\frac{dy}{dx}\right] &= (1+x^2) \frac{dy}{dx} - 2xy \\

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$




$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) - y' (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) &= y' (1+x^2) - 2xy\\
\\
y' (1+x^2) + y' (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) &= (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) +2xy\\
\\
y' \left[ (1+x^2) + (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) \right] &= (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) + 2xy\\
\\
\frac{y' \cancel{ \left[ (1+x^2) + (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) \right]} }{\cancel{(1+x^2) + (1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y)}} &= \frac{(1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) + 2xy}{(1+x^2)+(1+x^2)^2\sec^2(x-y)}\\
\\
y' &= \frac{(1+x^2)^2 \sec^2 (x-y) + 2xy}{(1+x^2)+(1+x^2)^2\sec^2(x-y)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Why did the author include the basketball scene in chapter 2 of The Other Wes Moore? What was his overall point?

In chapter 2 the author, Wes Moore, heads out to a local basketball court in the Bronx where he likes to play against some of the older boys. Those who regularly show up at the court present a microcosm of life in this neck of the woods. It's not just street kids and drug dealers who congregate here but also straight-A students who just want to hang out to look cool.
What this episode illustrates is that things are so much more complex than they appear on the surface. This part of the world is ravaged by poverty, crime, and unemployment. And yet, despite the massive and seemingly intractable social problems of the Bronx, there's still a recognizable sense of community where people are able to put aside their differences as they congregate on the basketball court.
Basketball, like hip-hop, is part of a thriving culture in Wes's neighborhood that brings people together, allowing them to see, all too briefly, what they have in common—as opposed to what divides them. This insight will be explored in greater depth later on when Wes establishes contact with his namesake: the convicted murderer.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 7, Review Exercises, Section Review Exercises, Problem 92

Evaluate $\displaystyle \int^4_0 \frac{1}{16 + t^2} dt$

If we let $t = 4u$, then $dt = 4du$

Make sure that the upper and lower limits are also in terms of $u$

So,


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\int^4_0 \frac{1}{16 + t^2} dt =& \int^{\frac{4}{4}}_{\frac{0}{4}} \frac{4 du }{16 + (4u)^2}
\\
\\
=& \int^1_0 \frac{4du}{16 + 16u^2}
\\
\\
=& \int^1_0 \frac{4du}{16 (1 + u^2)}
\\
\\
=& \frac{1}{4} \int^1_0 \frac{du}{1 + u^2}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Recall that

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (\tan^{-1} x) = \frac{1}{1 + x^2}$

Thus,


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

=& \frac{1}{4} \left[ \tan^{-1} x \right]^1_0
\\
\\
=& \frac{1}{4} \left[ \tan^{-1} (1) - \tan^{-1} (0) \right]^1_0
\\
\\
=& \frac{1}{4} \tan^{-1} (1)
\\
\\
=& \frac{\pi}{16}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What are some good thesis statements that could be written in an essay about "How I Met My Husband" by Alice Munro?

A thesis makes an argument that you intend to prove with evidence from the text. It could legitimately be about all kinds of different topics and still be a solid thesis statement. Is there something specific about the story or the characters that really grabs you and makes you think about something? If that is the case, then formulate your thesis around that idea. If you are coming up blank, then stick with a thesis that does either a theme analysis or a character analysis. More often than not, those two will blend together anyway, as one tends to support the other. For this story, there are definitely themes of love, falling in love, coming of age because of love, falling out of love, and the like; however, I think there's more to the story than simple love and heartbreak. I think at the story's core is a theme of self-deception and reality, or perception vs. reality. The essay could compare and contrast Edie's, Alice's, and even Mrs. Peebles's warped perception of their reality. Perhaps the thesis could be something like the following:
Although the reality of the situation is painfully obvious to readers, both Alice and Edie continually deceive themselves about their relationship with Chris.

What would a structuralist's point of view be with regards to "The Blank Page" by Isak Dinesen?

In general, structuralism is the theory that human culture, behavior, beliefs, etc. all operate according to an underlying structure. This structure is maintained by rules, codes, and meanings. There is a structure for how language works. There is a structure for how social classes are formed and sustained. There are rules for how marriage works. There are rules for fashion: tuxedos for weddings, sneakers for tennis, etc.
For example, tuxedos tie into an abstract or underlying chain of meanings. Tuxedos conjure ideas such as weddings, high society, money, proms, sophistication, award shows, elitism, and so on. Tuxedo gets its meaning not from the word "tuxedo" itself, but from its relations to other elements of human culture. This is a fundamental rule of structuralism (linguistic and anthropological): things and words get meanings from their relation to other things and words.
Consider an example. Anne is a lower class citizen, female, single, 50 years old, working in a factory. Based on assumptions derived from social structures, roles, biases, and traditions, we might form a series of assumptions (right or wrong) based upon what we know of her. Just as we traced a chain of signification with tuxedo, we can do the same with a person or a story like "The Blank Page." To go one level deeper, structuralism supposes that people (like Anne, our warehouse worker) are formed by these structural and cultural rules. Anne has free will but her life has been largely dictated by the social and linguistic structures she was born into.
Now for the story. The storyteller says to be faithful to the story. In the gallery, each princess's life is symbolized by a golden-framed piece of "purified" linen. This includes the princess's name, perhaps some zodiac symbols, and/or other symbols . . . "pictures from their own world of ideas: a rose, a heart, a sword—or even a heart pierced through with a sword." Each story is coded with signs and symbols. Each piece of linen symbolizes virginity and purity prior to marriage. Each sign-encoded frame describes the life following marriage. Thus, each item is imbued with religious, cultural, and historical codes and meanings. We can interpret each story based upon these codes and symbols. We use the structure of language and culture to do so (just as we did with tuxedos and Anne).
What makes the blank page/linen so interesting? It has none of these symbols. It transcends language. Maybe it is ineffable (too good for words). Maybe it refers to something so spiritual and divine that it is beyond human understanding. Given that the blank linen represents virginity, it is likely that the lack of symbols (and a name) serves to underscore that purity. No words and no name imply that the page is unmarked, untainted. A virgin is, likewise, unmarked. In addition to notions of purity, think about the idea of being unmarked. There is no signifier, no words. The blank page is pregnant (pun intended) with possibility. Since it is not limited to human linguistic and cultural codes, it is wide open to possibility. Those in the story who stop to ponder it may be in awe with its symbol of purity. But they might also be entranced by its possibilities. Combining the two, the author or storyteller might be suggesting that purity is similar to the notion of being beyond the structures of human understanding.

Background on StructuralismTo understand this story through a structuralist lens, it is important to delve into structuralism as a concept. The roots of this school can be found in the study of language and its unique cultural elements. In this sense, structuralist stories are about more than the characters and literal events that occur in them. Rather, they exist in a larger cultural context and express ideas through language itself. The structuralist point of view is that nearly all human experience is expressed through language, which takes on certain patterns or common underlying elements.Structuralism in "The Blank Page"A structuralist point of view is extremely helpful when dissecting the meaning of this rather unconventional story. Unlike most of Dinesen's work, "The Blank Page" lacks a traditional plot. Instead, the author chooses to tell a story that must be read between the lines, inferred in spaces where there are no words. This method of storytelling is highly compatible with a structuralist's point of view, since the story uses language to express complex ideas without addressing them directly."The Blank Page" truly begins when a young couple meets an elderly storyteller. This storyteller's craft has been passed down through her family for generations. She weaves an interesting tale about a Portuguese tradition in which the nation's princesses would give their bridal sheets to be displayed as proof of their virginity. A square from the sheet was then cut out and sent to the Sisters of Saint Carmel at the Convento Velho, where it would be framed and decorated for public display.Structuralism further comes into play with the subtlety of themes and ideas expressed throughout the story. Although it is not directly stated, it is heavily implied that the blood on the squares was used as the proof of the princesses' virginity. There is a single sheet in the gallery that is solid white, and it serves as the unlikely focal point for the story and for the gallery itself. Just as "The Blank Page" communicates its most important themes in the blank space on a page, the gallery's most poignant offering is also a blank sheet. Throughout the story, whoever looks at the framed white sheet is left to draw his or her own spiritual revelations.Structuralism prioritizes the structure of a story over its function, and this can be seen throughout "The Blank Page." If this story had been told through a traditional structure, the author's message would not have been as powerful. Strangely, it is through abstraction that the story gains its structure and provides an analysis of such issues as historical ideas of purity, morality, and virtue, as well as the restrictions these concepts can impose upon the individual.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html

In The Crucible did Putnam ACTUALLY kill anybody for land?

Thomas Putnam did not literally kill anyone for their land in The Crucible, but it could be said that he influenced events that led to the deaths of George Jacobs and Giles Corey.  It is not made explicit that Putnam was able to buy Jacobs's forfeited land after Jacobs was sentenced to hang as a result of Ruth Putnam's witchcraft accusation.
In Act III, Giles Corey tells the court "I have it from an honest man who heard Putnam say it! The day his daughter cried out on Jacobs, he said she‘d given him a fair gift of land."  But when Judge Hathorne asks Giles for the name, Giles will not provide it because he believes that the court will then target this new witness.  
Readers understand that Putnam did not acquire Giles Corey's land following his execution because Giles maintained his silence; this meant that his land would pass to his sons.
Miller, Arthur.  The Crucible.  Viking, 1953. 
 

Is piano-playing a subject in the book Midair?

No, piano-playing is not a theme in Frank Conroy's short story collection Midair. It isn't a theme in the title story either. There is a short story in the collection, "Roses," which focuses on an artist, but nothing about piano-playing.
However, music and the piano in particular were an important part of Conroy's life. In fact, Conroy was an excellent jazz pianist and performed in many jazz clubs. He even won a Grammy award in 1986.
Piano-playing is an important theme in another of Conroy's novels, Body and Soul. The novel follows a child prodigy gifted with incredible musical talent. This very same talent is both a blessing and a curse, as it ultimately leads him to discover that he has no space for anything in his life but music, not even love.

Elisa lives in the Salinas Valley. Why did this make her more willing to talk to the man traveling in the caravan?

Many of John Steinbeck's short stories and novellas take place in the Salinas Valley, like "The Chrysanthemums" and Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck grew up in the Salinas Valley, and he knew the area well. Therefore, many of the characterizations he presents in his texts are realistic.
In "The Chrysanthemums," Elisa, the protagonist, lives in the Salinas Valley. She is used to travelers passing her home. This time, however, the caravan does not simply pass by. It stops.

Elisa, squatting on the ground, watched to see the crazy, loose-jointed wagon pass by. But it didn't pass.

A man approaches Elisa, asking her if he is on the right road to the Los Angeles highway. One reason Elisa is willing to speak to the man is that he is seeking out information that she has.
Elisa continues to speak freely with the man for a couple of reasons. First, she seems to spend a lot of time alone. Her husband is at work, and there does not seem to be another family close to where she lives. She may be lonely and enjoy the company. Second, she does not seem to feel threatened by the man. He does not act hostile.
Lastly, Elisa may openly speak to the man because he is cordial and friendly. He also takes interest in her garden and, more specifically, her chrysanthemums. She is proud of the flowers, which grow to "ten inches across." The man openly praises her "green-thumb," stating that she "has a gift with things." Elisa enjoys this praise, and she easily continues her conversation with the man.

Why did Mrs. Davison give Joetta the angel statue in the book The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963?

Mrs. Davidson is a neighbor who gives Joetta a present to remember her by when the Watson family goes away to Birmingham. The present is a statue of an angel, which Mrs. Davidson chooses for Joetta, or Joey as she calls her, because she says that the angel's smile reminds her of Joetta's smile. Mrs. Davidson also names the angel Joetta because it reminds her so much of Joetta.
When Kenny looks at the statue, he notices that it is chubby and has wings and a halo constructed out of straw. He notices that what makes the angel look like Joetta is its big dimple, but the angel, unlike his sister, is made out of white clay and has an entirely colorless face. The only color on the statue is from its blue eyes and red cheeks. Even though Joetta knows the statue doesn't look like her, she is polite and doesn't hurt Mrs. Davidson's feelings by contradicting her.

Mrs. Davidson gives Joetta (Joey) the angel statue because it reminds her of Joetta. She tells Joetta's mother that the angel's dimpled smile resembles that of Joetta. Mrs. Davidson even names the angel statue after the little girl. For her part, Joetta is embarrassed at all the attention she is getting.
The text tells us that Joetta doesn't really like the present. This is because the angel is white, and Joetta has a difficult time imagining her resemblance to it. Despite her personal feelings about the gift, Joetta graciously thanks Mrs. Davidson for her thoughtfulness.
She also tells Mrs. Davidson that she will put the angel statue in her room. For her part, Joetta's mother is glad that Joetta chose not to hurt Mrs. Davidson's feelings. The two then share a light moment after Joetta insists on putting the statue in her sock drawer.

What does Faber mean by “it’s not books you need, it’s some of the things that once were in books”?

Faber delivers much wisdom to Montag, not least of which is the introduction to the fact that there exist ways of being beyond what the state demands of its people. The moment Montag begins his search for a story/moment/place of origin from which to understand the books, he inscribes, for the first time in his life, his own story, in which he is protagonist and his actions might produce legitimate consequences affecting his reality. Literature in this sense provides a pedagogical function in teaching him how to open himself up to a form of learning that requires intellectual engagement rather than passive acceptance.
In describing how words and ideas took on objective essences, Beatty recounts a society in which minorities were the first to burn books, inciting others to do the same so as to satisfy everyone and eradicate room for discussion and dissent. “Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book” (56). To note this initial form of censorship is to note one of the most pervasive social narratives in the world of Fahrenheit 451: that which has any chance of offending, unsettling, or making anyone unhappy (“happiness” being touted as everyone’s consistent state of being) should be eradicated to satisfy the masses. If engaged with profoundly, books should surface frustration, confusion, and dissent, in that they force people to encounter uncomfortable places within themselves and society. People in Bradbury's world have not been taught to engage with their own discomfort - in essence, their humanness - and are thus far less likely to even know how to begin advocating for a better world.
Thus, it is intellectual engagement with books that render books powerful. As we know from state-mandated literature and propaganda, a book can fully perpetuate an agenda, much in the same way that TV can. The types of stories perpetuated by the media in Bradbury's world are presented as objective, overarching, and, as noted when a man is killed in place of Montag, definitively not true. A book or a TV program coming from the state might portray the plight of murderers and victims, but do so for entertainment value rather than imploring people to examine motivation, culpability, or consequence. In this sense, stories told by the state generate and recapitulate tropes of “good,” “bad,” or “enemy,” but destroy the powers of subjective interpretation and emotional inquiry rendered by literature.

When Montag visits Faber to ask for help comprehending texts, Faber calls him a "hopeless romantic" and tells Montag, "It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in books" (Bradbury, 39). Faber then proceeds to explain to Montag that he seeks the "infinite detail" that was once illustrated and depicted in books and other types of media. Faber goes on to tell Montag that the things written in books were also expressed through radio, television, music, and movies. Essentially, Faber is telling Montag that he seeks any type of media that will authentically depict and illustrate genuine human experiences. In Bradbury's dystopian society, drama, spontaneity, joy, faith, and uncertainty are not illustrated through any forms of modern media. The parlour wall televisions only display the superficial, meaningless aspects of life and do not mirror authentic human experiences. Faber is telling Montag that books are not the only places that once contained and depicted detailed aspects of life and meaningful experiences.

What could be a real-life example of a subculture? Explain how the example demonstrates subculture. How does having a sociological imagination makes us understand subculture?

So is being in the anger management program countas a subculture

Subcultures are groups whose norms and values are different from those of the wider culture. Examples include gamers or members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). For example, members of Alcoholics Anonymous have different norms and values than the rest of society. They abstain from drinking and often follow a 12-step process towards recovery, so they have different attitudes and practices than what might be typical in American society.
Sociologist C. Wright Mills described the sociological imagination as the ability to “think yourself away from the familiar routines of everyday life," meaning that you could place yourself into another culture and understand how it might feel to live in that culture. Having a sociological imagination helps us understand different subcultures because to understand them, we have to suspend some of our typical norms and values and comprehend that their norms and values are different.

What was the mandate system in the Middle East? Describe the relevant parties and some of the problems with the system.

The Mandate System emerged after WWI as a way to divide the colonial territories of Germany and Ottoman Turkey after their defeat in the war. The system was created as part of the charter that created the League of Nations, an international peacekeeping organization similar to the United Nations today. Territories that were previously under the authority of Germany and the Ottoman Empire were placed under the control, or mandate, of the victorious Allies, mostly Britain and France. The League of Nations justified the mandate system on the basis that these territories were not yet capable of governing themselves and needed more powerful nations to oversee them. Thus, the Mandate System set up spheres of influence that closely resembled colonialism.
This system was perhaps most impactful in the Middle East. In 1916, Britain and France secretly signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, agreeing to carve up the territories of the Ottoman Empire after the war. However, the British had also promised Arabs, who had long desired independence from the Ottoman Turks, that they would have independence after the war.
The Mandate System instead arbitrarily drew a line through the Middle East, creating present day Syria and Lebanon and giving control of these territories to France and allowing the British control over Palestine and modern day Iraq. While these territories were denied independence and self-determination, Israel was created as an independent nation and Jewish homeland. This system therefore helped foster not only anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East, but also anti-Western and anti-Semitic sentiment and increased ethnic and religious conflict, as the territories were essentially divided and governed without regard to the ethnic and religious makeup of their populations.

Explain how industrial development impacted the way people worked and lived.

The Industrial Revolution forever changed how individuals approached work. Rather than primarily working in small business and shop settings, individuals were suddenly flocking to large factories which had been created to meet the demands of booming industries.
Mass-production, the result of technological development, created new opportunities for work that did not necessitate skilled laborers. Unfortunately, the conditions in the factories in which these jobs were housed were often miserable. Employers, who were suddenly in charge of an enormous work force, were not mindful of their employees. Machinery used for production was often dangerous and could severely maim or even kill workers who were careless or made mistakes. Alternatively, they were often simply the victims of equipment malfunctions. Long working hours late into the night with few to no breaks served as the new standard now that electricity was present in the workplace. 
Low wages also drastically decreased the quality of life and resulted in the rise of child labor so that families could afford to survive. As people migrated from rural areas into the hubs of production, urbanization spread. Rather than living in respectable households, workers took up residency in places that were crowded and had poor sanitary conditions. The subsequent rising poverty triggered a drop in the dietary health of those toiling all day. 

How does Dixon’s The Clansman describe the social, political, and economic disintegration that plagued the South during Reconstruction? In Dixon’s mind, who is to blame? In what ways is Dixon’s book giving a voice to white supremacy?

Dixon's book describes the South during Reconstruction as overrun by overreaching northerners who, against the doctrine of states' rights and the wishes of the former Confederates, impose the will of ill-educated former slaves on Southern society. The federal government is to blame for these misfortunes, Dixon asserts, as they carry out a plan that puts power in the hands of the inferior black people, and his work perpetuates ideas of black inferiority and white supremacy.
At the beginning of Book 1, in the chapter "The Assassination," Elsie Stoneman, a nurse, is crying over a Confederate soldier who will be put to death for being a traitor. The surgeon says of the young man,"I tell you, Miss Elsie, it's a sin to kill men like that. One such man is worth more to this Nation than every negro that ever set his flat foot on this continent!" The Confederate soldiers are described as dashing, noble, and divinely sanctified. Their lives, according to Dixon, are worth more, as the doctor himself pronounces one white man's life to be worth more than that of every black man.
Dixon asserts that the federal government knows that blacks are not the equal of whites but allows them to gain power nonetheless. Even President Lincoln is shown as hypocritical in his conversation with Congressman Austin Stoneman. Before his assassination, Lincoln is shown planning to expel the blacks after allowing them to be emancipated. He says, "If the Negro were not here, would we allow him to land? . . . . The duty to exclude includes the right to expel." In other words, the federal government is shown as craven and hypocritical. Even Lincoln himself, the Great Emancipator, plans to expel the former slaves and is shown to continue to believe in colonization—removing former slaves from the country to return to Africa.
Dixon portrays the inferiority of blacks and depicts Northerners involved in reconstructing the South as committing great follies. In the chapter "A Whisper in the Crowd," Dixon writes the following:

When demagogues poured down from the north and began their ravening before crowds of ignorant Negros, the plow stopped in the furrow, the hoe was dropped, and the millennium was at hand.

Orators and agents of Reconstruction from the North (known as carpetbaggers) stream south to the place where Austin Stoneman is recuperating in South Carolina. There, the narrator observes that Reconstruction is a failure because former slaves are too ignorant to attend to their affairs, and they do not do any farm work. Instead, black tenants stop working and follow northern orators around with their landlords' mules. Reconstruction is portrayed as harming the society and economy of the South. In addition, black voters are shown as ridiculously ignorant, as they carry around ballots that are actually rat labels that they can not read.
Slaves run amok, and Gus, a former slave, rapes a white woman. Only the Klan can restore justice and order to a society that has become depraved under the rule of Northerners and former slaves. Blacks are, in Dixon's mind, unfit to control political and economic affairs, and whites must resume control. Dixon perpetuates ideas of white supremacy.

What setting would be described for Crispin in chapter 7 and why?

The setting for chapter 7 is the woods overlooking Stromford Village. This is because Crispin is on the run after being pursued by Aycliffe, the steward.
Aycliffe's pursuit compels Crispin to hide in the woods. In chapter 4, we learn that Crispin has to return to the forest after he discovers that the bailiff, Roger Kinsworthy, and the reeve, Odo Langland, are making their way to his cottage. Both men are carrying pikes and axes, which further alarms Crispin.
The young boy climbs up a high rock near the forest's edge. From there, he has a panoramic view of the entire village and its surroundings. In chapter 6, Crispin sees a search party setting out with glaives (long poles with sharp blades) and bows. The steward and bailiff are heading the group. Crispin knows that the men are looking for him.
In chapter 7, Crispin continues to hide in the woods. At one point, the men approach his hiding spot. Fortunately, they do not see him, as he is hiding in the thick foliage of an oak tree. It is only at night that Crispin dares to emerge from the woods.

Is 1984 only valuable as a novel for warning the world about the dangers of totalitarianism and dystopias?

I disagree with the first answer addressing 1984 as a ‘love story’; The characters do not end up together and worse, the main character first imagines raping the girl he later comes to sleep with. This is not love or lust, rape is about control. This shows that the character lacks control in his life, and this is not a feeling, but a fact.

1984 is a warning, but moreso on how easily people can be persuaded to switch their thinking in an instant, without thinking, and see their ally as their enemy in mere seconds. It also reveals the shocking effects of propogranda at the end, along with the lasting effects of torture induced PTSD.

Between the two, Brave New World is a far better warning of the current world and future; Orwell believed mankind would live in a bleak, cruel world, where Huxley believed control lied in drugging the population into happiness. Many conspiracy theorists agree more with Huxley, and Orwell, proving his arrogance, sent Huxley a copy of his book for his opinion.

Huxley read it and told him he still believed his dystopian future was far more likely. In the advent of antidepressants and such, it seems Huxley is correct; Humanity has long proven we will only tolerate cruelty and tyrants for so long. Since a major theme in the book is being aware of this, Orwell’s work lacks the same sense of reality. His book is mainly revolving as a warning of technology and its use for spying more than anything else.

While 1984 is valuable as a warning about the danger of totalitarianism and a dystopic future, it also has merit as a love story. Orwell knew his craft, and even if you were not interested in the didactic (warning/cautionary) purpose of the novel, you could enjoy it as a well-wrought tale about how two people fall in love and set up a world apart from the regime that controls every aspect of their lives.
Orwell uses character development to show how Winston grows from an angry, alienated, and desensitized person who fantasizes about raping and harming Julia to one who is loving and caring toward her. We see him expand from a person indifferent to the proles to one who, right before his arrest, sees the large-framed, older prole woman who hangs the laundry outside the room above Mr. Charrington's shop as fully human and even beautiful.
Orwell uses setting to pull us into the novel as well; his descriptions of Winston's flat are amazing, and his descriptions of the room where Julia and Winston make an ordinary domestic life for themselves in the hours they can snatch away are illuminating.
He also uses symbolism, likening the room above Mr. Charrington's shop to the paperweight Winston buys. The paperweight with coral inside becomes a symbol of the room and of the two lovers' escape. Even if we do not live with the horrors of the totalitarian society Julia and Winston must cope with, many of us can connect with the idea of finding delight in a refuge with one we love. Winston describes it in the following way:

He turned over towards the light and lay gazing into the glass paperweight. The inexhaustibly interesting thing was not the fragment of coral but the interior of the glass itself. There was such a depth of it, and yet it was almost as transparent as air. It was as though the surface of the glass had been the arch of the sky, enclosing a tiny world with its atmosphere complete. He had the feeling that he could get inside it, and that in fact he was inside it, along with the mahogany bed and the gateleg table, and the clock and the steel engraving and the paperweight itself. The paperweight was the room he was in, and the coral was Julia’s life and his own, fixed in a sort of eternity at the heart of the crystal

Orwell is a masterful writer who provides the reader with a strong story that includes at least one compelling character who learns and grows, an evocative setting, a David-and-Goliath plot, and a believable love story. Even if the totalitarian elements were softened, it would still be a fine and worthwhile novel.

Who is the antagonist in The Ponder Heart by Eudora Welty?

The protagonist of The Ponder Heart is Edna Earle, who has to manage the family's hotel and prevent her eccentric Uncle Daniel from giving away what remains of the family's fortune. As she says, "It's always taken a lot out of me, being smart" (10). While Edna Earle loves many aspects of her uncle, Daniel, and calls him the "sweetest, most unspoiled thing in the world" (11), Daniel is the antagonist of the novella. Working in opposition to Edna Earle, he gives away the family's possessions without restraint, including trips to Memphis, a string of hams, a pick-up truck, and even a heifer. Eventually, Daniel's largesse becomes so unrestrained that Edna Earle and Daniel's father, Sam, try to have Daniel put in an institution. They later coerce Daniel into marrying a wealthy widow, but Daniel foils Edna Earle's plans at every step.

How does Angelou’s adult perspective help you to understand the long-term effect that Mrs. Flowers had on her life? Cite evidence.

As an adult, Angelou recognizes Mrs. Flowers as a mentor. They may not have worked together for long, but it was Mrs. Flowers who introduced Angelou to the power of written language and the spoken word.
Before meeting Mrs. Flowers, and after her rape, Angelou wasn't speaking, period. Mrs. Flowers got her talking, reading, and writing again, setting Angelou's life on an extraordinary course that includes participating in the Civil Rights Movement alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, writing bestselling books, and being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Of course, when she was a kid, Angelou simply wanted to be Mrs. Flowers. Mrs. Flowers was graceful and ladylike, with the formal education that Angelou's own mother lacked—and that Angelou desperately wanted. As a child, Angelou found her own mom embarrassing because of of her lack of schooling, and it wasn't until she was an adult that Angelou realized just how similar her mother and her mentor were.

What are some examples of figurative language in The Jungle Book?

Figurative language is any phrase or sentence that is not meant to be taken literally. Similes and metaphors are subcategories of figurative language. Like most works of fiction, The Jungle Book is filled with examples of figurative language used to describe characters and their inner states of being, settings, and even action as it happens. Here are a few examples of author Rudyard Kipling's use of figurative language.
From "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi":

"It is the hardest thing in the world to frighten a mongoose, because he is eaten up from nose to tail with curiosity."

The mongoose Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is not literally eaten up (by curiosity or anything else). It's a metaphor for how fundamental the trait of curiosity is to a mongoose's personality.
From "The Song of Mowgli":

"These two things fight together in me as the snakes fight in the spring."

Mowgli is referring to the fact that he feels both joy at Shere Khan's defeat and a sorrowful feeling that he belongs neither to the jungle nor the village any more; he uses the simile of two snakes fighting to explain his inner state. Later he will refer to these two parts of himself as "two Mowglis," another example of figurative language, as there are not literally two Mowgli twins but only one Mowgli experiencing two divergent emotions.
Elsewhere in The Jungle Book, Kipling writes that "Bagheera's eyes were as hard as jade stones." He does not mean that the panther's eyes were literally as dense as gemstone; he means the look that Bagheera gives Mowgli is stern, and he uses a simile to express this.In "The Law of the Jungle," Kipling says that "as the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back." This simile compares The Law of the Jungle to a vine that runs back and forth along a tree's trunk as it climbs and grows. The implication is that balance is found in the middle of the two extremes, "forward" and "back," and that is what the Law of the Jungle aims for in its rules.The Jungle Book is filled with other examples of figurative language, such as "The tiger's roar filled the cave with thunder" (a metaphor) and "Her eyes, like two green moons in the darkness" (a simile). Look for it especially but not exclusively in Kipling's poetic verse, as figurative language is a particularly powerful tool in composing effective and moving poetry.

What is the relevance of music to dance?

Music and dance are two uniquely human phenomena. Though a number of animals employ seemingly rhythmic calls or bodily posturing, in non-humans, such behaviors are instinctual and "pre-programmed." What really sets rhythmic human motion and sound apart is the capability to be creative, drawing from set rules of aesthetics.
Music and dance are akin to human language in that they creatively arrange and rearrange a variety of "chunks" of information- sounds for music, and movements for dance. There is another phenomena which occurs in human language which I believe relates music and dance to one another- connotation. In language, words and phrases might conjure up a natural feeling or implication of other terms. For example, the word "coffin" has connotations of death and perhaps the afterlife. So, too, in music and dance are there connotations. It is more easy to connote movement with sound, as a short, shrill violin shriek might imply a jerky, sudden movement of the body.
Try this experiment: click here for a link to listen to "River Flows in You," by pianist Yiruma. Close your eyes while listening and allow your body to relax. Does the music give you a sense of movement anywhere in your body? Do you have the urge to move in a certain way? If not, you might imagine a little dancer in your mind- how do they move as the song plays? Slow, fast? Hard, graceful? With levity or labor? The rhythm and pace of music, the key notes are played in, and the choice of instrument can all inform stylistic choices in dance.
With that in mind, the origins of dance are mysterious, but we suspect that it developed following or in close relation to the development of music. Dance does not leave behind much archaeological evidence, but historical paintings of Greek and Egyptian dance very closely associate it without music. Even in a time before instruments, people may have clapped hands, sang, or stomped feet to provide rhythmic accompaniment to dancing.
Today, it is difficult to separate music and dance from one another. The two are bound together in their religious, social, and performative significance.

How do you model a linear equation when there's no apparent pattern between x and y? For example x=30, y=134, x=31, y=155, x=33, y=165, x=35, y=167.

Hello!
It is obvious that there is no linear formula exactly connecting these x's and y's, if we consider the slopes between neighbor points:
(155 - 134)/(31 - 30) = 21, (165 - 155)/(33 - 31) = 5, (167 - 165)/(35 - 33) = 1.
For a single line, all these slopes must be the same.
But this isn't the whole story. We may seek such a line y=ax+b that would be the closest to all these points. The simplest criteria of such a proximity is the least squares one, which means we try to minimize
sum_(k=1)^n (y_n-(ax_n+b))^2.
This problem has the exact unique answer (see for example the link attached). We have to compute the numbers
p=sum_(k=1)^n x_k^2,  q=sum_(k=1)^n x_k,  r=sum_(k=1)^n x_k y_k  and  s=sum_(k=1)^n y_k.
In our case  p=4175, q=129, r=20115 and s=621. Then we solve the linear system for the unknowns a and b,
pa+qb=r,  qa+nb=s  (here n=4).
I hope you know how to solve such systems, the solution for this is a=351/59, b=-2160/59.
 
https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/sjmiller/public_html/BrownClasses/54/handouts/MethodLeastSquares.pdf

Who owns the Panama Canal right now?

The government of the Republic of Panama now owns the Panama Canal, but the history of the ownership of the canal is fascinating and colorful. The first nation to attempt to dig a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, which was then a part of Colombia, was France. French teams attempted the excavation from 1881 to 1894, but they failed due to the rainforests full of venomous creatures, the difficult climate, deadly tropical diseases, and eventual bankruptcy.

The United States tried to secure a treaty with Columbia for perpetual control of the canal zone in 1903. When Colombia balked at ratification, President Theodore Roosevelt sent warships to support Panamanian rebels who wanted to break from Colombia and form an independent government. This new government signed a treaty with the United States in November 1903. It granted the United States permission to build the canal and indefinitely administer the Canal Zone.

The United States solely controlled the Panama Canal Zone until 1977. From that time, the Americans and Panamanians jointly administered the canal until December 31, 1999, when the government of Panama took over complete control. Currently, the Panama Canal is operated and managed by the Panama Canal Authority, which is a branch of the Panamanian government.
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/acp/acp-overview.html

The Panama Canal is owned by the Panamanian government and operated by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). Due to its enormous strategic value, the Panama Canal had previously been controlled by the United States. Although, technically the newly-independent Panamanian government had granted the United States the right to administer the canal zone and its defenses indefinitely.
In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty with the Panamanian dictator Torrijos. Under the terms of the agreement, the Panamanians would eventually gain complete control over the canal, on the condition it would remain neutral. The reason for this is that the Carter Administration didn't want the American military presence to be replaced by that of a hostile foreign power. Full Panamanian control over the canal became effective at noon on New Year's Eve, 1999, and since then the Panama Canal has been administered by the ACP.

In Sasha Maharaj's poem entitled "Worthless," how does the poet use poetic devices (tropes and schemes), diction, syntax, and other language functions to make a point about relationships?

The speaker does use some word choices that operate on a higher level of diction than those we might typically be used to hearing on a conversational level.  They are even a more elevated diction than other similar words in the same poem.  The poet uses "deceased" in line 4 instead of dead; she uses "recalling" in line 5 instead of remembering; "dissipate" replaces something like fall apart, in line 8; "immensely," in line 12, fills in for a lot.  One way to interpret these word choices is that they seem to elevate the subject of the poem.  There are a lot of poems about lost love, break-ups, and the feelings produced by them, so it would be easy to write yet another trite poem about feeling "so filled with hate" or being "ripped apart."  However, by including the stronger word choices, the poet disrupts our normal expectations of these kinds of poems.  These word choices stop and make us pay a bit more attention.  
The poet also makes the speaker sound a little older and more mature by elevating the diction: this is not a poem narrated by a despondent thirteen-year-old, someone that readers might be inclined to believe is overreacting or lacking perspective.  Rather, this poem is narrated by a grown woman who has been made to feel "worthless. / Falling apart and still nobody notices."  Here, we see that the end of relationships affects everyone terribly.

In the poem, the author uses masculine end rhymes to emphasize her complete devastation after a painful breakup. 

I keep recalling the messages in my head,
Making me wish that I was dead.So here I am alive, yet dead inside.
All I know, my best, I have tried.
I never wanted it to end this way,
there's so much more i needed to say.

She tells us that she did her best to salvage her troubled relationship, but all her efforts were in vain. Each end-stopped line is deliberate in rhythm and heavy with grief. The author also uses paradox ("So here I am alive, yet dead inside") to emphasize the depth of her suffering. She is physically alive but spiritually crushed by the breakup. Additionally, the bicolon "So much of anger, so filled with hate" highlights the author's strong emotions. She is angry with herself and perhaps with her lover as well. The word "hate" accentuates the idea that a relationship can be poisoned by negative emotions.
The author also uses consonance ("The damage is done, I can barely breathe.") to emphasize the fact that the relationship is irretrievably broken. There is no healing in store for the couple in question; in fact, the line "I can barely breathe" highlights the sense that the author is drowning in her pain.
The following line is an example of hyperbaton:
All I know, my best, I have tried.
Here, the poet uses inverted order to emphasize her disorientation and mental disequilibrium in the aftermath of her breakup. In her last lines, she tells us that she's "falling apart," but no one notices her pain. Her assertion here is similar to her proclamation at the beginning of the poem:

I’m broken inside and can’t feel.
The damage is done, I can barely breathe.
Ripped apart and torn to pieces,
My once strong heart is now deceased.

The poet uses catachresis to highlight her heightened emotions. She uses physical terms to describe her ordeal, but she has not actually been "ripped apart" or "torn to pieces." She is obviously still living and her heart is not literally "deceased." Catachresis occurs when an outlandish comparison is made between two things. In this case, the poet equates her deep emotional anguish to the actual death of her physical body.

In what ways did American politics and elections become more democratic in the 1820s and 1830s?

The 1820s and 1830s are known as the era of "Jacksonian Democracy" after President Andrew Jackson. In the election of 1828, when Jackson was first elected, voter participation reached an unprecedented 60%, meaning 60% of the population that was eligible to vote cast ballots. By comparison, voter participation in the 2016 election was 60.2%. Jackson considered himself a "Champion of the Common Man" and appealed to a wider variety of voters. He was the first president who came from a state other than Virginia or Massachusetts, and, instead of being a former lawyer or politician, Jackson was an army hero from the War of 1812. However, he was also a controversial figure: most notable was his Indian Removal Policy (among other undemocratic policies).
Several changes facilitated the rise of voter participation in US politics. In the early nineteenth century, states began implementing changes that made more people (though still only white men) eligible to vote. In most states, property qualifications were abolished, meaning men no longer had to own property in order to be eligible to vote. Previously, property qualifications were intended to prevent poor people from voting, concentrating electoral power and interest in the hands of the wealthy. In addition, many states changed the ways governors and legislators were elected. Previously, governors and electors (who were responsible for casting votes for president in the Electoral College) were elected by state legislators, another policy that concentrated political power into the hands of few. Beginning in the early 1800s, governors and electors were increasingly elected by direct vote, opening up the number of offices for which eligible voters could vote. Again, despite these changes, there were limits to this increase in democracy. Women and most African Americans, along with Native Americans, could not vote. Thus, while the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren (1830s–1840s) claimed to champion the interest of the "common man," they often did so at the expense of minority groups.
For more info: https://www.history.com/topics/jacksonian-democracy
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/jacksonian-democracy

Apply Socrates’s specific understanding of “wisdom” to analyze and explain Oedipus’s hubris and eventual downfall.

Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE) left no written record of his philosophy or his teachings. Everything we know about Socrates and his understanding of the qualities of wisdom come to us secondhand, primarily from the writings of his follower Plato (c. 428–347 BCE) and his student Xenophon (c. 431–354 BCE).
In Plato’s Apologia Socrates (Apology of Socrates), which recounts Socrates's defense of himself at his trial in 399 BC, Plato quotes Socrates as saying that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” In other words, it's vitally important to "know thyself," and it's equally important for a person to know what they don't know.
To "know thyself" and to discern the limits of one's knowledge, Socrates employed a question-and-answer method of elenchus (examination) attributed to him and called the "Socratic method." Socrates believed that self-knowledge occurs only in the context of a question-and-answer dialogue with others.
By this method, Socrates believed, a person does not necessarily discern what is true but realizes what cannot be true. Secondarily, a person becomes aware of their own ignorance (what they don't know), which cultivates a sense of humility in the individual.
When Teiresias reveals that it is Oedipus himself who is Laius's murderer and that Oedipus married his mother, Oedipus refuses to believe it. His hubris, his excessive pride, simply won't allow him to accept it.

OEDIPUS. Is this a plot of Creon, or thine own?

Rather than turn inward and reflect on what Teiresias tells him, Oedipus lashes out at Teiresias and challenges him, and others, to prove to him that he is, in fact, Laius's murderer.

OEDIPUS. [to Creon] Sirrah, what mak'st thou here? Dost thou presumeTo approach my doors, thou brazen-faced rogue,My murderer and the filcher of my crown?Come, answer this, didst thou detect in meSome touch of cowardice or witlessness,That made thee undertake this enterprise?

Oedipus's dialogue with Creon is not the kind of elenchus between equals that Socrates envisions, but more like a king-subject, prosecutor-witness relationship. Oedipus questions others, but he's far too prideful and far too self-protective to question himself and to question his own beliefs; he lacks that self-knowledge which, according to Socrates, is the essence of wisdom.
By the time Oedipus realizes and accepts the truth—that he's the man who killed Laius and that he married his own mother—his entire world has crumbled around him. He's a self-blinded, broken man without a father, mother, wife, or country. Although many of the events of his life were not of his own making, those decisions that Oedipus made based on hubris and his inability to know himself (and know the depth of his own ignorance) caused his downfall.

In several dialogues, including Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates state the Delphic maxim "know thyself." In Phaedrus, Socrates says he does not have time to explore mythologies or arcane theories because he does not yet know himself. Socrates statement implies that the quest for knowledge involves first cultivating a degree of humility: he cannot begin to pretend to know everything—or anything—until he first attains wisdom about himself.
Oedipus starts out in the play full of pride or hubris, believing he knows all there is to know about himself and never once considering that he could be the cause of the plague ravaging Thebes. It does not occur to him that what he thinks he knows about himself might be false. He never imagines that when he passes judgement on the source of the plague, he is passing judgement on himself.
Because Oedipus is not humble, he has never sought wisdom or self-knowledge. When he does find out the truth that he murdered his father and married his mother, the shock he experiences is extreme. It results in him blinding himself, the point at which he begins to develop true wisdom and humility.

Socrates defines wisdom as a kind of humility, an ability to understand the limitations of one's knowledge. Someone who possesses this kind of wisdom is keenly self-aware and knows that he or she should not make assumptions beyond the scope of his or her actual knowledge. However, Oedipus's pride leads him to make all kinds of assumptions well beyond the scope of what he knows, and these assumptions lead to his downfall.
When Oedipus hears of the prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother, he assumes that he knows better than the oracle (and, by extension, the gods) and tries to avoid the prophecy by deciding not to return home. Later, Oedipus assumes that Teiresias is holding back information, not because he wants to protect Oedipus but because he is in league with Creon, Oedipus's brother-in-law (and uncle, though he does not know it yet). Oedipus's hubris—his terrible pride—leads him to believe that he can make assumptions accurately, and so he very much lacks the kind of wisdom Socrates describes.

Socrates's philosophy of wisdom was founded strongly upon the acknowledgement that we are all fundamentally ignorant: he defended himself at his trial with the argument that he himself was the wisest man in Athens because he was sufficiently self-aware to recognize his own ignorance. In Sophocles's play, Oedipus's fatal flaw ("hamartia") could be defined as, arguably, either his tendency to act rashly and become angry or his pride. Both of these elements can be analyzed in relation to Socrates's concept of wisdom.
One might argue that Oedipus caused the prophecy to fulfill itself when he was pushed off the road by his father; Oedipus showed a lack of wisdom and restraint in killing his father, regardless of whether it was actually ordained that he do so. We could also point to his declaration that he would banish whoever had caused the plague, as this was arguably driven by his personal fury at Tiresias for keeping this knowledge to himself. In both these instances, Socrates's conception of wisdom suggests that if Oedipus had possessed greater self-awareness and self-control, he may not have been brought low.
We can also point to the fact that Oedipus is completely unaware of his limitations, something Socrates believed to be key to wisdom. Oedipus saved Thebes from the Sphinx and has been a good ruler, which has given him a high opinion of himself. This causes him difficulties when the plague strikes because he is so self-assured and proud that he is certain he can identify the cause of the plague and dispose of it. Unfortunately, this proves to be impossible. If Oedipus had acknowledged how little he truly understood about the world and his own capabilities, he might have been more careful and more successful. 

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 3, 3.5, Section 3.5, Problem 16

sqrt(x+y)=1+x^2y^2
dy/dxsqrt(x+y)=dy/dx(1+x^2y^2)
1/2sqrt(x+y)^(-1/2)(1+dy/dx)=x^2(2y)dy/dx+y^2(2x)
1/(2sqrt(x+y))+(dy/dx)/(2sqrt(x+y))=2x^2ydy/dx+2xy^2
dy/dx((1)/(2sqrt(x+y))-2x^2y)=2xy^2-(1)/(2sqrt(x+y))
(dy/dx)((1-4x^2ysqrt(x+y))/(2sqrt(x+y)))=(4x^2y^2sqrt(x+y)-1)/(2sqrt(x+y))
dy/dx=(4x^2y^2sqrt(x+y)-1)/(2sqrt(x+y))xx(2sqrt(x+y))/(1-4x^2ysqrt(x+y))
dy/dx=(4x^2y^2sqrt(x+y)-1)/(1-4x^2ysqrt(x+y))

How has Esperanza’s awareness of her own sexuality evolved from "Hips" to this story? How have her imagination and her desires moved away from her negative sexual experience in "My First Job"?

The question above is a little vague, as it says "from 'Hips' to this story" without specifying to what story the asker is alluding, but analyzing Esperanza's views of her sexuality as the story progresses through the book is conceivable. For example, in the vignette entitled "Hips," Esperanza talks about waking up and noticing that she has hips. She compares her hips to the blooming of roses overnight. The comparison seems fanciful in nature because not only is it a new experience that she has probably been waiting for, but it also represents her maturation into womanhood—and womanhood can also imply sexuality. However, Esperanza's young mind thinks of hips as being useful for balancing babies. Then, she considers the science behind the evolution of hips and their structure. Notice, though, that her young mind does not really think about hips along the lines of sexuality. There is a hint of that as she considers the following:

"You gotta be able to know what to do with hips when you get them. I say making it up as I go. You gotta know how to walk with hips, practice you know—like if half of you wanted to go one way and the other half the other" (50).

Notice what she does not say. For instance, she does not say that the hips are there to entice boys as she walks or to get a boyfriend. Her mind is not on sensuality; rather, she is analyzing how a woman physically uses her hips to walk, not to entice.
Unfortunately, the next vignette is upsetting in nature. "The First Job" discusses the man at work who asks for a birthday kiss. Esperanza thinks she is going in for an innocent kiss on the cheek, but she is surprised when he turns his head and makes a fool of her by kissing her on the mouth. This is one of many times she sees how men treat women without caring about the woman's feelings. Ultimately, Esperanza decides that she does not necessarily want to use her hips to bear children as many women around her do. Esperanza dreams of having a house of her own without the help or existence of a man in her life. In "A House of My Own," Esperanza explains her feelings perfectly:

"Not a flat. Not an apartment in back. Not a man's house. Not a daddy's. A house all my own. . . . My two shoes waiting beside the bed. Nobody to shake a stick at. Nobody's garbage to pick up after. Only a house quiet as snow, a space for myself to go, clean as paper before the poem" (108).

This vignette is not saying that Esperanza will never have sex, get married, or have children one day. It is just proof that Esperanza is not going to allow her developing sexuality to influence her dream to own her own piece of the world first.

How are hilly and skeeter the same

Hilly Holbrooke and Skeeter (Eugenia) Phelan are characters in Kathryn Stockett's novel The Help. The main thing they have in common is their background—they both belong to wealthy, well-established Southern families. They are both young women living in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1962; they have the same social status and they (initially) belong to the same circle of friends.
However, the similarity ends there. When the novel opens, Hilly is married and has children, while Skeeter has just graduated from college. Skeeter is bothered by the relationship between the white women and their black maids ("the help") and decides to write a book exploring this relationship. This project has personal significance to Skeeter because she misses her family's maid, Constantine, who raised her when she was a child. Skeeter is very aware of the whites' and blacks' common humanity. ("I did not know there were so many laws separating us," she says about the Jim Crow laws.) Hilly, on the other hand, is the one trying to increase this separation. Not only is she racist, she also hates other white people (like Celia Foote) who do not have the same background as her.
At the end of the novel, after Skeeter's book exposes Hilly's bigotry, Skeeter and Hilly are bitter enemies.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 5, 5.3, Section 5.3, Problem 34

Find the integral $\displaystyle \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds$

Using 2nd Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

$\displaystyle \int^b_a f(x) dx = F(b) - F(a)$, where $F$ is any anti-derivative of $f$.

Let $\displaystyle f(s) = \frac{s^4 + 1 }{s^2}$ or $f(s) = s^2 + s^{-2}$, then


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

F(s) =& \left( \frac{s^{2 + 1}}{2 + 1} \right) + \left( \frac{s^{-2 + 1}}{-2 + 1} \right) + C
\\
\\
F(s) =& \frac{s^3}{3} + \left( \frac{s^{-1}}{-1} \right) + C
\\
\\
F(s) =& \frac{s^3}{3} - s^{-1} + C
\\
\\
F(s) =& \frac{s^3}{3} - \frac{1}{s} + C

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = F(2) - F(1)
\\
\\
& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = \frac{(2)^3}{3} - \frac{1}{2} + C- \left[ \frac{(1)^3}{3} - \frac{1}{1} + C \right]
\\
\\
& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = \frac{8}{3} - \frac{1}{2} + C - \frac{1}{3} + 1 - C
\\
\\
& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = \frac{7}{3} - \frac{1}{2} + 1
\\
\\
& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = \frac{14 - 3 + 6}{6}
\\
\\
& \int^2_1 \frac{s^4 + 1}{s^2} ds = \frac{17}{6}


\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Does Squeaky's attitude change by the end of "Raymond's Run" by Toni Cade Bambara? If so, how?

In Toni Cade Bambara’s short story “Raymond’s Run,” Squeaky goes through a metamorphosis. Her attitude changes from a little girl who will do anything to maintain her reputation as the fastest runner in the neighborhood. She is a tough young woman who will stand up for her beliefs until she either has to fight or flee.

I’m ready to fight, cause like I said I don’t feature a whole lot of chit-chat, I much prefer to just knock you down right from the jump and save everybody alotta precious time.

She is fiercely protective of her brother Raymond, who lives with a developmental disability. Her only family responsibility is to care for him, and she protects him from the wrath of other neighborhood children.  One of her important attributes is that she is willing to practice constantly to maintain her prowess as the fastest runner. In fact, she despises other girls who pretend they do not need to practice in order to excel.
She has a difficult time maintaining friendships with other girls, and believes role models are lacking.

Gretchen smiles, but it’s not a smile, and I’m thinking that girls never really smile at each other because they don’t know how and don’t want to know how and there’s probably no one to teach us how, cause grown-up girls don’t know either.

The day of the May Day race, Squeaky deposits Raymond on the playground and prepares for the race with no thoughts of anything but winning. As the race unfolds, Gretchen proves to be a formidable opponent who garners Squeaky’s respect. The two exchange a knowing glance and a genuine smile. Raymond, on the other side of the fence, matches Squeaky stride for stride in the race, which causes her to see him as more than her disabled brother. In her eyes, he becomes a person with possibility. Both of these events change Squeaky’s attitude from a self-involved, tough girl to a young lady who sees other possibilities for Raymond, and her relationships with other girls. She even considers asking Gretchen to coach Raymond with her, as her mindset changes.

And I look over at Gretchen wondering what the “P” stands for. And I smile. Cause she’s good, no doubt about it. Maybe she’d like to help me coach Raymond; she obviously is serious about running, as any fool can see. And she nods to congratulate me and then she smiles. And I smile. We stand there with this big smile of respect between us.

What does Emily Dickinson's "I'm Nobody" have in common with Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself"?

Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman are widely regarded two most important American poets of the nineteenth century and are frequently compared, due to both their equal mastery of verse and their contrasting styles. Dickinson used very spare but precise language, while Whitman often used lists of nouns to encompass the breadth of the American and human experience. Dickinson's verse takes up very little space on a page, whereas Whitman's nearly runs off of the page, which gives some indication of each poet's style.
"I am Nobody, who are you?" is cleverly "self-effacing." Dickinson exclaims her anonymity and capitalizes "nobody," just as she capitalizes "somebody." We could chalk this up to her writing convention, which did not follow general rules of capitalization—or we could use this to suggest that she intended to express the sense that anonymity is just as valid as choosing a life of fame. Dickinson, we now know, was very private and hardly left her family home in Amherst, Massachusetts (except to travel, once, to Boston). Her poems were discovered posthumously and published. She associates a public life with turning into a "frog"—something ugly and slimy. To extend that association, she compares the public to which the frog tells its name to a "bog." A bog is weighed down with detritus, while Dickinson (or her narrator) prefers an existence that is light and unencumbered—like that of someone who is hardly known. However, in her advocacy of anonymity, Dickinson is not eschewing her existence altogether—"I am Nobody" is still a declaration of a form of existence. Also, she has a companion with whom she shares her preference for modesty.
Whitman's "Song of Myself" advocates connection with every aspect of life, demonstrating how people connect at an atomic level. Whitman's first line—"I celebrate myself, and sing myself"—is an affirmation of selfhood that seems to contrast strongly with "I am Nobody, who are you?" However, the narrators of both poems seek identification with another; both narrators refer to an unidentified "you."
Both poems also advocate introspection. For Dickinson's narrator, self-awareness comes through rejecting public attention. Friendship is important, not fame. For Whitman's narrator, it is important to take a break from daily labors to "loafe" [sic] and "invite [one's] soul" or to "lean and loafe [sic] at [one's] ease"

It's difficult to think of any two poems that could be further apart than the self-effacing "I'm Nobody" and the celebration of self in "Song of Myself." One is brief, the other lengthy. The voice of one is quiet while the other is jubilant. Nevertheless, there are some similarities. 
Both poets lived in nineteenth century America. Whitman was born before Dickinson and he lived far longer than she did. Both poets became known as the best of nineteenth century poetry in the US. Both were self-educated, reading widely and both were influenced by the Bible. 
The main thing that is in common in terms of the poems themselves, is the sense of self-acceptance. Both poets value their own lives and express satisfaction with their lives in their poetry. "I'm Nobody" asks readers if they are also "nobodies" and then lets the reader know that being "Somebody" would be "dreary." The poem is a conspiracy between two quiet people to stay under the radar of fame and enjoy a peaceful life. 
Whitman also invites the reader into his mind, sharing his thoughts about various and sundry, all in the celebration of himself as a significant entity in this world. 
If Whitman represents the brashness of Americans living in an open and free land, Dickinson represents the pensive underside of Americans, the side that allows everyday, ordinary people to appreciate their own lives. 
https://poets.org/poet/emily-dickinson

https://poets.org/poet/walt-whitman

Why is Marbury v. Madison important in the American political system?

The court case of Marbury v Madison was an important one in the American political system. This court case gave the Supreme Court the power to determine if laws passed by Congress were constitutional. This was a huge factor politically, because it served as another check on the power of Congress. Prior to this decision, there was no way that laws could be declared unconstitutional. Congress now had to consider if a proposed bill would meet the constitutionality test, which could potentially alter the wording of bills to ensure, if Congress passed them, the Supreme Court wouldn’t strike them down.
This power has frustrated both the executive and legislative branches. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to add younger judges, whom he felt were more in touch with the daily lives of the American people after the Supreme Court had struck down some of the New Deal bills that Congress had passed. Members of Congress also have had concerns that unelected judges were getting involved in the lawmaking process.

The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is important because it established the principle of judicial review within the American political system. Essentially, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, arrogated to itself the right to strike down legislation deemed to be unconstitutional.
Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling there was no mechanism available by which laws could be voided on constitutional grounds. As such, the Supreme Court previously had a relatively minor role within the American political system. That changed with Marbury v. Madison. From then on, the Supreme Court, in addition to its strictly judicial function, would take on a more overtly political role. Then as now, this was an immensely controversial development. It seemed that unelected judges were exceeding the bounds of their authority in making decisions that had traditionally been the exclusive preserve of the states or the U.S. Congress.
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/marbury-v-madison-video

What's Chaucer's opinion of the clergy?

In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer pays great attention to the clergy. Already in the Prologue, six clerics are described in detail. These are the Prioress, the Monk, the Friar, the Summoner, the Pardoner, and the Parson. The other two, the second Nun and the Priest, are only mentioned here, but later they tell their own tales. Chaucer’s clergy are not just a list of characters, for the most part disagreeable, but they are also personalities interacting with one another.
For example, the Summoner and the Pardoner might be in a homosexual relationship, while the Pardoner and the Friar dislike each other. It is the characters’ interaction that allows the reader to see the church and its ills from the inside. It is possible too that by considering the church and its representatives in such a peculiar way, Chaucer is trying to make sense of the causes of its degradation.
Chaucer expresses a personal attitude to each of his characters. Sometimes, it is explicitly negative, as is the Friar’s case. Some characters are depicted with hidden irony. Sometimes it is difficult to understand the author’s attitude towards his characters. The most vivid example of this ambivalence is the Prioress. There is no consensus among the scholars as to Chaucer’s attitude towards this character and as to how he treats her anti-Semitic tale. The only character described without a hint of irony and with true respect is the Parson:

This noble ensample to his sheep he gafThat first he wrought, and afterward he taught.Out of the gospel he the wordes caught,And this figure he added yet thereto,That if gold ruste, what should iron do?For if a priest be foul, on whom we trust,No wonder is a lewed man to rust... A better priest I trow that nowhere none is.He waited after no pomp nor reverence,Nor maked him a spiced conscienceBut Christe's lore, and his apostles' twelve,He taught, and first he follow'd it himselve. (1, Prologue)

Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales are partially satirical, and he pokes fun at or critiques just about every facet of medieval society. The clergy are no exception. Generally, Chaucer seems to think that the clergy are, at best, misguided or, at worst, outright corrupt.
Let us look at a few examples. There is one exception to the above statement and that is the Parson. Of all the clergy presented in the Prologue, he is the only upstanding, good person doing his job as it is intended to be done. His dedication to his parish is described in detail, and Chaucer really has nothing negative to say about him. 
All of the other clergy are critiqued in some way by Chaucer. The first member of the clergy to be introduced in the General Prologue is the Prioress, a high-ranking nun. The Prioress is accustomed to the finer things in life, which is odd considering that the clergy are supposed to take a vow of poverty and live humbly. The Prioress also wears a piece of jewelry engraved with a Latin saying that translates to "Love conquers all." Chaucer implies that it is not her love for Jesus that she is referring to with this phrase. Again, this is strange considering that the clergy take a vow of chastity and are not supposed to be involved in romantic relationships. However, Chaucer seems to enjoy talking with the Prioress, as she is pleasant company. Chaucer's critique of the Prioress is gentler than his depictions of some other clergy. 
The Monk is somewhat similar to the Prioress, but he is viewed more harshly by Chaucer. He enjoys socializing and hunting, and he is a member of the upper class. However, he believes monks should not have to be cooped up inside all day, even though that is what he signed up for when he became a monk. Again, he is not doing the job as it is meant to be done. 
At the other end of the spectrum would be the Friar, the Pardoner, and the Summoner. These men are all completely corrupt. The Friar uses his position as a clergyman to his own advantage and has become quite wealthy. The Pardoner openly tells the other pilgrims that he preaches against greed to his parishioners so that they will give him their money. The Summoner can be easily bribed by those he is supposed to take to the Church court. All of these men take advantage of their subjects for their own gain, making them awful people and, even worse, corrupt clergy members. 
While there are many clergy characters and all are described somewhat differently, it is clear that Chaucer did not have a blind reverence toward the clergy and instead saw that those who worked for the Church did not always do so for the best motives. 

How did the United States respond to war in Europe before Pearl Harbor?

Though FDR and a number of other leading American politicians were profoundly sympathetic toward the plight of Europeans, isolationism remained the dominant attitude in the United States. World War II was regarded as a European war; it was a conflict in a faraway continent that had nothing to do with the United States. America had found itself embroiled in a European war less than a quarter of a century before, yet Europe was now more unstable than ever. If the United States could not bring long-term stability to Europe in World War I, asked isolationists, how they could possibly do so now?
A series of Neutrality Acts passed by Congress prevented the Roosevelt Administration from actively getting involved in the rapidly spreading European conflagration. For his part, FDR tried to water down isolationist legislation, but the official policy of his administration remained one of formal neutrality. However, slowly but surely, Roosevelt offered more and more support to Great Britain in terms of materiel. The Lend-Lease program was particularly crucial in this regard, allowing the British and other European allies to gain greater access to American arms and supplies.
The decision by FDR to send American Navy vessels to the North Atlantic to patrol the sea and to escort British ships meant that the United States was at war with Nazi Germany in all but name by the spring of 1941. By the time the Japanese finally attacked Pearl Harbor, the ground for the United States' involvement in World War II had already been prepared to a considerable extent.
https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/foreign-affairs

What is the main theme of the chapter "Next, Please" by Philip Larkin?

Philip Larkin's poem, "Next, Please," tells a message about the uncertainty of the future; the speaker of the poem would likely agree with this mash-up of two old cliches: the only certainty in life is uncertainty, except for death (and taxes, as the saying goes). As well, the speaker warns of the foolishness of expecting anything at all to happen the way we want, hope, or believe it will, except perhaps the end of life itself.
The poet uses various literary devices to teach the reader this lesson about living in the moment. The most significant metaphor in the poem compares expectations about the future to a "sparkling armada" (line 6) that approaches but "never anchors" (line 14). Close reading of this metaphor reveals the speaker's attitude towards hopes and dreams that promise adventure and potential yet fail, over and over, to deliver. The only metaphorical ship that does arrive is "black-sailed" (lines 21-22) and "towing at her back/A huge and birdless silence" (lines 22-23); both the black color of the sails and the silence that follows the ship represent the inevitability of death.
These dark themes are all rendered in a rather cheerful, sing-song style rhyme scheme (AABB CCDD EEFF GGHH IIJJ), which enhances rather than distracts from the seriousness of the theme because it is just so incongruous.

"Next, Please" by Philip Larkin is not actually a chapter but an individual short poem. Poems included in books of poetry are generally not referred to as "chapters".
Although "Next, Please" does use some of the ornate language and archaic diction that Larkin eschewed in his mature works, it is thematically quite similar. It has much of the same emotional tone and theme as Larkin's mature work, and emphasizes that life includes much unpleasantness, that pleasure is fleeting, that things' reality are never as good as we had imagined, and that after a generally tedious life, we die. 
The ship imagery of the poem stands as a metaphor for the things we anticipate coming to us in the future that will bring us forms of gratification. In reality, the future is much like the past and the present, and when it does arrive, it immediately becomes the past, rather than becoming something lasting. The only thing seeking us which will stay with us permanently is death:

Only one ship is seeking us, a black-
Sailed unfamiliar ...  In her wake
No waters breed or break.

I need help comparing newspeak and doublethink and how they are alike. I need to back this up with a quote for each in one paragraph; Also, I need to explain how they have an almost equal effect on the brainwashing that takes place. Thanks.

For one thing, "doublethink" is itself a Newspeak word. It means, in short, to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, recognizing that they are contradictory, but accepting both. But before exploring the concept of "doublethink," one has to understand what Newspeak is. It is, in short, the language promoted by the Party, one which is intended to eliminate shades of meaning and words that are deemed unnecessary. The point of this, as Syme, a Party philologist, makes clear to Winston, is mind control. In short, the Party wants to eliminate the possibility of "thoughtcrime," or intellectual heresy, by eliminating unorthodox concepts. One can't commit treason if there are not words and concepts to imagine it. As Syme says, with every edition to the language, "the range of consciousness grows smaller and smaller," to the point where any ideas not in line with Party orthodoxy will be eliminated. It is the ultimate form of mind control. "Doublethink" will be impossible once Newspeak is completely established, but it demonstrates the success of the Party in essentially brainwashing the people. For an example, one might look at the Party's slogan: "WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," and "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." People can recognize that these statements are contradictory, yet they know they have to accept them as truth. Similarly, the people are told they have always been at war with the likes of Eurasia or Eastasia, though most of them have lived at a time when they were not. The point really is to call everything into doubt––the very nature of truth itself––to the point where people simply have to accept the Party's version of truth. So Newspeak and "doublethink" are each methods of mind control or brainwashing, methods that are really more effective and insidious than the brute force and terror that the Party also employs.