What issues, beliefs, backgrounds, and economic realities divided Americans in the 1980s, and how do these divisions shape the culture and politics of contemporary America?

The Eighties were also the decade in which the Religious Right had more power in American politics than it had wielded in decades.
During the 1970s, a small group of evangelical ministers, particularly Jerry Falwell, promoted the message that the gains of the late-1960 and early-1970s were incompatible with "family values," that is, the traditional family headed by a male who is married to a woman whose priority is to remain at home and care for their children. Falwell and company sought to scale back reproductive rights, particularly the nationwide constitutional right to an abortion, as decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973, as well as feminist gains in education, employment, political action, and personal finance.
Evangelicals capitalized off of discontent among white men, who worried that gains among women and minorities would rob them of privileges they had long enjoyed, in addition to making their social roles less clear. The religious right also exploited the ambivalences of people who thought that change was occurring to rapidly and wanted a safe return to the conventions of earlier eras. This partly explains why the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) did not become a part of the Constitution in 1979. The religious right, working in concert with anti-feminist activists, most notably, Phyllis Schafly, convinced enough voters and representatives that the amendment would make it seem wrong for women to be homemakers and would lead to the expectation that women perform the same forms of labor and military service that were expected of men.
Similar messages are heard today from conservative politicians, religious political action committees (PACs), such as Focus on the Family, and from anti-abortion PACs, particularly the Susan B. Anthony Foundation.

Many different issues divided America in the 1980s, leading to many of the political issues still under debate.
One of the most important issues was race and how to remedy the long-lasting effects of slavery and other racial inequalities. Many of the solutions, such as desegregation and affirmative action, have proven of limited effectiveness and led to substantial backlash. An economic crisis in Mexico in the 1980s contributed to an increase in immigration, leading to issues which are still debated when discussing current immigration policy. Another important issue was the ongoing transformation of gender roles and realization of gender equality. 
On an economic front, this was a period of recession followed by a period of prosperity. However, it was a time during which inequality increased and prosperity gradually migrated from labor to capital. The wealthiest, who owned stocks or other forms of capital, got far richer than workers, and executive pay continued to outstrip worker pay. These problems of economic inequality persist today. 

How did Madame Hoo interrupt the trial?

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 26 of The Westing Game. This chapter is a court proceeding with Judge Ford presiding, Turtle Wexler as a lawyer, and Sydelle Pulaski as the court reporter. I would say that Mrs. Hoo interrupts the trial twice in this chapter. The first time is not a big interruption. Mrs. Hoo isn't following the English of the trial all that well, and she gets worried when Turtle repeatedly says the word "who."

Turtle forgot the rules of the court and hurried to her mother. “Who did you see, mom? Who? Who?”
(Terrified by the whos, Madame Hoo slipped away.)

It turns out that Mrs. Hoo is the person that has been stealing everybody's stuff, and she thinks that she is going to get found out and get in big trouble because of the trial. She returns to the trial with the stolen goods (minus Grace's cross) and interrupts the proceedings in order to return the stuff and give a reason. She was going to use the items to help pay for a trip back to China.

“Yes, please.” A trembling Madame Hoo stood before the judge. “For to go to China,” she said timidly, setting a scarftied bundle on the desk. Weeping softly, the thief shuffled back to her seat.

What is the dramatic irony from "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant?

It is easy. I need help with my homework i am a new kid and need help with my homework.
So this is the question, what is the answers for chapter 1:Discovery of a New World
and Section 4: The English Come to Stay?

Dramatic irony occurs when the audience (or reader) knows something that one or more of the characters do not. In other words, the audience is one or more steps ahead of the characters in the story. There really are no clues or hints that give the reader this kind of advantage over Madame Loisel, her husband, or any of the other supporting characters. The reader and Madame Loisel learn the necklace is made of fake diamonds at the same time.
There is, however, evidence of situational irony. This is when the outcome is different or opposite of that which was intended. Madame Loisel expected the necklace to bring her happiness. It did for a short time, but then losing the necklace made the rest of her life quite difficult. She expected that the necklace was made of forty thousand francs worth of diamonds. She later learned the diamonds were fake. Earlier in the story, Monsieur Loisel expects his wife will be thrilled about the invitation to the Ministry. She is initially too ashamed to consider going because she feels she requires expensive clothes and jewelry to even fit in with such a high strata of society.

What did the Soviet Union do to spread communism in Africa?

The ideology of Communism held that the world's oppressed masses were divided by artificial distinctions of race, nationality, and culture. These distinctions were either created or reinforced by the capitalist system for its own benefit, and in the process keeping the wretched of the earth in a state of permanent subjection. Given this central tenet of Communism, we can see how the Soviet Union would be a natural ally of the various anti-colonial resistance movements in Africa and elsewhere during the Cold War.
For the most part, these resistance movements were fighting against either Western colonial powers or right-wing dictatorships backed by the United States, so the involvement of the Soviet Union in Africa had an added ideological edge to it. The Soviets supplied arms, funding, and military advisers to groups such as the MPLA in Angola. They also offered substantial support to the ANC in its struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
Propaganda was an important element in the spread of Communism. The Soviets were anxious to portray themselves as the Africans' friends, their comrades in a mutual struggle against capitalist and colonialist oppression. Successive Soviet governments knew that if Communism could be linked in the popular African mind to national liberation, that would make it more likely that the ideology would take root in native soil and subsequently grow. This, after all, is precisely what had happened in China during its war with Japan, and the Soviets were keen to see history repeat itself on the African continent.

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 9, 9.5, Section 9.5, Problem 37

To determine the convergence or divergence of the series sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^n/2^n , we may apply the Ratio Test.
In Ratio test, we determine the limit as:
lim_(n-gtoo)|a_(n+1)/a_n| = L
Then ,we follow the conditions:
a) L lt1 then the series converges absolutely.
b) Lgt1 then the series diverges.
c) L=1 or does not exist then the test is inconclusive.The series may be divergent, conditionally convergent, or absolutely convergent.
For the given series sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^n/2^n , we have a_n =(-1)^n/2^n .
Then, a_(n+1) =(-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1) .
We set up the limit as:
lim_(n-gtoo) | [(-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1)]/[(-1)^n/2^n]|
To simplify the function, we flip the bottom and proceed to multiplication:
| [(-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1)]/[(-1)^n/2^n]| =| (-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1)*2^n/(-1)^n|
Apply Law of Exponent: x^(n+m) = x^n*x^m . It becomes:
| ((-1)^n (-1)^1)/(2^n *2^1)*2^n/(-1)^n|
Cancel out common factors (-1)^n and (2^n) .
| (-1)^1/ 2^1 |
Simplify:
| (-1)^1/ 2^1 | =| (-1)/ 2 |
= |-1/2|
=1/2
Applying | [(-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1)]/[(-1)^n/2^n]|= 1/2 , we get:
lim_(n-gtoo) | [(-1)^(n+1)/2^(n+1)]/[(-1)^n/2^n]|=lim_(n-gtoo) 1/2
lim_(n-gtoo) 1/2=1/2
The limit value L=1/2 or 0.5 satisfies the condition: L lt1 since 1/2lt1 or 0.5lt1 .
Therefore, the series sum_(n=1)^oo (-1)^n/2^n converges absolutely.

In the children's book Hana's Suitcase by Karen Levine, what are the characteristics of the book that make this book challenging and/or controversial for children?

Karen Levine's Hana's Suitcase is a nonfictional account of the life of Hana Brady (Hana Bradyova), a young Jewish girl who was killed in Auschwitz in 1944 while interred at the camp. Fumiko Ishioka, a Japanese Holocaust educator, displayed Hana's suitcase from her time at Auschwitz at an exhibit in 2000, after which Ishioka traveled to Canada to meet Hana's surviving brother and learn more about her life. Ishioka's journey and Hana's story sparked Karen Levine to produce a documentary about Hana's life before and during the Holocaust, which she eventually turned into this novel.
The topic of the Holocaust can be sensitive for children, and a story for children about a young person separated from her family and ultimately killed is controversial. The fact that the book is written for children as an audience makes it a provocative topic. It can be challenging for children to imagine a world in which a child might be persecuted by the government, forced to live in a work camp, and killed. It is precisely because of this horrible reality for Hana that Levine created the documentary and wrote this book. Hana's story is awful, but it is real. The best way to prevent future tragedies is by not forgetting the tragedies of our past.

In Hana's Suitcase, the biography of Hana Brady is interwoven with details surrounding the creation of Tokyo's modern-day Holocaust Education Center. Both the book and the center share a goal of humanizing the Holocaust to those learning about the event over seventy years later and creating an appreciation for diversity to ensure that such history is never repeated. Hana's tale concludes with her execution in a Nazi concentration camp at age thirteen, and her suitcase is one of the artifacts displayed in the center with the goal of conveying a personal impact of the Holocaust to children today.
Since children are often shielded from unpleasant topics at a young age, much of the heavy subject matter presented in this book could be considered controversial. While Hana's early life is shown to be spirited and happy, this changes when German forces invade Czechoslovakia and inflict misery upon Jewish inhabitants. The topics of World War II, anti-Semitism, and Nazism may be considered controversial by those who do not wish children to be privy to heavy matters. Specific traumatic events in the book include Hana's parents' arrest and removal by Nazi soldiers, Hana and her brother George's sentence to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, and Hana's death in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Hana's Suitcase is undoubtedly more emotionally challenging than many children's books because it accurately conveys a vivid picture of the genocide, abuse, and terror inflicted by Hitler's regime.

In The Kite Runner, the personal and the political are always linked. To what extent do you agree?

The response to this question rests on how we define the "political." Because the novel invites us to define politics to include the socio-economic impact of political and ethnic hierarchy on everyday life, I would agree that in The Kite Runner the personal and political are always linked.
From the start, Ali and Hassan's destinies are defined by their social status. Ali is the son of Baba, a wealthy, prominent, and politically-connected man from the socially superior Pashtun background. Hassan, the son of a Hazaras, a despised group, grows up as a servant with a much more constricted set of possibilities from the start. The Afghan society depicted is most decidedly not a meritocracy: the accidents of birth play an oversize role in an individual's life prospects.
Both Ali and Hassan deeply internalize their country's social ideology, which places Ali distinctly above Hassan in the social and political hierarchy, regardless of merit. Hassan docilely and very loyally accepts his subordinate status. Ali likewise accepts his superiority. When a payback comes, it is Hassan, a far easier target, who is raped, while Ali, who witnesses the rape, does nothing to intervene.
The novel makes it quite clear that, were the tables to be turned, Hassan would have risked himself to save Ali. Ali, however, for all his affection (as well as jealousy) of Hassan, has internalized enough peripheral contempt for his Hazaras servant not to place his own safety on the line for him—and then to use his power to betray him to get rid of him and the guilt he provokes.
The politics of ethnic hierarchy and privilege also dictate that Ali and Baba can escape Afghanistan for the United States while Hassan is left behind.
Hosseini calls into question Afghan political and social norms when the novel reveals that Hassan and Ali are actually brothers, shining a light on the fictive, constructed nature of the social-political ethnic hierarchy, which bears little relationship to reality.
Further, Hosseini realistically depicts the politics of power by having Ali's voice tell the story rather than Hassan's, reflecting the way politics put narratives into the hands of the powerful rather than the subaltern in a society. One has to imagine Hassan would be a more complex and less doggedly loving and devoted character in a novel told from his own perspective.

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini intricately connects the political with much the personal lives, actions and motivations of its characters. Although the political pervades and influences these main characters, it does not affect every personal action in the novel. Thus, despite playing a crucial and substantial role in the novel, the personal and political are not always linked.
First, it is important to consider how the political setting has influenced the personal lives of the main characters in the story. In the first part of the story, the caste system in Afghanistan plays an essential role in shaping the interactions and emotions of the characters. The reader is immediately exposed to the stark dichotomy of the life of Amir, a wealthy Pashtun boy, and his best friend Hassan, a servant's son. On the surface these two boys share an amicable and close relationship. However, the author highlights underlying tensions brought about by the difference in class between these two boys. These tensions are symbolically demonstrated by Amir's role as the kite flyer and Hassan's role as a kite runner, someone who retrieves the kite. The political effects of the existence of a class system have intangible but undeniable effects on the personal development and experience of this story's characters.
However, despite this, there are actions and motivations which escape the pervading grasp of political influence in The Kite Runner. Although it is not explicitly mentioned, Hassan's devotion and love for Amir stems not only from his role as a servant, but from a genuine love for Amir as a friend. At the end of this story, this sincere love is reciprocated when Amir runs a kite for Hassan's son, Sohrab. This scene sharply contrasts the opening where Amir, is the kite flyer because he is wealthier. The story of The Kite Runner culminates with the conclusion of Amir becoming a kite runner because of his love and devotion for his friend Hassan. Despite Amir being wealthier, more powerful, and politically advantageous in every way, Amir goes against his political standing to serve Sohrab out of his love for Hassan. Despite the pervasive effects of the political on the personal throughout The Kite Runner, this ending reminds the reader that the personal does not always have to be controlled by the political.

Khaled Hosseini's debut novel The Kite Runner certainly proves the statement "the personal is always political." I see the novel doing so in two significant ways: first, in the way Hosseini portrays the impact of political and historical events on characters lives and, second, in the way sociopolitical hierarchies determine character relationships and plot events in the novel.
The Kite Runner is set in the 1970s in Afghanistan, a time of political turmoil that saw the fall of the monarchy, the onset of Russian invasion, and the emergence of the Taliban. During this time of instability, a once strong and relatively prosperous Kabul begins to crumble. The narrator, Amir, grows up in a privileged household and is the son of the powerful and influential Baba. Once political strife and violence make it dangerous for them to stay in Afghanistan, they flee to Pakistan and later emigrate to California. They are able to do so because they are wealthy and because Baba has connections and resources. Still, their flight is not easy or completely smooth. Once in California, Baba, who was previously a highly successful businessman, must take a job at a gas station. His status has fallen enormously, but he and his son are physically safer. On the other hand, Ali and Hassan are poor and of a minority group, so they are not able to escape the political turmoil in their native country. Eventually, Ali is killed by a land mine, and Hassan is executed by the Taliban. The political events that make up the context of the novel determine the outcomes of the central characters' lives.
Likewise, the sociopolitical hierarchy in Afghanistan affects relationships between characters and contributes to their fates discussed in the above paragraph. Baba and Amir are Pashtun and Sunni Muslims, making them part of the majority. Ali and Hassan are Hazara Shi'a Muslims, a much-maligned minority group. The social structure in the country decrees that Pashtuns are superior to Hazaras, so even though Baba and Ali, and then Amir and Hassan, grow up as close as brothers, the political, ethnic, and religious divisions always drive a wedge between them. This hierarchy is what Amir falls back on when he witnesses Hassan being assaulted by Assef, and the low status of the Hazaras is, indeed, the main reason Hassan is assaulted in the first place. Amir's guilt following his inability or refusal to stand up for his friend leads him to frame Hassan for theft. Though Baba forgives Hassan, Ali feels he and his son cannot bear the shame, and they leave. Later, when Amir learns that Hassan was actually Baba's biological son, he wonders whether, in the event they had possessed all the information from the start, he would have acted the way he did. He also wonders about whether Ali and Hassan would have come to America with Amir and his father. One of the great tragedies of the novel is that two boys who otherwise would have remained best friends are driven apart because of social expectations and prejudices. This is a great example of the personal also being political.
Ultimately, Hosseini's novel makes a powerful statement about sociopolitical discrimination and the tragic effects political strife can have on personal lives.