But lambasting campaign-finance rules while exploiting them is beginning to be a tradition in American politics. As candidates, McCain and Obama both railed against soft money and pledged to rely on public financing instead; then Obama reneged, which made the 2008 Presidential election the most expensive in history (until the 2012 election). Lawrence lessig recently ran for President as a one-issue candidate whose issue was getting money out of politics; yet his campaign raised millions of dollars, irony notwithstanding. On Wednesday, funny or die released a satire called Donald Trumps The Art of the deal: The movie; an anti-Trump Super. Pac could promulgate dozens more movies, as well as placards, video games, and Snapchats designed to appeal to every sub-demographic. . For people and/or corporations with a distaste for Trumps buffoonery, not to mention his policies, now might be an opportune time to exhibit some proactive hypocrisy. If money is speech, they can speak. Its their First Amendment right—that is, until Donald Trump appoints his own.
A, modest, proposal - wikipedia
And although its true that political spending has skyrocketed since citizens United, its impossible to draw a causal arrow between the two—or, if such expert an arrow could be drawn, to determine which way it should point. Still, citizens United did have some clear consequences, which brings us back to our thought experiment. It is now clearly legal to form an anti-Trump Super. Such a group can raise funds from both individuals and corporations, with few restrictions. It can pool an unprecedented amount of money in one place. It can collaborate with other nonprofits, probably including Super. Pac s supporting other candidates. It can broadcast almost any form of political speech through almost any technology at almost any time. And though Citizens United allowed for laws that would require more transparency in campaign donations, congress has not passed those laws, which makes it easier than ever for potential donors to keep their identities obscured. Some anti-Trump donors, especially the liberal ones, might find it strange to use such loopholes to their advantage.summary
John paul Stevens, then the longest-serving Justice, wrote an ardent ninety-page dissenting opinion; where such opinions often include the words I respectfully dissent, Stevens instead wrote i emphatically dissent. Progressive commentators hated the decision, to put it mildly (which few of them did). In fact, citizens United did not single-handedly obliterate the line between money and politics. Congress and the courts had redrawn that line for decades, always incompletely, never resolving the irresolvable tension between freedom of speech and freedom from corruption. Valeo, a complex 1976 decision, upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates political campaigns, and those limits are still in place today; it also struck down limits on how much money a candidate could spend on his or her own campaign, which is why, citizens. Some changes often associated with Citizens United were actually established in earlier Supreme court decisions, like. Federal Election Commission. Wisconsin Right to life, or in later circuit-court decisions, like.
It was not a campaign ad, exactly; it did not, for instance, include the words do not vote literature for Hillary Clinton. Judged the movie, and promotions for it, to be electioneering communications, shredder intended to sway voters behavior, whether or not they contained vote or ballot or other such magic words. (Magic words really is the phrase that Justices use in opinions about this stuff. Also: soft-money explosion, a line in the sand drawn on a windy day, and historical analysis. Smith goes to washington.) In 2003, the four liberals on the supreme court, with Sandra day oconnor as the swing vote, had upheld,. Restrictions on how and when electioneering communications could be aired in the weeks before an election. By 2010, samuel Alito had replaced oconnor, and the courts views on elections law grew more starkly conservative. As Jeffrey toobin has explained, citizens United was a surprisingly broad decision. Its reasoning seemed to augur a continued slide toward a jurisprudential bizarro world in which corporations are people, money is speech, and corruption is defined as outright bribery and little else.
It didnt really happen. But now, as a trump victory starts to seem conceivable, perhaps even inevitable, one can imagine an unprecedented coalition of strange bedfellows—evangelical and libertarian, populist and pro-business, koch and Soros—uniting against their common enemy. They might want to form one overarching Super. Pac —duck donald, maybe?—to pool money and staff, and to coördinate a national anti-Trump strategy. They might want to donate prolifically, from both personal and corporate accounts. They might want to commission propaganda films to be viewed on Oculus headsets, Trumps hair flapping grotesquely in virtual space. Much of this would have been subject to legal limitations if not for recent, controversial theories put forward by a conservative supreme court. In other words, the most effective barrier to a trump Presidency might be liberals least favorite supreme court opinion of the past decade: Citizens United. Shortly before the 2008 election, a conservative nonprofit group, citizens United, wanted to air an anti-Clinton film called Hillary: The movie.
Dmb financial, the leader in, debt Settlement debt Relief
But this is season 240 of the reality show known as American politics, and its no longer clear how much common sense matters. Trump is now winning, not only in the polls but in an actual primary. Its time for us to admit that we have a problem. Now, what can be done about it? Trump (or, at least, the self-titled character he plays on TV) is a bigot, a serial liar, a demagogue, and a wily attention hog. These are not observations about his political ideology, to the extent that he has one, but about his stubborn refusal to act like a decent human being. For these reasons and others, many duke people in the political mainstream are eager for him to go away.
This is even—perhaps especially—true of Republicans, some of whom worry that a trump candidacy could wreck the. O.P.s credibility for decades. Yet Trump seems to be a perfect storm: self-funded, unpredictable, unembarrassable, and, at least so far, nearly impervious to reasoned attack. For months, republicans have talked about a stop Trump campaign. The anti-Trump wave was foreseen by Trump himself, who tweeted, last September, many super Pacs, funded by groups that want total control over their candidate, are being formed to attack Trump. Remember when u see them.
This post first appeared on, the women's Media center. A modest Proposal and Other Satires study guide contains a biography of Jonathan Swift, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full. A modest Proposal Argumentative writing and Close reading Task. How does Swift use verbal irony in the title of the essay? Writing Mode, writing Prompt. A modest Proposal Prompt.
Swift's essay is perhaps the most famous and most skilled example of persuasive writing used for the purpose of satire. Jump to Writing tasks, a modest Proposal Writing Assignment. Writing Prompt: Analyze how Swift uses rhetoric (rhetorical devices, rhetorical triangle, methods of argument, syntax, feb 29, 2012, jump to Writing Format. Essays and criticism on Jonathan Swift's a modest Proposal - critical Essays. 5 items, aug 20, essays portable anthology 1st edition a good title for an essay about divorce 9 p bio essays a dissertation of the canon and feudal law a and e essay contest canada 2014-15 common application essay questions 2010 election results essay. Since last summer, common sense has suggested that Donald Trump could not possibly become the republican nominee for President. The prospect was too ridiculous.
Paragraph : Workspace for
These may not be as much fun to watch - you probably are aware that we aren't the winners here - but they allow you to enjoy mass mayhem in, say, south Asia or Africa or the middle east that justifies whatever this country might. All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women. These feature chainsaws and house parties for teenage guys, serial killers and sadistic rapists for ordinary male essays adults, plus cleverly plotted humiliations and deaths of powerful women for the well-educated misogynist. All the movies that insist female human beings are the only animals on earth that seek out and even enjoy their own pain. From glamorized versions of prostitution to such complex plots. Boxing Helena, a man's dream of amputating all a rebellious woman's limbs - and then she falls in love with him - these provide self-justification and how-to manuals for sadists. As you can see, one simple label could guide you through diversity, and help other viewers to practice avoidance. But if you really think about it, i'm hope-a-holic enough to think you might like to watch a chick flick after all.
For example, "prick lit" could characterize a lot of fiction, from Philip Roth to Bret Easton Ellis and beyond. "True prick" could guide readers to their preferred non-fiction, from the classics of Freud to the populist works of socio-biologists and even Rush Limbaugh. Most of all, the simple label "prick flick" could lead you easily and quickly through the thicket of televised, downloaded and theatrical releases to such attractions as: All the movies that glorify world War. From classics with John wayne and Ronald reagan, those master actors who conveyed heroism without ever leaving the back lot, to Spielberg's. Band of Brothers, in which the hero would rather die than be rescued, hollywood has probably spent more on making movies about the war than this country spent on fighting. After all, world War ii was the last war in which this country was clearly right. Without frequent exposure to it, how are we to believe we still are? All the movies that glorify vietnam, bloody regional wars, and the war on terrorism.
Suppose Shakespeare had really been The dark lady some people supposed. I bet most of her plays and all of her sonnets would have been dismissed as some Elizabethan general version of ye olde "chick lit only to be resurrected centuries later by stubborn feminist scholars. Indeed, as long men are taken seriously when they write about the female half of the world - and women aren't taken seriously when writing about themselves much less about men or male affairs - the list of Great Authors will be more about power. Still, i know this is not your problem. Instead, let me appeal to your self-interest as well as your sense of fairness: If the "chick flick" label helps you to avoid the movies you don't like, why is there no label to guide you to the ones you do like? Just as there are "novelists" and then "women novelists there are "movies" and then "chick flicks." Whoever is in power takes over the noun - and the norm - while the less powerful get an adjective. Thus, we read about "African American doctors" but not "European American doctors "Hispanic leaders" but not "Anglo leaders "gay soldiers" but not "heterosexual soldiers and. That's also why you're left with only half a guide.
Service From Vetted Writers, gradeMiners
This post first appeared on July, 11, 2007. To the young Man on the Plane from Los Angeles to seattle Who said of the movie that Most Passengers - male and Female - voted to watch, "I don't watch chick flicks!". So what exactly is a "chick flick?" I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they friend die. I'm not challenging your choice; I'm just questioning the term that encourages. After all, if you think back to your school days, much of what you were assigned as great literature could have been dismissed as "chick lit." Indeed, the books you read probably only survived because they were written by famous guys. Think about it: If, anna karenina had been written by leah Tolstoy,. The Scarlet Lette r by nancy hawthorne, or, madame bovary by Greta Flaubert, or, a doll's house by henrietta Ibsen,. The Glass Menagerie by (a female) Tennessee williams, would they have been hailed as universal?