The Political Sins Of John Stewart By Robert Hariman

Ever since the start of commercial radio in the 20’s and the since the first silver screen entered the market, broadcasting messages by celebrities has been a tool employed to endorse products.”Just about every star was associated with one sponsor’s product he or she plugged.”(1). Over the years celebrity endorsement became an essential part of marketing (more than 25% of television ads feature celebrities)(5), for the endorser it became an easy way of generating an income while for the endorsing company it became a guaranteed way to reach a wide segment of potential clients.

James C. Scott has been sitting on these ideas of anarchism for over 20 years before putting out the book Two Cheers for Anarchism and the viewpoints are still relevant today. It has been my favorite book we have read and discussed this semester due to the fact that everyone at a point in their life has had certain ideas or has looked at the world in a way that wasn’t going to be universally liked. That’s what Scott has done and on the first page of the preface he writes, “Again and again over three decades, I found myself having said something in a seminar discussion or having written something and then catching myself thinking, Now that’s what an anarchist would argue” (ix).

In the first essay Fear, Ambition, and Politics by Robert Dallek, he talks about the way that the United States started to really conflict with Vietnam and how some of Lyndon Johnson’s issues led the U.S. into it. One thing was clear and it was that Lyndon Johnson did not want communism to spread. Johnson’s advisors would continuously report to him that things were starting to become more serious in Saigon. Johnson did not want to send troops though, saying the he would “not permit the independent nations of the East to be swallowed up by Communist conquest, and it would not mean sending American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing themselves.” Clearly his word did not last though. Dallek seems to have a rather negative view of Johnson because he wasn’t taking the precautionary steps to prevent certain events, and he could not keep his word. Johnson seemed to disagree with his own actions about what we should do in Vietnam because it was so unpredictable. He did not want American involvement, but the pressure ended up getting the best of him. He sent one of his advisors, McGeorge Bundy, to Vietnam to talk about what we should do to help alleviate South Vietnam. Bundy thought that U.S. action was a must or “defeat would be inevitable and there is still time to turn it around.” Johnson then decided to start bombing the North on February 8th, but he was not pleased with having to make this decision. This is known as the Rolling

James M. McPherson, author of For Cause and Comrades, uses more than 25,000 unaltered letters and closely 250 private journals from Civil War soldiers—both Union and Confederate—in his attempt to explain what possessed these men to endure the roaring, gruesome chaos of war. What better way to express the motivation behind fighting than words straight from the pens of the men who were physically there and experienced the Civil War to its fullest? I personally feel as though McPherson succeeded in his explanation of the different driving forces that kept each man going during these difficult years of battle. The Wall Street Journal describes McPherson’s work as “an extraordinary book, full of fascinating details and moving self-portraits.”

Few cases have generated as much public controversy. The role of the High Court in this drama was, however, a minor one. Controversy did not stem from the novelty and significance of the doctrinal issues raised by the case but from the ‘facts’: the question of what had

It may seem plausible, at the end of this trial, to think that perhaps this was a win for the modernists- after all, Bertram Cates got off easy with only a fine to pay and no real criminal status or visible retribution among his peers. Au contraire, this is not the case! Cates was found guilty under a court of law, therefore more strictly enforcing the blurred line between church and state in Tennessee, a concept which will last for years to come, enforced stronger than ever.

Throughout Kimsky’s argument, he provides an abundance of evidence to support his claim, a large one being examples and historical context. In the beginning of the essay I found that he brought up historical figures a lot, ‘Thomas Jefferson felt so strongly about the principle of free expression

For centuries the debate over how far our first amendment extends has reoccurred and been ever present in the court system. The Alien and Sedition acts was the first time it became noticeable that there were limits attached to our speech. They can be traced back as the beginning of this issue, since the dilemma of what exactly “freedom of speech” means began being argued. Multiple different scenarios were brought forth to the legal system in order to determine whether punishment was due or the act was excusable, simply because of the fact that our government was slacking in establishing a set-in stone meaning behind the first amendment.

American politics has always proved to be a difficult venue to measure success, there are limited amounts of numbers to quantify, and individual’s careers are often replaceable and short-lived in the face of controversy. In his book Outliers, Malcom Gladwell defines his version of success as his idea of an outlier: a man or women that does things out of the ordinary (Gladwell 17). Clinton, a political phoenix, is a woman who rises above the flames of politics and scandals. Hillary Clinton’s legacy exemplifies a successful outlier in American politics in multiple ways: by recreating a favorable public image after the infamous presidential affair, becoming electable and having a well-respected career in the Senate, humbly accepting the Secretary of State position from her former opponent soon after the devastating loss in the 2008 Democratic Primary, to persevering through the challenges of the State Department, and finally, to be considered the immediate 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee without formally announcing her decision.

This book battles that underneath the excited activism of the sixties and the appearing quiet of the seventies, a "noiseless upset" has been happening that is slowly however essentially changing political life all through the Western world. Ronald Inglehart concentrates on two parts of this upset: a move from a staggering accentuation on material qualities and physical security toward more noteworthy worry with the personal satisfaction; and an expansion in the political abilities of Western publics that empowers them to assume a more noteworthy part in settling on imperative political

“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” stated by Potter Stewart. Ethics in politics are a rare sight, “The Best Man” by Gore Vidal brings this issue up. Although the script was written in the 1960’s when the election was between Nixon and Kennedy it still relates to current elections between Trump and Clinton. Today’s politicians are no better than the ones from the past. However, Gore Vidal gives his character William Russell a set of morals. He also give other characters, no set of morals. The script relates to ample situations happening in the 2016 presidential election. Such as scheming against one another or personalities that are similar. The script also has some differences with today’s politics. Including, the role of females and William Russell’s kindness.

Main Idea: The poet, born in Jamaica and moved to America, has to go through the day to day struggles in order to tolerate the hate he receives only because of his race. The people do not see him for who he really is, however, he can see them for who they really are. Ultimately, he sees himself as better than his haters because he never gives into his rage like the people do.

Freedom of speech has been a controversy for decades. There is always an argument whether people should have the right to speak freely with out limitations on how they feel or express their ideas on something they believe is true even though it cannot be considered acceptable by views of many different people. In the article “Where Does Free Speech End?” the authors Ann Marie Radaskiewicz and Laraine Flemming discuss that how having no limitations on the freedom of speech had affected a history writer’s (David Irving) life in a very arguable way. They describe that the author’s denial of what was one of the most brutal mass killing of people in the world has resulted him in spending 3 years in prison. They explain that there were several arguments

Have you ever wondered what influences us to behave the way we do? Look a certain way? Or even looked for an explanation to what causes us to apply a certain perspective regarding personal and controversial issues? One of the answers to these questions may revolve around the influence we absorb from celebrities. A definitive term for celebrity is an iconic figure to a category or group who has achieved success in one or multiple aspects of their lives. As a result, these individuals have drawn in publicity and fame. Over the years with the advances in media and other forms of communication, celebrities have become topics of discussion worldwide, rather if it’s at school, with colleagues or at the dinner table, it is fair to say that

These promote not only the products, but also the moods, attitudes, and a sense of what is and is not important. Mass media makes a possible impression of celebrity. However without movies, magazines, and news media to reach across people all over the world people could not become famous. In fact, only political and business leaders, as well as the few notorious outlaws,