Is Macbeth a puppet of forces he cannot control? If not, what forces does he control?

This is a really difficult question to answer, mostly because Shakespeare leaves the notion of fate in Macbeth as fairly ambiguous. The answer will change depending on how you interpret Shakespeare's work, so you should view the following answer as my particular interpretation. Other scholars might differ in their views, and they would be justified in doing so.

Here's my take on the issue: there is, of course, the Weird Sisters' initial prophecy that Macbeth will...

This is a really difficult question to answer, mostly because Shakespeare leaves the notion of fate in Macbeth as fairly ambiguous. The answer will change depending on how you interpret Shakespeare's work, so you should view the following answer as my particular interpretation. Other scholars might differ in their views, and they would be justified in doing so.

Here's my take on the issue: there is, of course, the Weird Sisters' initial prophecy that Macbeth will be king, and so there seems to be a certain amount of fate at work, which would suggest that Macbeth is indeed a puppet of larger, universal forces and is not fully in control of his own actions. However, while Shakespeare begins the play with a cryptically prophetic statement on the gloomy moors, he never fully commits to the idea that Macbeth is a mere puppet being used by fate. No matter what fate might "plan" for us, Shakespeare suggests, we always have the ability to choose.

For instance, even though Macbeth is prophesied to become king, the Weird Sisters never explicitly say that he is fated to kill King Duncan and usurp the throne; that's merely a result of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's interpretation of the prophesy. Therefore, it's possible that Macbeth could have chosen to remain a loyal and honest man, and that he could have become king by honorable and legal means later in life. Since the Weird Sisters never specifically describe the manner by which Macbeth will become king, his method for assuming the power of the crown seems to be a force that he controls. However, Macbeth rushes to fulfill the prophesy by murdering Duncan in his sleep, and so he chooses the quick and violent path. The fact that Macbeth makes this choice with his own free will is the true tragedy of the play, as it proves that this formerly honorable man is capable of using his free will to perform great evil. Thus, the quick answer to this question is that, though fate could be at work, Macbeth is in control of his decision to murder Duncan, a fact that makes this act all the more hideous.   

How can Tuesdays with Morrie support or contradict the idea of the American Dream?

With its emphasis on how to live life in the face of death, I would suggest Tuesdays with Morrie challenges some tenets of the American Dream.

Economic considerations are significant parts to the American Dream. This consideration infuses itself into the American Dream where people work hard and enjoy a certain level of financial stature as a result of their work. They have "things" such as homes, cars, and opulent displays that mirror accomplishment. Morrie's...

With its emphasis on how to live life in the face of death, I would suggest Tuesdays with Morrie challenges some tenets of the American Dream.

Economic considerations are significant parts to the American Dream. This consideration infuses itself into the American Dream where people work hard and enjoy a certain level of financial stature as a result of their work. They have "things" such as homes, cars, and opulent displays that mirror accomplishment. Morrie's experience with physical debilitation and the grace with which he still faces life transcend material considerations. No amount of wealth or "things" can replace what he experiences. Morrie must find the courage to live life in the face of death, and that is not something normally associated with the American Dream.

Another element of Tuesdays with Morrie that challenges the presuppositions behind the American Dream is its discussion of death. The traditional understanding of the American Dream is a celebration of life and the fruits associated with its labor. It emphasizes the temporal, elements that eventually succumb to time's passing. In contrast, the lessons Albom learns from Morrie are timeless meditations about how to live life with the unavoidable reality of death's finality. The scope and sequence of this discussion is far more expansive than what the American Dream affirms. The American Dream is more concerned with life, while Tuesdays with Morrie views life in the inescapable reach of death. The focal points differ from one another. In Morrie's lessons, there is a reach that goes beyond the American Dream.

How does First Purchase church express To Kill a Mockingbird's themes of innocence, resistance, and courage?

We'll find that description of the church in Chapter 12, when Calpurnia is getting ready to take Scout and Jem with her to attend a service. After Scout's initial description of the building, she describes the furnishings inside:

The churchyard was brick-hard clay, as was the cemetery beside it. If someone died during a dry spell, the body was covered with chunks of ice until rain softened the earth. A few graves in the cemetery were marked with crumbling tombstones; newer ones were outlined with brightly colored glass and broken Coca-Cola bottles. Lightning rods guarding some graves denoted dead who rested uneasily; stumps of burned-out candles stood at the heads of infant graves. It was a happy cemetery.

The warm bittersweet smell of clean Negro welcomed us as we entered the churchyard — Hearts of Love hairdressing mingled with asafoetida, snuff, Hoyt’s Cologne, Brown’s Mule, peppermint, and lilac talcum. [...]

First Purchase was unceiled and unpainted within. Along its walls unlighted kerosene lamps hung on brass brackets; pine benches served as pews. Behind the rough oak pulpit a faded pink silk banner proclaimed God Is Love, the church’s only decoration except a rotogravure print of Hunt’s The Light of the World. There was no sign of piano, organ, hymn-books, church programs — the familiar ecclesiastical impedimenta we saw every Sunday. It was dim inside, with a damp coolness slowly dispelled by the gathering congregation. At each seat was a cheap cardboard fan bearing a garish Garden of Gethsemane, courtesy Tyndal’s Hardware Co. (You-Name-It-We-Sell-It).

The first thing you'll notice in Scout's description of the church is that it was literally purchased with the money that former slaves had earned. That makes the church itself a powerful symbol of Maycomb's black community's devotion to their faith.

To find evidence of the themes of courage and resistance, we'll have to look at the details of the church building itself. The building is old and in poor repair. The church is "ancient." The paint is peeling off of it. Inside, everything is rough, faded, and sparse. The yard is made of clay, not grass. Still, the interior is welcoming, inviting, full of the spirit of community and the faith that unites it. It smells good. It's lively. Even the cemetery, with its graves for dead infants, is "happy."

All these details speak to the idea that for these churchgoers to continue in their beliefs and gather as a community to support each other takes courage and strength. The people, like the church building itself, resist abrasive forces of society and nature, respectively, that are working against them. For the people, it's the bitter, deep-seated racism of Maycomb that the First Purchase congregation resists. For the building, it's the forces of nature and time that the building resists. It's still standing. So are the people.

The theme of innocence in this novel usually focuses on Scout and her initial lack of knowledge about the world. You can also consider Tom Robinson's literal innocence in that he hasn't committed the crime he's accused of. If we're looking for evidence that the congregation at First Purchase is "innocent" in the sense that they're ignorant about the realities of the world, like Scout, or that they're somehow all perfect or free from sin, we won't find it.

If we're looking for evidence that they're "innocent" in that their devotion to their faith is true and pure, that's something we will find. The church doesn't have any prayer books or hymnals. Tellingly, Scout calls these items the typical "impedimenta" found in the white church she usually attends, suggesting she thinks these items impede rather than aid worship. First Purchase doesn't have them, and indeed, they don't need them: the congregation is mostly illiterate, as we find out later in that same chapter. This congregation also does not need much decoration or even comfortable seating in their church. They're there to worship and come together as a community, not to admire the artwork or architecture or relax in luxury. The church is also damp and a bit cool inside, but the presence of the fans reveals that it will quickly become uncomfortably warm. The churchgoers' willingness to sit through this discomfort is evidence of their devotion, purity of faith, and commitment to their community. Whether you call this theme "innocence" is a matter of interpretation. I probably wouldn't.

What are the origin and dynamics of the currency crises in Mexico in 1994-95 and in Asia in 1997-98? What lessons can we learn from these crises?

While they appear superficially similar and had similar effects, the Mexican currency crisis in 1994 and the Asian financial crisis in 1997 had fundamentally different causes.

Let's start with Mexico. Mexico's government has long depended on oil revenues. When oil prices were high in the 1970s, they were flush with cash, and either they thought this would go on forever or at least acted like they did. Mexico's government cut taxes and raised spending, which was fine as long as the oil revenue filled in the gap. When oil prices began to fall in the 1980s, Mexico had a huge fiscal deficit and no clear way to reduce it.

Things started getting better in the 1990s, in large part due to liberalized trade with the United States. This culminated in NAFTA in 1994, which had an enormous impact on Mexico, both in their real economy and on their financial system.

In the long run, NAFTA has been very good for Mexico. In the short run, though, they were simply not prepared for the sudden opening of their financial markets. As market circumstances changed on a daily basis, foreign investors rushed in, and then rushed out just as quickly.

Part of the problem was that Mexico fought to keep the value of the peso high and pegged to the dollar, so they could afford many new imports from the United States. This made them dependent on the United States. Due to market conditions in the United States, the United States' monetary policy varied substantially in the 1990s.

The peso became overvalued, leading to a large trade deficit. Worse, Mexico began to drain its currency reserves. Finally, they couldn't sustain the exchange rate anymore and allowed the peso to devalue; this created a sudden shock to Mexico's economy, triggering inflation. This was the direct cause of the crisis. This was the right decision in the long run, however, as a cheaper peso allowed Mexico to close their trade deficit.

Now let's turn to Asia.

The Asian crisis was primarily caused by the fall in value of the Thai baht.

Why did the baht fall? It appears to have been primarily a self-fulfilling panic. It's not clear what the triggering event was, but it didn't have to be much; once investors stopped believing Thailand's government and businesses could meet their debt obligations, interest rates rose, the Thai stock market crashed, and the baht suddenly lost value—and now there was a reason to panic. It was essentially a bank run, but against an entire country.

A leading theory is that the Thai banking system had improper risk management policy and a high level of corruption, which had been masked by high rates of economic growth. When growth began to slow down, these risks became common knowledge to foreign investors.

This panic also spread to other countries, particularly Korea and Indonesia because they had the most liberalized financial systems. To many investors in Europe and the United States (which is where most investors are!), Korea and Indonesia didn't seem all that different from Thailand, so it was better not to take the chance. They pulled their money out of those countries, too, and once again the panic which may have had no particular justification originally became self-fulfilling.

In both cases, the crisis was at its worst when the currency devalued, but this is not evidence that we should have fixed exchange rates. Rather, what seems to happen is that fixed exchange rates build up a kind of "pressure" (in the form of strain on current accounts and foreign reserves) that ultimately must be released. If you wait too long, it happens all at once and causes a disaster. Think of a currency peg as like a dam; if you allow water to flow through the dam gradually (or remove the dam entirely), things should be fine. If you try to hold the dam in place, though, pressure builds up until the dam collapses and floods the whole region. Economists should probably be working on ways to introduce flexible currencies gradually, so that countries which currently depend on a fixed exchange rate can transition rather than having the whole system collapse at once. (Sadly, I'm not actually aware of any economic research on this topic.)

Both crises also exhibit the very real downsides of free trade, especially the liberalization of financial markets. While the upsides are just as large (if not larger), I think many economists have done the public a disservice by not frankly discussing these downsides and how to mitigate them. There seems to be a general tendency toward "Yay free trade! Free trade is good!" among economists. This mentality can lead them to try to hide the downsides and exaggerate the upsides. Especially during the initial transition period, free trade can cause a lot of damage even though the ultimate outcome is generally good. We should be talking about means of preventing these sorts of crises—perhaps removing capital controls gradually, for instance, rather than all at once, or even retaining certain types of capital controls.

What does Florence mean by the word "Seedfolks"? Why do you think Fleischman chose this title for the book?

Florence tells the story of how her great-grandparents walked all the way from Louisana to Colorado in 1859. They were both freed slaves who settled alongside the Gunnison River. She comments that her ancestors became the first black family in the entire county. Her father called them "seedfolks" because they were the first black family to settle in that location. Florence then calls the community gardeners on Gibb Street "seedfolks" because they were the first...

Florence tells the story of how her great-grandparents walked all the way from Louisana to Colorado in 1859. They were both freed slaves who settled alongside the Gunnison River. She comments that her ancestors became the first black family in the entire county. Her father called them "seedfolks" because they were the first black family to settle in that location. Florence then calls the community gardeners on Gibb Street "seedfolks" because they were the first to plant their seeds in the run-down lot.

Throughout the novel, Paul Fleischman tells stories about various people who immigrated to Cleveland and began planting their seeds in the garden on Gibb Street. Many of the characters throughout the novel were the first members of their families to immigrate to America, similar to how Florence's family was the first to inhabit that particular area of Colorado. Seedfolks are people in their families to move from their ancestral home and start their lives in a new place. Each character who was the first in their family to immigrate to the community in Cleveland would be considered a "seedfolk," which is why he chose that title of the novel. 

What is the mood in John Green's The Fault in our Stars?

The Fault in Our Stars, written by John Green, tells the story of two teenagers who meet at their cancer support group. Sixteen-year-old Hazel has had thyroid cancer for several years and has come to terms with her mortality and her place in the world. Hazel is quite mature for accepting her fate, but her mother also thinks that she has become depressed. (Hazel thinks depression is a side-effect of knowing you will die.) One day when Hazel is attending support group, she meets seventeen-year-old Augustus, who is recovering from osteosarcoma. She thinks he is pretentious and a little obnoxious, but funny and charming at the same time. Hazel and Augustus forge a bittersweet friendship after Augustus pretends to smoke a cigarette-- he tells Hazel that he likes the metaphor of holding the killing-thing (the cigarette) but not giving it the power to kill you (by lighting it) as a means of having some power in his own mortality. 

From the very beginning, we can sense that this story is bittersweet. It is depressing to think or know that someone will die, to know that we, ourselves, will die. For that reason, the mood or tone of this book is often sorrowful or full of grief.

Hazel and Augustus have two different approaches to reconciling the knowledge of their morality. For Hazel, she is comforted by knowing that everyone will die someday. Augustus does not appreciate that sentiment as much, but feels that he can at least make the most out of his time while he is still alive. Augustus wants to make the most out of his, and Hazel's, time as friends by offering to use his "wish," granted by an organization for children and teens with cancer, to take Hazel to meet her favorite author. When the two travel to Amsterdam and enjoy the beautiful city, a fancy dinner, and meet this author, the story is really hopeful. Hazel and Augustus know that they have cancer and decide to do this ambitious and happy thing not as a way of denying their health status but in spite of it. They want to show cancer who's boss! 

Sadly, their trip is not all they hoped for. When they meet Hazel's favorite author to ask him their pressing questions, they find out he is a miserable drunk. Hazel and Augustus storm out, disappointed that he was not who they expected, but proud of themselves for accomplishing what they had set out to do. What's more, they had grown closer to each other during the journey and fallen in love. 

All throughout the book, sorrow, grief, and joy are interwoven to create a heart-wrenching and very real narrative. Life is never made up of only happy things or only terrible things, and John Green has done an excellent job of showing this. It is quite sobering. Even when Augustus dies from a relapse of cancer, Hazel cherishes his memory and that which he taught her about how to let go and make the most of the time she has.

At dinner, what does Daisy accuse Tom of doing to her?

The very first chapter of The Great Gatsby(Fitzgerald) features Tom Buchanan as a brute. Nick has already described him as a nationally prominent football player in college and upon meeting him again now, says he has a "cruel body" (11). At the dinner, Daisy examines her little finger, which has a "black and blue" knuckle. She blames Tom for this, although she says he didn't mean to hurt her.  And then she says he...

The very first chapter of The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald) features Tom Buchanan as a brute. Nick has already described him as a nationally prominent football player in college and upon meeting him again now, says he has a "cruel body" (11). At the dinner, Daisy examines her little finger, which has a "black and blue" knuckle. She blames Tom for this, although she says he didn't mean to hurt her.  And then she says he is "a brute of a man, a great big hulking physical specimen..." (16). We never do see Tom hurt her deliberately, but later on in the novel, Tom hits his mistress, Myrtle Wilson, because she continues to want to say Daisy's name, and the more we learn about Tom, the more likely it seems that he has hurt Daisy other times, too. There are seldom any references to Tom in which he is not portrayed as somehow brutal.