Based on the poem "What is Red?" by Mary O'Neill, what is said to happen if you have a slight cut on your hand? What about a deep cut? What does the line "Red is a signal that says, 'Watch Out!'" mean? Why do you think red is the color used for such signals? How does the narrator describe the impact of the color red?

The main theme of the poem "What is Red" by Mary O'Neill is how one color can evoke a vast array of feelings and responses. Some of these responses are cultural ("red is a fire engine"; "red is a rubber ball") and some are inherent in the human experience ("red squiggles out when you cut your hand"). 
Ms. O'Neill seems to paint the idea of the color red in the very phrasing of each line of her poem. The sentences are short and blunt and overtly specific. "Red is a lipstick. Red is a shout. Red is a signal that says 'WATCH OUT'."
Despite the many varying shades and hues of red that could be referenced (i.e., scarlet, crimson, magenta) Ms. O'Neill deliberately repeats the specific word "red" over and over again, until like the very color itself, the word red is impressed harshly upon the brain.
Many of the things Mary O'Neill describes in the poem "What is Red" are unpleasant: embarrassment, anger, a sunburn. There's a sense that the author doesn't particularly enjoy her experience of the color red and yet she is struck by its influence and finishes her poem by considering: "Red is a show-off, no doubt about it. But can you imagine living without it?"

In the poem, "red squiggles out" when we have a cut on our hand. The word "squiggle" is interesting; it describes an irregular, curly line of blood emerging from the wound. Perhaps the blood is "squiggly" because it follows the lines on our hand. The poem doesn't say what happens when we get a deep cut, but we assume that the blood doesn't just "squiggle" out; as my colleague mentions in her answer, a deeper cut can cause blood to gush out in greater volume.
This leads us to what the color red means to the poet:

Red is a shout Red is a signal That says, “Watch out!”

The color red warns people about danger. It's a bright, attention-grabbing color. In the poem, the color red can spell sexy (as in a woman's red lipstick) or beautiful (as in a red rose); it can alert us when someone's angry (as in red-hot angry), and it can also spell danger. So, the color red can signal at different times anger, danger, beauty, or sexiness. Additionally, when people become emotional, the poet tells us that "Red is hotness/ You get inside/ When you’re embarrassed."
Here, the color red explains how someone feels. Some people blush when they get embarrassed; the little twinge of red on someone's cheeks alerts us to how that person feels. The poet says "Red is the giant-est/ Color of all." That's the impact of the color red. It's a "show-off,/ No doubt about it," perhaps because it knows how important it is in our lives. The color red causes us to react to what we see and feel. Its power is felt daily in our lives, so much so that the poet invites us to imagine what it would be like to live without it.

In the poem "What is Red," Mary O'Neill writes that if you have a slight cut on your hand, "Red squiggles out." If the cut is deeper, red blood would not squiggle out but might gush out in greater force and volume.
Red is a signal that says "Watch out!" because it is used as a stop light and a stop sign, as well as a warning light. It is used for signals because it captures people's attention and tells them to stop.
The author describes red as "a lipstick," "a shout," and "a show-off." In other words, the personality of the color is bold and vibrant. Red does everything it can to attract people's attention, and its impact is to make people stop and cast their eyes on the color red. It is not a shy or subtle color; rather, it makes itself noticed. 

In "What is Red?" a small amount of blood is said to come out of a slight cut on the hand. What happens when it's a deep cut is not directly said, but one can infer there would be a much larger amount of blood. In general, red is depicted in the poem as an attention-getting color, so the speaker says it is useful as a warning as well as a representation of a variety of strong emotions. 

Compare and contrast W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington.

Booker T. Washington was twelve years older than W. E. B. Du Bois, not a huge age difference but a peculiarly crucial twelve years in American history, since it included the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. Washington was born into slavery in Virginia in 1856, Du Bois into a landowning family in Massachusetts in 1868. Washington had to walk 500 miles to attend the newly-founded Hampton Institute, a technical, agricultural, and teacher-training college, at the age of sixteen. Du Bois was the first African-American to be awarded a doctorate by Harvard University.
The differences in the education of the two men were reflected in their views on the subject. Both supported increased educational opportunities for black Americans, but Washington focused on technical and vocational subjects which would allow poor black people to gain employment, whereas Du Bois argued that African Americans should study the Ivy League curriculum of classics and liberal arts, which would prepare them for leadership.
Washington and Du Bois clashed over the Atlanta Compromise, an informal agreement which Washington struck with leaders of the white community in which African-Americans accepted segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement as facts of life so long as they were given some educational and employment opportunities and access to justice. Du Bois initially congratulated Washington on the Atlanta Exposition Speech in which he outlined this arrangement but later came to view it as much too accommodationist for his tastes. However, Du Bois lived a long time and later came to regret his more forthright criticisms of Washington.
Some critics, such as Thomas Sowell, have also argued that, while the two men clearly disagreed, the most extreme antipathy was always between their supporters and was not reflected in the attitudes of Washington and Du Bois themselves.

W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington both were instrumental in attempting to improve the social, political, and economic situation of African Americans around the turn of the century. They differed, however, in how and when social, political, and economic improvement would occur.
In 1895, Booker T. Washington gave a speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in which he declared that the primary goal of African Americans should be economic progress, educational opportunities, and equal rights in court. He also claimed in his speech that as long as these opportunities were afforded, African Americans should accept segregation and their status within American society. This became known as the "Atlanta Compromise" and would result in criticism from W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois believed that Washington's beliefs were incorrect and that African Americans should instead demand equal rights in all areas of society. Du Bois cited the 14th Amendment, which established full citizenship for African Americans, as the reason African Americans should immediately demand equal rights from white citizens.
As far as economic success was concerned, Washington believed that it would take time and would not occur quickly. Washington hoped that through years of hard work, African Americans would eventually achieve an increase in social and economic standing. He believed that with this increase in social and economic standing, African Americans would eventually become respected and included by white Americans. Booker T. Washington believed that an improvement to economic standing for African Americans would come through the learning of skills and trades, which his Tuskegee Institute attempted to teach. Through the learning of skills and trades, Washington hoped African Americans would have more opportunities for greater earnings than unskilled labor jobs.
Du Bois's approach to improvement for African Americans focused more on education and political action. Du Bois was well-educated and surrounded himself with other well-educated African American leaders. Du Bois was also instrumental in forming the political group "Niagara," which aimed to achieve equal civil rights and greater opportunities for African Americans. Many of the goals established by the group Niagara eventually became central to the NAACP.
As you can see, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois had a shared overall goal of improving the political, economic, and social standing of African Americans. Their approaches, however, were quite different. Du Bois favored education, political action, and a refusal to accept a status as second-class citizens. Washington favored slower progress made through the learning of skills and trades, slow economic improvement, and, at least for the short term, acceptance of a lower social status. Washington hoped that this would lead to overall improvement for African Americans.
https://www.biography.com/activist/booker-t-washington

https://www.biography.com/news/web-dubois-vs-booker-t-washington

Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois were African American leaders in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. They were both very concerned about the lack of rights that African Americans had. They both were concerned about the steady erosion of the rights that African Americans had gained during Reconstruction. However, they disagreed on how African Americans should proceed to get their rights.
Booker T. Washington believed African Americans should work to get economic equality first. He believed African Americans should get vocational training, so they could get jobs. Once they got jobs and were more secure economically, they then would protest about the lack of political equality. This was known as the Atlanta Compromise.
W.E.B. Du Bois believed African Americans should get all of their rights immediately. He did not feel that African Americans should have to wait for one set of rights while the other set of rights was attained. He felt African Americans deserved all of their rights as soon as possible.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/debate-w-e-b-du-bois-and-booker-t-washington/

What is the back story as to why Steinbeck gave Of Mice and Men that title?

John Steinbeck's choice of a title is an allusion to a well-known poem by Robert Burns, the full title of which is "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough." The speaker in Robert Burns' touching poem expresses regret for inadvertently destroying a mouse's nest while plowing. In the next to-last stanza he says:

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,In proving foresight may be vain:The best-laid schemes o' Mice an' Men                       Gang aft agley,An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,                       For promis'd joy!

The title derived from Robert Burns' poem alludes to the dream of George and Lennie to own their own little farm and to be free of the backbreaking toil and wage-slavery in which they are presently trapped. This dream is the back story. It is repeated to Lennie by George in the first chapter. Lennie never gets tired of hearing it. Later in the story it seems that the dream may actually come true because Candy volunteers to contribute $300 to buying a farm George knows can be had for a total of only $600. Then everything goes wrong and Lennie has to flee and hide by the river where they camped in the first chapter. George is planning to shoot his friend to protect him from a worse fate at the hands of a lynch mob; but in the last chapter, at Lennie's request, he tells him part of the dream again.

"We'll have a cow," said George. "An' we'll have maybe a pig an' chickens . . . an' down the flat we'll have a . . . little piece alfalfa------"

But George can't continue with his dream-story. This is only another instance in which the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. The lynch mob is fast approaching. George must pull the trigger of the stolen Luger and kill the only friend he ever had.

In The Wednesday Wars by Gary Schmidt, why does Holling believe that Mrs. Baker is plotting against him?

At first, Mrs. Baker seems very annoyed that Holling Hoodhood is the only student who does not attend Hebrew school or catechism on Wednesday afternoons, so she has to stay with him in the classroom. He believes that she is plotting against him (though she turns out to be a very supportive teacher) because she is angry that he has nowhere else to be on Wednesday afternoons.
At the beginning of the year, Mrs. Baker is very hard on Holling. She gives him the most difficult sentences to diagram. Everyone else in the class gets fairly easy sentences, while she gives him very complicated sentences with a great number of clauses. In addition, she is at times curt with him, such as when she tells him to go to the office, where he receives the news that Mrs. Baker wants him to re-take sixth-grade math. She also makes him carry out tedious chores, such as washing chalkboards and pounding erasers, and then she decides to make Holling read Shakespeare--which he considers torture. In the end, however, Holling realizes that Mrs. Baker is really his friend and is trying to encourage him to learn. 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a market economy?

A true market economy exists when supply and demand control the amount of goods and services in the market. There is no government interference in a true market economy. This has never happened before, as governments have always at least used tariffs and internal taxes in order to regulate commerce; however, there have been times that government has been less active in managing the economy than it is today.
This economy has several advantages. People are free to produce and buy as many goods as their income will allow. A person is free to decide what to do with his/her money.
This economy also has many disadvantages. There are no protections for consumers. They are not protected against business fraud or faulty products. There are no protections for workers either, as they are only paid what the market dictates. While they are free to take other jobs, they may be limited in their options due to ability or location. The market can also produce periods of economic success followed by extreme market downturns.
The unregulated market has never existed in the United States, but it closely resembles the period of the Gilded Age in which a minority of Americans controlled most of the nation's wealth. While there were tariffs to control the prices of imports, businesses could pay workers anything, and businesses could also create products regardless of safety. It was a great time for large business but a horrible time to be in the working class or a consumer.

A market economy is one in which the prices of goods, investments, and services are unimpeded by government regulation of any sort with the market and laws of supply and demand setting prices.
The first thing to note is that a pure market economy has never existed. All governments engage in various practices such as taxation, infrastructure building, subsidies, and other activities which affect pricing. For example, if a government pays for roads via taxation but not for railroad tracks, the government is in effect creating an artificially low price for road vs. rail transport.
The good point of a market economy is that it should, in theory, assuming a perfectly competitive market, allow for prices to rise and fall with consumer demand. 
Unfortunately, the assumption of a perfect market ignores such issues as monopoly or collusion, i.e. businesses setting prices artificially low to drive competitors out of business and then forming monopolies or oligopolies which keep prices artificially high. Also, a free market does not account for ethics or human costs. In a perfectly free market, for example, businesses could pay children a few dollars a day to work 16 hour shifts in unsafe conditions.

Glencoe Algebra 2, Chapter 2, 2.4, Section 2.4, Problem 35

Given
the line is y = (2/3) x + 5
and the slope of the line is m_1 = 2/3
as we know that the slopes of two parallel lines are equal
let the slope of the required line is m_2
so ,
(m_1)=(m_2)= 2/3

and the required line passes through (4,6)

and slope m_2= 2/3
As,the slope-intercept form of a line is
y= mx+b
from the above we know m_2 = 2/3 , so the line equation is
y= ( 2/3)x+b --------------(1)
we need to find the value of b , as the line passes through the point
(x,y)= (4,6 ) , then on substituting we get
6 =(2/3)*(4)+b
=> b = 6-(8/3)= 10/3
so the equation of the line is
y= ( 2/3)x+(10/3)

What part does a prison play in the punishment of offenders? Consider the notion of proportionality in creating a "just punishment" in terms of both time in prison and living conditions in prison.

Prison plays a part in the punishment of offenders by restricting the offender’s liberty. Imprisoning an offender separates him or her from their family, it confines them to a limited area, it restricts their ability to travel, it limits their ability make their own choices, and it even mandates their diet. The notion of just punishment implies that a crime against society requires a punishment that is proportionate to the crime. The ideology of prison as punishment is to deter crime, protect society by removing the offender from the general public, and punish the offender by restricting their liberty.
The living conditions imposed in prison would likely shock the conscience of most people in free society. Prisoners are given little-to-no privacy and are subjected to clothed and unclothed body searches at the whim of correctional officers. Prisoners are told when, where, and how to do nearly every activity of daily life. Furthermore, the food served in the prison setting is of such low quality that most people in free society would refuse to eat if it were offered to them.
In addition to the lack of privacy and bad food, many prisoners live in constant fear of violence. Prisons are notorious for being rife with racial segregation and gang activity. Living with offenders who have history of violence and a demonstrated lack of impulse control in an environment with a starch lack of mental health services adds to the stress a prisoner faces each day. Not to mention the stress of knowing the strain their family may be suffering in their absence. These conditions contrasted with the daily life of an average American citizen make it difficult to imagine having to spend a single day in a prison environment, much less years, or even a life sentence.
When considering proportionality and just punishment, living conditions should be taken into consideration because one day inside the walls of a prison is not equal to one day in free society. The heinousness of a crime should certainly be considered in deciding how long a prison sentence should be, but living conditions should also be considered because basic human dignity should be afforded to all citizens, even those who have made mistakes and committed crimes against society.

Prison plays a part in the punishment of offenders by restricting the offender’s liberty. The notion of just punishment implies that prison is the appropriate punishment for crime. Living conditions should be taken into consideration because one day inside the walls of a prison is not equal to one day in free society. Prisoners are given very little privacy, they are served low quality food, and many live in constant fear of violence. The heinousness of a crime should be considered in determining the appropriate length of a prison sentence, but living conditions should be given consideration because basic human dignity should be afforded to all citizens, even those who have committed crimes against society, whatever the severity.

Imprisonment, especially of violent offenders, is more than simply the punishment of those offenders. It is also a means of protecting society from repeat offenses by those same individuals. Clearly, however, not all individuals sentenced to prison are violent or even necessarily guilty of transgressions against the greater good. In these cases, and they number in the thousands, prison is a punishment—and too often a counterproductive punishment at that. Prison is a deterrent to some, but the number of inmates incarcerated in the United States—estimated at over two million—strongly suggests that the value of deterrence is seriously ineffective. The subject, however, is punishment, not deterrence, and it is here where we must confront the baser instincts of humanity. Prisons, especially maximum and medium security prisons, are violent, frightening places where brutality and primitiveness are the rule rather than the exception. The rules that are supposed to govern society outside of prison walls—those that seek to protect the weak against the strong—are nonexistent inside prisons.
Prison is an appropriate form of punishment for many offenders, especially the violent criminals mentioned above. As a form of punishment for nonviolent offenders, however, it is often inappropriate. Many inmates, like those convicted for minor drug offenses or those convicted for white-collar crimes, are essentially subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, which is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. For the violent and for some nonviolent offenders, prison is an appropriate form of punishment, but recidivism rates suggest that the punishment does not help prevent future offenses by paroled prisoners and by those who successfully complete their sentences.
With respect to proportionality, the nature of life in most prisons leads one to conclude that the task of determining an appropriate sentence is inordinately difficult. Murderers are relatively easy. Life sentences (and, for those who support capital punishment, execution) imposed on those convicted of taking another life are usually appropriate. The further one goes down the list of heinous crimes, however, the more difficult the decision on the most appropriate sentence. Again, an argument can be made that the multitudes imprisoned for "victimless" crimes, such as drug abuse, are the victims of an absence of proportionality.
Prisons play a large role in the punishment of offenders. Most prisons, however, are so dysfunctional that the merits of sentencing many offenders to terms in prison is dubious at best and harmful at worst.
https://www.prisonerresource.com/prison-life/special-tactics/violence-sexual-assault/

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html