Question:
Read the text and answer the questions.
(CNN) -- Last Saturday, Sarah Palin stood before the huge crowd at the 2014 National Rifle Association annual meeting and condemned liberals for coddling terrorists. She loaded her speech with religious metaphors, claiming that true leaders would put "the fear of God in our enemies." She said, "They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can't offend them, can't make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists."

Palin's invocation of forced baptism shocked both conservatives and liberals, inspiring few defenders. Christian commentators, in particular, focused on her link between torture and baptism.

On Wednesday, the National Religious Campaign against Torture released a powerful condemnation of the speech. To Palin, the organization's executive director wrote, "Your statements play into a false narrative conveying that somehow, the conflict between the United States and the terrorist cells is a conflict between Christianity and Islam, or Islam and 'the West.' "

The group's letter to the NRA, signed by 17 faith leaders from many different religions and denominations, reads, "For Christians, baptism is a profoundly holy act. It is in stark contrast to the abhorrent act of waterboarding. Equating baptism to an act of torture like waterboarding is sacrilegious -- and particularly surprising coming from a person who prides herself on her Christian faith."

But it's not actually all that surprising. Palin's public rhetoric relies on crafting existential binaries between "us" and "them," creating a kind of sacred empowered victimhood among her listeners. She draws from the language of militant Christianity to claim the status of both persecutor and persecuted. This is not an accident, and I do not believe she will repudiate her remarks.
1. What shocked both parties during her speech?
2. What event was she speaking at?
3. Which year?
4. Who was she speaking out against?
5. For what?
6. What was her speech filled with?
7. What point was she trying to make?
8. How does she say we would baptize terrorists?
9. What did the Christian commentators focus on in her speech?
10. Did someone release a statement about the speech?
11. Who?
12. When?
13. What did they say her statement was a conflict of?
14. What group was the letter sent to?
15. How many people signed it?
16. What kind of people were they?
17. What word did they use to describe her comparing baptism to torture?
18. Were people actually surprised about what she said?
19. What did they say she relies on?
20. What language does she draw from?

Numbered answers:
1. Her forced baptism of terrorists by waterboarding them
2. National Rifle Association meeting
3. 2014
4. Liberals
5. For coddling terrorists.
6. Religious metaphors
7. That true leaders would put fear of God in enemies.
8. By waterboarding
9. link between torture and baptism
10. Yes
11. National Religious Campaign against Torture
12. Wednesdayj
13. False narrative conveying the United States and terrorists is conflict between Christianity and Islam
14. NRA
15. 17
16. Faith leaders
17. Sacrilegious
18. No
19. Crafting existential binaries between "us" and "them,"
20. Militant Christianity

Question:
Read the text and answer the questions.
CHAPTER II.

When Brant returned to his hotel there was an augmented respect in the voice of the clerk as he handed him a note with the remark that it had been left by Senator Boompointer's coachman. He had no difficulty in recognizing Susy's peculiarly Brobdingnagian school-girl hand.

"Kla'uns, I call it real mean! I believe you just HOPED I wouldn't know you. If you're a bit like your old self you'll come right off here--this very night! I've got a big party on--but we can talk somewhere between the acts! Haven't I growed? Tell me! And my! what a gloomy swell the young brigadier is! The carriage will come for you--so you have no excuse."

The effect of this childish note upon Brant was strangely out of proportion to its triviality. But then it was Susy's very triviality--so expressive of her characteristic irresponsibility--which had always affected him at such moments. Again, as at Robles, he felt it react against his own ethics. Was she not right in her delightful materialism? Was she not happier than if she had been consistently true to Mrs. Peyton, to the convent, to the episode of her theatrical career, to Jim Hooker--even to himself? And did he conscientiously believe that Hooker or himself had suffered from her inconsistency? No! From all that he had heard, she was a suitable helpmate to the senator, in her social attractiveness, her charming ostentations, her engaging vanity that disarmed suspicion, and her lack of responsibility even in her partisanship. Nobody ever dared to hold the senator responsible for her promises, even while enjoying the fellowship of both, and it is said that the worthy man singularly profited by it. Looking upon the invitation as a possible distraction to his gloomy thoughts, Brant resolved to go.
1. Who handed Brant the message?
2. Who gave it to him?
3. Who wrote it?
4. What was different about the clerk when he gave it to him?
5. How did he know it was Susy that sent it?
6. How did did it embody her?
7. What did she want from him?
8. Where would they meet?
9. How would he get there?
10. Did he plan to go?
11. What was her occupation?
12. Whom did she assist?
13. What aspect of her personality deflected criticism?
14. Was she effective?
Numbered answers:
1. hotel clerk
2. Senator Boompointer's coachman
3. Susy
4. he had more respect
5. recognized her handwriting
6. childish and trivial
7. to go and see her
8. unknown
9. Shell sent a carriage
10. Yes
11. a theatrical career,
12. the senator
13. vanity
14. yes