Metaphors Throughout The Scarlet Letter :: essays research papers

Hawthorne manages to create many metaphors within his novel The Scarlet Letter. The rose bush outside the prison door, the black man, and the scaffold are three metaphors. Perhaps the most important metaphor would be the scaffold, which plays a great role throughout the entire story. The three scaffold scenes which Hawthorne incorporated into The Scarlet Letter contain a great deal of significance and importance the plot. Each scene brings a different aspect of the main characters, the crowd or more minor characters, and what truth or punishment is being brought forth. The first scaffold scene takes place at the very beginning of the story. In this particular scene, Hester has moments before walked from the prison door carrying her baby and donning the scarlet letter, which stands for adultery. She must make this procession in front of the entire town. After the march, Hester is forced to stand alone on the scaffold until an hour past noon. It seems as if Hawthorne wrote this scene for the purposes of exhibiting the harshness of Puritan society, and to allow the reader some insight into Hester's thoughts. Hawthorne places the focus onto Hester at this moment. The reader observes her before the full effect of the scarlet letter has had a chance to take hold of her. The reader is also able to see the cruel and judgmental behavior of the crowd through their language, such as when they call her a hussy. "This women has brought shame upon us all, and ought to die. Is there not law for it?" In this scene, the reader is able to see inside Hester's head. One is able to observe the utter contempt she holds for the Puritan ways. She exhibits he love and respect for the father of her child, when she refuses to relinquish his name to the committee. The reader can see her defiant spirit due to these actions. The second scaffold scene is momentous, but seemingly less important in comparison with the other two. This scene, in general, is quite different from the other two scaffold scenes. The first and third take place during the day, in front of large crowds. However, the second scene takes place at night, in which only five citizens pass before the scaffold, or glance out their windows at it. At the beginning of this scene, the reader finds Dimmesdale by himself on the scaffold.

Argument Paper Fast Food Essay

Zinczenko is saying that common sense would say it is personal responsibility to be an active eater and know what you are putting in your mouth. In discussions of fast-food obesity, one controversial issue has been the lack of the nutritional facts. On the one hand people should do research before they eat instead of blaming fast-food places. On the other hand the nutritional facts should be placed on the food itself. In my opinion, personal responsibility should be taken for what you eat because fast-food places are not forcing you to eat their food. For instance common sense says something that is dunked in grease and cooked in five minutes cannot be good for you. Becoming obese from fast-food is the result of no self-control. Grease in itself contains many calories and causes many problems with blood pressure, cholesterol and type two diabetes. Zinczenko states, â€Å"Today According to the National Institutes of Health, type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes on this country† (Zinczenko 154). Type 2 diabetes is obesity related and a serious disease. Poulin 2 Common sense tells you eating two meals a day, in a fast-food restaurant, will cause you to gain weight. This unhealthy weight gain tells people that there is a problem to the way they are eating and it is not the washer shrinking their jeans. Instead of walking into McDonalds kids can walk into Subway and try a sandwich that is healthier and cost about the same as the huge meals they can get at McDonalds. There are healthier alternatives that re just as fast and taste as good as burger joints. Although I grant that many people might say there is no way of knowing how many calories are in fast-food meal has because of the lack of nutritional labels, labels are readily available on fast-food websites. The labels would not change the fact that it is personal responsibility to know that something that has been smothered in grease has no nutritional value. On the one hand, I agree with people that labels should be put on fast-food explaining what is in the food. But on the other hand, I still insist that people should do the research if labels are the main concern of nutritional values. Just because people have labels explaining the fat content does not mean they will stop eating the food. This is where personal responsibility needs to come into play. When people find out what really is in the food and the content of fat people need to be active and make the right decision to not add fast-food into their daily diets. Self-control is a huge factor here and people need to take charge, putting themselves in charge of a healthy lifestyle. In the end it is only the consumer who can control what they consume not the companies and blame cannot be put on that one party. Proponents of fast-food restaurants causing obesity are right to argue that the food causes you to gain weight when you eat it regularly, it is cheap, it is easily accessible, and it is catered to children. But they exaggerate when they claim that fast-food is the number one reason for child obesity in the United States. Poulin 3 You can argue that children who sit in front of video games and computers all day long are a huge contributing factor to the obesity rate. Their lack of activity can cause pounds to pile on and that has nothing to do with McDonalds Fast-food. For instance fast-food has always made me feel sick to my stomach. My common sense would tell me that as good as it does taste my body does not like fast-food. When I was younger I gained a lot of weight because I would eat at McDonalds every chance I got. I was unaware that I could be making better choices and choose not to eat it. Kids today are uneducated on how to make healthier choices and live healthier lives with the influences of fast-food. Zinczenko states, â€Å"But most of the teenagers who live, as I once did, on a fast-food diet won’t turn their lives around: They’ve crossed under the golden arches to a likely fate of lifetime obesity† (Zinczenko 154). If the country believes that fast-food is the cause of childhood obesity then why do we still continue to eat it? People need to realize labels are not put on the food because if people really knew what was in the food they would not continue to eat it. Again that is where common sense should tell you that you should not eat fast-food. Although at a first glance People, including young and old, might say that fast-food is the cause of being obese. But on a closer inspection it is really the individuals fault. For example people are so quick to blame fast-food restaurants for making them obese that they jump right to suing the corporation, but are they actually doing something about the obesity. Zinczenko mentions in his article how one meal can contain â€Å"up around 1,040 calories which is half of the government’s recommended daily calorie intake. And that doesn’t take into account the 450-calorie super-size Coke† (Zinczenko 155). The calorie intake should tell anyone that eating this way and especially eating this way twice a day is extremely unhealthy and fattening. People need Poulin 4 to speak up and demand labels. Zinczenko says, â€Å"They would do well to protect themselves, and their customers, by providing the nutrition information people need to make informed choices about their products. Without such warnings, we’ll see more sick, obese children and angrier, litigious parents† (Zinczenko 155). Parents need to be more active in their children’s lives and teach them about healthy life styles that way in the future generations can be much healthier. In conclusion people need to take personal responsibility for their own weight and stop forcing the blame on fast-food corporations. Common sense should tell you that greasy food is not good for you and that it has no nutritional value. Many people can say that labels are the cause of obesity because they are uniformed about what they are eating. Labels are readily available at any fast-food chain and on their websites. People need to speak up and come up with a solution to this issue rather than be part of the problem. Common sense also says that if it is cooked in grease it is a good chance it is covered in fat. People are responsible for their own lives and they need to stop blaming others for their short comings. Ultimately what is at stake here is a healthier generation.

Gay Marriage argument Essay

The issue of legalizing gay marriage has always been a matter of great controversy in the United States. Many people believe that legalizing gay marriage is immoral and unconstitutional. â€Å"Untraditional,† â€Å"unlawful,† and â€Å"unethical† are some of the many terms used to describe gay marriage. Not all individuals feel this way. The issue has created widespread division both politically and socially. Advocates strongly believe that gay marriage is a constitutional right, while the opposition claims it has too many social disadvantages. In present day society the number of peoples in support of gay marriage is higher than ever. One of the many advocates for pro gay marriage is Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry. Wolfson presents numerous arguments for the legalization of gay marriage in his article â€Å"Without Nationwide Gay Marriage, U.S. Government Discriminates.† Using emotional, logical, and legal appeal, Wolfson presents his argument. Same-sex couples should be able to celebrate their relationships through the bondage of marriage just like heterosexual couples. Many same-sex couples want to marry and they should be able to since it is there human right. Evan Wolfson explains it flawlessly when he proclaimed â€Å"Marriage is an important moment in life when we make a public promise of love and dedication to the person we are building a life with, and ask our friends and family to support us and hold us accountable. Couples who have made that commitment in life should have the same commitment under the law; called marriage.† It is unjust to rid taxpayer citizens of this right. It is societies norm that marriage should be between a man and woman, but it is not written anywhere within the constitution. It is a saddening injustice to discriminate citizens due to their sexual orientation. This is appropriately presented when Wolfson writes â€Å"Under the law, marriage touches every aspect of life, from birth to death, with taxes in between. Denial of the freedom to marry is one of the harshest inequalities inflicted on lesbian and gay families—discrimination by their own government†¦particularly in these tough economic times.† The benefits of marriage should be extended to all individual during the present economic situation. According to Wolfson, Withholding from these benefits by preventing same sex marriage is a prime example of discrimination. There is no logical to reason to prevent gay marriage since it has been proven successful. â€Å"Gay couples share in the freedom to marry in six states and the District of Columbia; the sky hasn’t fallen.† Gay marriage has been proven successful in other parts of the world along with some of the United States. Same sex marriage is gaining more and more acceptance, yet it is discriminated against state and federal governments. The Federal government targets homosexual couples through the enactment of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Wolfstan claims â€Å"DOMA harms married same-sex couples by withholding the more than one thousand federal responsibilities and protections accorded all other married couples.† Benefits such as social security survivor and health coverage are withheld from â€Å"married† couples. The constitution commands â€Å"equal justice for all† and Wolfson believes its time to abide by our nation’s written law. Although Evan Wolfson presents valid points, there are many holes in his argument. The author disregards many aspects while portraying his own ideas. To begin with, why is it necessary to define a relationship with the title of â€Å"Marriage?† If two people of the same sex want to be in a relationship, why not just be together? The author claims that â€Å"Gay couples share in the freedom to marry in six states and the District of Columbia; the sky hasn’t fallen.† In the literal sense this statement is true, but what about the rise in divorce rates in the six states and District of Columbia? The sky hasn’t fallen, but there may be negative consequences to the legalization of gay marriage. Wolfston also charges the state and federal governments with discrimination against gays. It is the government’s job to please the majority, and if anti-gay legislation will do that, so be it. If same sex couples are offended with state policies, why can’t they move to a different state or country? Wolfson mentions many appropriate points, but why doesn’t he mention any outside sources? Providing no information from experts in the fields or resources challenges the credibility of his argument. Marriage is traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman, or man and a man. The legalization of gay marriage would cause social and economic perils that can’t be overlooked. In his article †Opinion: Gay marriage should not be made legal,† Ryan Normandin presents numerous legitimate reasons as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized. Many gay rights advocates believe that they have the right to marry whomever they want under the equal rights protection clause, but that is certainly not the case. As Normandin explains in his article, â€Å"They claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to marry whomever they desire, including members of the same sex. To forbid this would, in their minds, be discrimination. But do all people have the right to marry whomever they want already, with the exception of same-sex couples? No; states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.† The legalization of gay marriage would open legal doors to other forms of relationships such as polygamous, incestuous, and other nontraditional relationships. By the logic of gay marriage, everyone has an equal right to marry whomever or whatever he or she pleases. It is only fitting that state and federal governments regulate marriage, he claims. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the American government, which makes it appropriate for couples to receive tax breaks and numerous benefits. Ryan Normnadin explains it best when he literates â€Å"The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of American society. It is certainly to America’s advantage to have citizens, so there exists a compelling state interest justifying government subsidization of heterosexual marriage.† Since traditional marriage is helping the United States procreate, it is in the government’s best interest to subsidize marriage that is increasing its number of citizens. Many individuals in favor of gay rights believe that happiness of same-sex couples is enough a reason for its legalization. Unfortunately, that is not the case since â€Å"happiness† is not a compelling enough argument when weighed against the drawbacks of gay marriage. One of the major drawbacks is that same sex couple can not nurture a child properly. The well being of a child cannot be jeopardized for â€Å"happiness.† Although gay couples can’t reproduce, artificial insemination and adoption are some options. Although, these arguments do not prove a viable option because complications can arise. Normandin refers to University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis to prove this point. Professor Ellis’s research claims â€Å"greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy.† These are risks that can’t be taken lightly just to make lesbian couples â€Å"happy.† There are also risks involved in parenting in regards male couples. The author also refers to Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby who points out that â€Å"mothers, on average, may have somewhat stronger parental ‘instincts’ when it comes to responding to young infants.† It is of utter importance for a child to grow up with both a mother and father. According to Normandin’s beliefs, â€Å"Happiness† is not enough reason to harm the future of countless children. Ryan Normandin presents a compelling argument, but there are flaws in many of his ideas. For example, the author compares gay marriage to incest and bestiality. Is it really fair to compare gay marriage to such formidable acts against nature? Bestiality and incest have far more negative effects then gay marriage, so it is not fair to compare them. They inability of gay couples to reproduce is another point Normandin brings about. Although this statement is valid, isn’t artificial insemination a tool that can help lesbian couples procreate? What about the thousands of neglected children male couples can save? Lastly, the author quotes various professionals to point out that children of same sex couples will have complications due to an absent father or mother. Studies show that this maybe true, but what about family members that can fill that absent role present in same-sex couples? Can’t the grandmother or aunt provide maternal care to a child of a male couple? Why can’t a grandfather or uncle act as a fatherly figure for a lesbian couple’s child? Normandin provided a very compelling argument, but there are minor doubts to his ideas. After analyzing both sides of the issue along with my prior experiences and knowledge, gay marriage should not be legalized. Both articles made valid points, but Ryan Normandin’s opinionative piece â€Å"Opinion: Gay marriage should not be made legal† changed my perception on this issue entirely. Viewing marriage as a governmental issue, not a personal one, made me realize that marriage isn’t only about happiness. Marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to the government, therefore it is allowed. Since same-sex marriage doesn’t pose benefits, such as procreation, to the United Sates or its citizens, it is either prohibited or highly restricted. Reproduction is required for the survival of any society and legalizing gay marriage would deem procreating unimportant. Gay marriage also causes dire consequences for the couple’s kids. I have witnessed my co-worker’s only kid, Marshall, with an absentee father figure. Due to a missing father, Marshall took part with the wrong crowd and disregarded all authority. I have also witnessed the psychological problems with kids who are missing a mother. My cousin, who has two mothers, is socially awkward and lacks basic conversation skills. To ensure the full health of a child, they need both a mother and a father figure to provide motherly and fatherly instincts. Same sex households are not ideal environments for children. Another good point that Normandin posed was that the legalization of gay marriage would open doors to other kind of relationships such as polygamy. This would undoubtedly lead to further deconstruction of marriage and family. I also believe same sex marriage to have detrimental effects on society. A news report I read claimed that legalizing gay marriage in Scandinavia is linked to the cause of population decline and higher divorce rates. Numerous researches state that homosexual relationships don’t last long term. The fact that Wolfson did not provide any outside sources was another factor that shaped my opinion. I believe that outside sources make an argument much more credible. Challenging cultural, moral, social values, the disadvantages of gay marriage greatly outweigh the advantages. Works Cited Normandin, Ryan. â€Å"Gay Marriage Should Not Be Made Legal – The Tech.† Gay Marriage Should Not Be Made Legal – The Tech. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 06 July 2011. Web. 08 Sept. 2013. . Wolfson, Evan. â€Å"Without Nationwide Gay Marriage, U.S. Government Discriminates.† US News. U.S.News & World Report, 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 08 Sept. 2013. .

A clockwork orange comparison of book and film Essay Example

A clockwork orange comparison of book and film Essay Example A clockwork orange comparison of book and film Essay A clockwork orange comparison of book and film Essay A Clockwork Orange is a dyspepsia nightmarish fantasy of a near-future England, where teenage hooligans neglect the somewhat standing laws of society, and take control of the streets after dark. The novels main character, fifteen year old Alex, and his three drools, take place in all-night acts of random violence and total destruction. This dark image Burgess has presented to the reader portrays his view of what he believed would be a potentially realization of what could happen in a situation where children become ravenous, independent savages whom believe fun s causing chaos and madness and inflicting brutal damage to others without thought. One of the important similarities between Anthony Burgesss contemporary novel and Stanley Kickbacks movie of A Clockwork Orange is the interpretation of what the true meaning of a clockwork orange is, which is important because it is the basis for the entire story. In A Clockwork Orange, Alex is only a clockwork orange, something mechanical that appears organic. By this I mean that although Alex is human, and capable to say and think whatever he chooses, he cannot, for in fact he is eyeing used like a machine by the government, doing whatever they desire with him. From the similarity between the interpretation of what the true meaning of a clockwork orange in both Anthony Burgesss contemporary novel and Stanley Kickbacks movie of A Clockwork Orange comes the difference in how the government proves Alex to be like a clockwork orange, after having already completed the Ludicrous Technique. In Anthony Burgesss novel, they prove Alex to be like a clockwork orange by showing him certain grotesque pictures and asking him what he felt. In Stanley Kickbacks outstanding movie, they proved Alex to be like a clockwork orange by placing him on a stage with actors and presenting it in front of the important members of the government. Please, I must do somet hing. Shall I clean your boots Look, Ill get down and lick them. (The film) This following passage is what Alex said in Stanley Kickbacks movie after having been kicked on the Guiltier by the actors boot, which demonstrates Ales mechanical change into a clockwork orange. Unlike the novel, the movie was completely different in the second encounter with the man whose wife had been raped and killed by Alex and his rinds. The man, having been beaten so badly in the first encounter, was now in a wheelchair, and accompanied by a huge, strong man whom helped F. Alexander do the things that he could not do in a wheelchair. Also, while Alex is offered a hot bath, he sang the song Singing in the Rain, which he had sung during the first encounter with F. Alexander. Having sung this song, the man at once recognized and realized that Alex had been one of the hoodlums that were there on the night he had been beaten, and his wife raped. Also, having realized after the bath that Alex was expansible for his wifes death, he drugged Ales drink rendering him unable to responsible for having tried to kill Alex by driving him to madness to Jump out of the window. Another similarity in both Anthony Burgesss novel and the movie of A Clockwork Orange is the use of the naiads language. The naiads language, which is vocabulary of the teenagers in the future, (this is essentially the equivalent of slang today), is important to be in both the book and movie because the language shows the difference between the violent teenagers and the intellectual aristocracy of this astigmatism future. Anthony Burgesss contemporary novel, A Clockwork Orange, and Stanley Kickbacks outstanding movie, A Clockwork Orange, have many important similarities and differences. These similarities and differences, however, help to mold and adapt the movie in a way which shows a different view of the dyspepsia future. The book and the film both create and project the same message into the reader or audiences head, which is what will the world be like in the future and in any possibility will it ultimately end up like Anthony Burgess portrayed.

Learning German Verb Conjugations

Learning German Verb Conjugations One useful verb for any wanderer to learn is to travel. In German, the word fahren  means to travel or to go. Learning to properly conjugate this word will help you tell your new friends all about your journey. If youre lost and looking for directions, youll be thankful you know how to say were traveling  to   Berlin when asking for help. In some cases fahren is also used to mean drive or have driven, this will usually be apparent from the context of the sentence. Stem-Changing Verbs German, like many other languages, has what is known as stem-changing verbs. This means that the stem or ending of the word is what changes based on who the action is referring to. These endings will remain consistent throughout the language for regular stem-changing verbs. Unlike in English, where I take and we take uses the same form of the verb in German the stems of the verb would change. This can make learning the language easier because you only need to remember the roots of most verbs. Unfortunately, nehmen is also an irregular  verb. This means there are times when it does not follow the normal rules of stem-changing verbs. Learn How Fahren is Conjugated in All Tenses The following charts will show you how the  German verb  fahrenis conjugated in all its tenses and moods. Fahren Present Tense -  Prsens Singular Deutsch English ich fahre I travel/am traveling du fhrst you travel/are traveling er sie fhrt es he she travelsit Plural wir fahren we travel/are traveling ihr fahrt you (guys) travel/are traveling sie fahren they travel/are traveling Sie fahren you travel/are traveling Examples: Fahren Sie heute nach Hamburg?Are you going/traveling to Hamburg today?Er fhrt mit dem Zug.Hes taking the train. Possible meanings of  fahren:  to travel, go, drive, ride, sail, take, move, transport Fahren Simple Past Tense -Imperfekt Singular Deutsch English ich fuhr I traveled du fuhrst you (fam.) traveled er fuhrsie fuhres fuhr he traveledshe traveledit traveled Plural wir fuhren we traveled ihr fuhrt you (guys) traveled sie fuhren they traveled Sie fuhren you traveled Fahren Compound Past Tense (Pres. Perfect)  Perfekt Deutsch English Singular ich bin gefahren I traveled/have traveled du bist gefahren you (fam.) traveledhave traveled er ist gefahrensie ist gefahrenes ist gefahren he traveled/has traveledshe traveled/has traveledit traveled/has traveled Plural wir sind gefahren we traveled/have traveled ihr seid gefahren you (guys) traveledhave traveled sie sind gefahren they traveled/have traveled Sie sind gefahren you traveled/have traveled See more verbs in our  20 Most-Used German Verbs. Fahren  Past Perfect Tense  Plusquamperfekt Deutsch English Singular ich war gefahren I had traveled du warst gefahren you (fam.) had traveled er war gefahrensie war gefahrenes war gefahren he had traveledshe had traveledit had traveled Plural wir waren gefahren we had traveled ihr wart gefahren you (guys) had traveled sie waren gefahren they had traveled Sie waren gefahren you had traveled See more verbs in our  20 Most-Used German Verbs.

Movie review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 3

Movie review - Essay Example The archival footage and McNamara’s interview highlight the lessons learnt from the wars and provide insights into the international relations and security issues of America. When we saw the movie, we draw some very sound conclusions regarding McNamara’s body language. We see a man admitting his sheer blunders regarding the important political decisions whose repercussions ranged from Vietnam to Japan, causing thousands of deaths and saved the world from annihilation of nuclear war by sheer luck not because of intelligence information. The people would definitely agree that the crimes he committed are completely unforgiving and unforgettable. His decisions regarding life and death are themselves a depiction of painful humility for him as depicted in the documentary. Although McNamara admits that he has been terribly wrong with reference to Vietnam War and could have done more to redirect the decision of president’s office, but he does not say sorry although Morris tried to prompt him. This shows his stubborn and pride in himself. On one side, he seems to be regretful but on the other side; he is justifying the decisions which caused mammoth human loss. The movie comes up with eleven lessons learnt from the life of McNamara. But the one lesson seems to be very inappropriate i.e. in order to do something good, you may have to engage in evil. This statement comes up as the justification from McNamara for his horrendous decisions in the cruise missile conflict, Vietnam and Japan wars but history vehemently reveals that nothing good came out after engaging in the evil in case of McNamara. In the movie, many times it appears that Morris as director is trying to symbolize one life of McNamara to illustrate the other as an active and passive actor of the history where he has participated in the war as a witness and an actor too. Morris has tried to illustrate the

Popular Culture As A Functional Industry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Popular Culture As A Functional Industry - Essay Example An evolution in pop culture facilitates many innovations in the contemporary world. For instance, people adopt new approaches of doing things through such phenomena as tourism, social systems, and technology (Miller, 2011). It is apparent that individuals adopt modes of dressing from day-trippers who visit their homelands. In addition, FaceBook, (most trendy social network) enables people to learn such things as new phrases, considered current at that time. Individuals from athwart the globe engage in forums created to address their interests through FaceBook (Miller, 2011). People constantly ape what celebrities upload on their twitter handles in order to appear civilized. In addition, there are diverse creations of deep friendships through the popular networks. These friendships facilitate sharing of knowledge, which further influences how these associates behave in society. Variably, popular culture further affects the manner in which individuals choose their daily diets. Evidentl y, there is dishonesty in such networks because of the diverse needs people have. In particular, these people sensor their accounts in order for them to depict a certain image to their associates. According to Miller (2011), these illusion makes recruiting agencies to hire wrong people who present wrong identification. According to Bainer (2001), popular culture facilitates the promotion of nationalism particularly when there is a goal to reach certain national expectations.  ... Popular culture activities for example sports additionally facilitate unity in various nations. Moreover, the sport of hockey is associated with Canada because of the number of times Canada excels in the sport and many Canadian nationals who excel in the sport. There is identification of nations through famous popular civilization activities for example tourism, television productions and food. According to Boellstorff (2008), the contemporary globe is virtual and experiences a diffusion of sorts in which there is a merge between culture and politics. For instance, congressional representatives have moved from the conviction that their jobs are serious and cannot mix with other social issues. This merge is evident in the willingness, which these representatives display in embracing recent innovations. In the past, there was no utilization of advanced popular culture in political endeavors. Currently, there is the inclusion of famous politicians on most entertainment programs on natio nal TV. It is normal for these politicians to be guests on the entertainment sports and socialize while seeking for votes. It is evident that the entertainment media amalgamates political concepts so that people who are least interested in politics understand it. There is a presentation of these political concepts in manners, which plead to divergent voters but most importantly young voters. Moreover, this young electorate has special interests in entertainment more than they value constitutional affairs because they are hardly seen participating in such issues. When there is a fusion of entertainment and politics, thus they experience many