President Bill Clinton :: William Jefferson Clinton Essays

As Americans we feel we have the right to know everything about everyone. Yet, when it comes to our own personal lives, we don’t want people sticking their noses in our business. All over the United States of America you can turn on the television and see some talk show about â€Å"Who’s the babies Daddy,† or something that has to do with some obscene incident that no one would ever want to admit to have happening. As people we thrive off of other people’s bliss and misery. It is a trait that every person possesses; we all want to hear about other lives. Sometimes this trait can cause problems, for example, when former president Bill Clinton was questioned on incidents involving Monica Lewinsky. Why do we allow our country to make other people’s issues our own? Clinton was a victim to our countries belief of thinking that it is there â€Å"RIGHT† to know about the president’s personal life. Although Clinton originally lied to our country about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, the manner that he was questioned in was wrong. The press and media put him in an uncomfortable situation. Clinton knowing that what he had been doing was wrong, he hadn’t told his wife or family, and wasn’t ready to admit to cheating on his wife in front of the nation. Being as the embarrassment was too much to handle. Clinton went many months telling lies on the happening with Lewinsky. Finally on August 7, 1998 Clinton came out before the Office of Independent Counsel and a grand jury and gave his presidential address from the Map Room of the White House. Clinton stated that he had misled people into believing he did not have sexual relations. He came out and told the world that he did in fact have these relations with Lewinsky. The questions were not all answered and there was still more that the American public wanted to know. Although Clinton told the truth about Lewinsky, there were many whispers going around about drug usage in the Oval Office. Jack Christy of the USA Radio Network had an exclusive interview with Clinton and there were many questions asked that were not answered and for good reason. When Clinton was asked about the drug issue he was â€Å"surprised and hostile† when asked about â€Å"a matter that was not public.† Bill Clinton. There were many questions involving Lewinsky bringing drugs into the Oval Office.

The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram

In â€Å"The Perils of Obedience† by Stanley Milgram, Milgram explains that obedience is a natural occurring behavior, which acts on instinct ignoring a persons ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct (Milgram 343). In this experiment two people come into the laboratory where they are told they will be taking part in a study of memory and learning. One subject is the â€Å"teacher† and the other is the â€Å"learner†. The teacher is ask to read a list of simple word pairs. If the learner does not remember the word pair the teacher was instructed to send out electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment to the learner. Whereas, â€Å"The Stanford Prison Experiment† by Philip Zimbardo is an essay which explains why society has a need to â€Å"learn† to become compliant and authoritarian (Zimbardo 363). Zimbardo created a mock prison setting consisting of ten prisoners and eleven guards. They were instructed to take over the role of guards and prisoners. Zimbardo wanted to test the effect that prison has on guards and prisoners. Milgram and Zimbardo were both interested in how people obey under authoritative circumstances, using â€Å"fake† settings to test obedience; however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality. Under any given circumstance people tend to obey authority differently. Milgram tested this theory out by putting his volunteers into a laboratory setting and having them pressing a button shocking the other person for a wrong answer. The majority of Milgram’s volunteers went through the experiment, not wanting to disobey the authority figure. Milgram stated, † The essence of obedience is that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions (Milgram 354). † With Zimbardo’s volunteers they sought out to dispense order and receive orders. Since Zimbardo’s volunteers knew that they would be able to leave the prison and that it was not real, the experiment had no true effect. Real prisoners know that they are in for a long time and not just 14 days. However, in just six days and six nights their experiment was ended. The experiment got away from dealing with the intellectual exercise and started dealing with the psychological mishaps. â€Å"If normal, young, healthy, educated men could so radically transformed under†¦ a â€Å"prison environment†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ in so short of a time,†¦ then one can shudder to imagine what society is doing both to the actual guards and prisoners†¦ (Zimbardo 374). † Milgram’s experiment was in a fake setting because the subjects were not likely to act in that behavior since the setting was not a reality situation. Being in a laboratory trying to test out obedience is not normal. Humans tend to act differently out in the real world. â€Å"The studies of obedience cannot meaningfully be carried out in a laboratory setting, since obedience occurred in a context where it is appropriate. (Milgram 362) Take for instance the Adolf Hitler era. Testing done other than by natural observation is merely a reflection of what is expected to happen. Zimbardo’s prison setting was not ideal to a real prison nor real criminals. â€Å"†¦ t is impossible to separate what each individual brings into the prison from what the prison brings out in each person. Zimbardo 365) Volunteers knew that would be set free after a given date. The volunteers in Milgram’s experiment were fighting their subconscious minds. The person had complete power over the other individual, whom he could punish whenever he saw fit. The subject had to decide if what they where doing was right (causing pain to another). They were not fighting for their own individuality because they still had that. Zimbardo’s prisoners were fighting for their individuality. Subjects were taken from the streets and thrown into a prison where all their fights as citizens were taken away.

Is Shakespeares Much Ado Too Misogynistic to Be a...

Eman Quisay Is Shakespeare’s ‘’Much Ado about Nothing’’ too misogynistic to be a modern day rom-com? Much Ado is a play about love and comedy in a semi courtly setting in the small town of Messina, Italy. In comes the soldiers and everyone rejoices the women dress in their fine clothes in hopes of looking presentable. After all the excitement calmed a little and the women are dressed, they go and meet the soldiers as a household. Leonato whom is the father of Hero and uncle of Beatrice goes and welcomes Don Pedro, the prince, and his companions: Claudio, Benedick and Don John among others. Across the courtyard there is a young love blooming as Claudio gazes at fair Hero and falls in love with her. Simultaneously Beatrice and†¦show more content†¦The very next day comes along and Claudio weds the ‘other Hero’ and they live happily ever after with Hero only saying a handful of lines till the end. Synchronously the story of Beatrice and Benedick unravels. Stuck in a merry war with each other, Beatrice and Benedick seem like an implausible couple. They insu lt each other at every turn. The focus of the play is on the young love, which might have been what the Elizabethan audience was fixated on, but now in the 21st century with our modified views on women, the romance of the play is in the love shared between Beatrice and Benedick. Beatrice is the independent, strong and opinionated woman traits that we, nowadays, think are important in a woman. She isn’t afraid to voice her opinions, insult Benedick or be bawdy in her humor. She relishes defying the status quo and surprising the men with her antagonistic attitude. The love story is quite obvious to our eyes where she starts insulting Signor Benedick, even when he wasn’t speaking to her, ‘’I wonder that you will be talking, Signor Benedick, nobody marks you.’’ She is trying to pick a fight just to get a ruse out of him. She is directly insulting him in a manner ‘unsuitable’ of a lady in Elizabethan times, ‘’scratching c ould not make it worse an ‘twere such a face as yours were.’’ Everyone in Shakespeare’s audience would have