"Ann Coulter Misinterprets Show About Meth"

In my colleague’s blog, “Ann Coulter Misinterprets Show about Meth,” he points out how conservative blogger/author/pest-of-life Ann Coulter points out that the popular AMC television show “Breaking Bad” is similar to The Bible. At first you think that maybe she’s thinking of a different show with a different name, not the show about meth that gives you higher risk of high blood pressure every time you watch it. But, in fact, she is referring to the one and only “Breaking Bad that we know.”
The reason that I chose this blog is because I think there is an interesting connection between politics and religion that clusters many complicated things together. Ann Coulter is a popular (hopefully in the same light that Snookie from Jersey Shore is popular, surely no one takes this woman too seriously) political commentator who has made a career out of her Conservative views.  In my opinion, she emphasizes her “Christian” beliefs in order to receive the approval of those of the Christian range. Many politicians are also blatantly guilty of this, Obama being the latest to jump around in his beliefs. (Christian? Muslim? Atheist? What does it really matter? He’s running our country....Are we going to judge him for what TV channels he watches too?) However, while I can’t for sure jump inside of the minds and beliefs of these politicians, we can all clearly see that their behavior is not very “Christian-like” to say the least. Do they go to church? Do they pray before dinner? Or are they too busy hushing their illegitimate children and cocaine addictions to live the way that they announce they do? Many people have religious ulterior motives, promising that they are a good person because they believe in Jesus Christ, but actually living different lifestyles. They lure a gullible crowd into having faith in them as people and then they only disappoint later.  (A party-boss-like exchange: Shared beliefs for a vote.) Our country should not judge how someone will be in office based on their religious beliefs, and that is where we go very wrong. By depending so much on political and spiritual labels, we are dividing ourselves and furthering ourselves from progress as a country. Ann Coulter uses her “Christian” label to seduce fans, just as central figures of our government use Christianity to get away with their sins. 

The Same Old Story About A Plant

     It feels almost ridiculous to even write about marijuana, but it's an national issue that still has yet to be solved. It seems as though legislators find it easier to shove it to the side in hopes that maybe the next generation will sort something out. I, for one, am all about progressivism. In the words of Einstein, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Only a fool would deny that the universe constantly changes and in order to survive, we must adapt to any social changes that come our way. The consumption of Cannabis is nothing new under the sun, but it's received a negative reputation. 
     I'm sure most of you know the same statistic that hasn't changed and more than likely won't change any time soon: There are not any existing recorded deaths that are marijuana-related. In fact, marijuana has been proved to diminish pain, reduce blood pressure, suppress cancer, and treat glaucoma among other disorders and diseases. Marijuana is not known to create the anger, nausea, and devastation that alcohol can create when used in high measures. It also is not 1/16th as toxic for the human body as commonly used and accepted objects such as cigarettes and plastic. The tobacco industry is one of the most vulgar, corrupt, and filthy rich companies alive. Smoking cigarettes are directly linked to cancer, harm every organ in the body, as well as cause many lung diseases. There are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. Chemical additives are also present in the majority of foods that most Americans regularly eat. So why do we trust harmful, manmade chemicals over pure nature? It just doesn’t seem to make very much sense.
     If you are not convinced by now that legislators should get a move on with marijuana legalization, here’s another reason why it would make our country a better place: It would drastically improve our weak economy. 300 economists have estimate that legalizing marijuana could save the United States up to $14 billion a year. Not only would it bring some heavy tax revenue, but it would also cut our spending from enforcement and prison costs for marijuana-related charges. (Illegal marijuana as an industry rakes in almost $40 million dollars. We might as well be paying that to our country.) Sure, it would not solve all of our problems, but it would substantially help. 
     The last reason why this green plant should be legalized is because by keeping it illegal, the government is infringing on our rights of choice. Since there isn’t any worthy scientifically evidence to prove that marijuana is harmful to humankind, making and keeping it illegal seems like an industrial decision as well as one made just to be in control of what the “little guy” does. It is our choice to drink, to vote, to get an education, to get married, to reproduce, to recycle, to donate to charity, and you get my point here. We make all of our personal decisions individually, we live with them and learn from them, and that is freedom. We should be capable of making our decisions as long as they do not hurt or harm others. This country prides itself for being a free country, but we are being told to live freely only under certain guidelines. (Who we can and can’t marry, what we can and can’t do for recreational or health purposes, etc.) Keeping marijuana illegal seems not only like an illogical choice, but a punishing one. To finish this off, I’m going to put a funny quote from Seth Rogen: “If marijuana is not legal within the next five years, I have no faith in humanity, period.”

T is for the Capitol of Texas: Texas Legislature and Abortion.

My colleague Sasha Thomas wrote about the new abortion bill in Texas that was effective on November 2nd.  Although I'm not sure what her thoughts are about abortion set in stone, I have to plead with the "pro-choice" side of things. I think it's perfectly find to disagree with abortion because we are all entitled to our own standards of morality. However, in one perspective, abortion is a science that can prevent human life from developing, rather than viewing it as murder. I agree with the 20 week limitation because a baby is more than half way done with developing at five months old and I can see where that would be qualified as murder. I think the greater principle of abortion being illegal is the government taking away our right to CHOOSE. I think "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with abortion, but that you disagree with the government making the decision for you. If abortion was completely prohibited, women who wanted to end their pregnancies would find a way to have an under-the-table procedure which could be unsanitary and lethal. The underlying message of the issue of abortion is that just because one group of people disagrees with something does not mean that all people disagree with it and there is no such thing as a uniform belief. The government definitely should not have the right to interfere a woman's decision, no matter what it may be! I witnessed Wendy Davis's filibuster live in June and I remember everyone protesting for women's rights to their own decisions and maybe one or two people in the crowd representing Pro-Life views. However, who cares about what the people care about, right? Before you know it, conservatives will likely block any possibility of abortion whatsoever, blocking a woman's ability to choose for herself. The real ethical issue shouldn't be about abortion but about the decision to choose to have one or not.

In other news, I found an interesting article comparing Texas legislature's abortion laws to Rosemary's Baby here that I thought I might share.

Peace on Earth and Peace TO Earth!

When it comes to any sort of government, environmental policies should be a top priority since they prove to be vital to our existence. It's easy to think that everything on Earth comes without a price. The past few generations were born into Western civilization, adjusting to lifestyles far from the primitive ways that our ancestors had lived beforehand. It is embedded into our everyday philosophy to take, take, take and most of us don't realize that we are actually taking from the planet that we call home to an abusive extent. 

Ideally, the first place to start would be putting valuable leaders into office. Thirty to forty years ago, the  environment was taken very seriously in the world of politics. The past fifteen years, we have not only completely ignored anyone who tries to warn us of our inevitable future, but we have also worsened our condition. We are burning fossil fuels at a soaring rate, overpopulating the planet, and slowly depleting our ozone. We're cutting down our rain forests, which are a source of 50% of the oxygen that we breathe. These are only a few of the harsh environmental conditions that human beings are responsible for. 

By destroying the environment, we are also destroying ourselves. Skin, liver, bladder, and lung cancers are only few of the hazardous health conditions that have been scientifically linked to the damage we are doing to the environment. If we were to spread awareness of environmental degradation and the effects that it has on our resources and ourselves, we could push legislators to consider the environment as a top-notch priority.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) tries to step in as much as they possibly can, with acts like The Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act, in an effort to establish some sort of order and respect to our world and ourselves. But many of the efforts that the EPA, as well as many other credible scientists and Nobel Peace Prize winners, are being disregarded because of the typical "If we ignore it, maybe it will just go away!" philosophy that Americans are notorious for abiding by. 

A big motive that separates politicians from acknowledging environmental complications is money. (What else?) Many businesses thrive from the very things that are destroying our environment: Logging, coal and oil, etc. We wouldn't necessarily have to destroy these things altogether but we could find alternative ways to go about it. If the government started to monitor the amount of carbon and methane that we release into the atmosphere, we could little by little improve the quality of the air that we breathe. If our nation put reproductive laws into effect, we could put a halt on overpopulation, which threatens the limited amount of resources that we have, as well as challenges us economically. (Sorry Duggar family, but you gotta tie the tubes. Learn to adopt from The Humane Society for a better deed.) If our politicians monitored the corrupt gasoline and coal businesses that break environmental ethics and penalized them for doing so, we could take a giant leap to having a healthier planet. 

By looking at our history, we can see how and why certain events went wrong and how to prevent them from happening again. The big BP oil spill in 2010 is one of those horrendous events that we could easily refrain from happening again with the blessing of technology. Many environmentalists urged Halliburton to install an acoustic switch, an emergency shut-off operation, onto the drilling site. However, political gods such as Dick Cheney thought this to be a bunch of "hoo-haa" and a significant waste of money. I suppose it would have been way better to be safe than sorry, because that particular oil spill destroyed many ecosystems and contaminated the water, among other hazardous aftermath situations. Although that specific oil spill was immensely saturated in media attention, oil spills aren't a rare occurrence. There are, on average, about 22 oil spills per year. This is an example of irresponsibility that could have easily been prevented. Fracking is an example of another political stance that our legislators should take more seriously. The consequences linked to fracking are astronomically more detrimental to human beings than marijuana, a substance that has been illegal in the United States for far too long. 

Sometimes I hear people discussing global climate change and addressing it as a "scam." These people commonly roll their eyes at environmental facts and accuse anyone who cares for the planet of being a "hippie" or a "tree hugger." I guess some people feel that their logic is worthy enough to compete with science, but they're definitely not omniscient, and ignoring the damage that we as human beings are mindlessly causing to the only home we have is not going to make it go away. 

If things keep continuing the way that they are, then when the effects of our damaged environment start  taking a tremendous toll, we're going to wonder how it happened. What went wrong? How did this happen? Why didn't we take the world more seriously? This is usually the typical case for humanity, being warned against something time and time again and then wondering why we didn't listen in the first place. However, there is good news, and that is that we CAN take a step to prevent this from happening, and it all starts with getting politicians to become more serious and more proactive in all important environmental affairs. 

Government or no government, our planet needs to be taken care of. Plenty of people boast that they are proud to be Americans, but they often forget that America is a place on planet Earth. We might as well take things into our own hands and start now to do all that we can to protect our country, our planet, and our kind. It's a life or death situation and there should be life or death policies as well! 

Several thoughts on "Five Thoughts on the Obamacare Disaster"

In his article "Five Thoughts on the Obamacare Disaster," Ezra Klein gives examples of problems that Obamacare has already faced which later envelope out into what he claims to be a disaster. He points out the numerous technical issues that have been reported of the ObamaCare website, from glitches in the health care applications to how poorly developed it is for what should be a high security website. 

Klein suggests the Republican Party's participation in the government shutdown distracted the media from exactly how problematic and disastrous the Affordable Care Act has already proved to be. He describes potential in the idea that had the Republican Party not pushed for a government shutdown, outraging many citizens across the nation, they would have had more of a chance in both gaining widespread support and unveiling ObamaCare to be catastrophe. 

Ezra Klein also recalls Obama's reference in which he said that the Affordable Care Act launch would be similar to an Apple product launch. Klein wonders in his article, "Can you imagine how many people Steve Jobs would've fired by now if he'd launched a new product like this?" I think the point he is trying to make points out that an extremely successful business would have held people accountable for their any detrimental mistakes, but our government would typically never do such a thing. Comparing Barack Obama to Steve Jobs is some way hysterical, because Steve Jobs is a notorious example of a man who achieved the "American Dream" by ingenuity and excellence and our president is the man deemed for being in charge of our nation who is blamed for everything and having to sit through heavy criticism from his proposition towards health care in America. 

Although I think that "disaster" is a bit of an over exaggeration and that it is harsh to criticize the turnout of the Affordable Care Act so early into the process, I think Klein actually makes a few decent points. It's clear that he is making educated statements and well-informed examples to argue his opposition towards Obamacare, instead of ranting a bunch of unintelligent nonsense just because he wants to rival the president or a certain political party entirely. He acknowledges that "a lot of liberals will be angry over this post" and that the post would also tickle the fancy of many Conservatives. I think he is trying to find some sort of a medium for his audience, aiming to inform the public of his opinion regardless of their political stance. He puts what he believes out there understanding that it is impossible to please everyone when it comes to politics. 

Overall, I would have to say that Klein's article supports substantial evidence of the point that he is trying to display and also keeps somewhat of a balance between the "liberals and conservatives" who happen to be the biggest rivalry since the Bloods and the Crips. 

Also, I must say, that Klein gets a few extra points because he happens to be fairly attractive. 

There's an elephant in the room.

In her right-leaning blog, Ann Coulter wrote an article entitled "OBAMA: HALF BLACK BUT ALL DEMOCRAT." (Just like that, all caps.) In this article, she basically denies every rumor involving a racist Republican, but insists instead that it is Liberals that are the racist ones.


In my opinion, the right ones are not necessarily the liberals or the democrats, but the ones who respect the opinions of others without pointing fingers. Ann Coulter clearly agrees with the conservative end of the spectrum and goes to a pretty far extent to prove her underlining line: That liberals are horrible, satan-worshipping people and conservatives can do no wrong. In several of her blogs, she does her best to attack liberals. However, in this one, she somehow brought race into the equation even though the guy on the liberal/Democrat side is half black.

It's obvious that Ann Coulter's audience is for through-and-through conservatives looking for a source to make them feel secure about their political opinions. My mother is an example of a conservative woman who would probably roll her eyes at this article and feel embarrassed to have similar opinions as her.

Since she is the one putting the blame game and racial identity into the same equation, it seems as though Ann Coulter's article fails to support any sort of truth or wisdom. She doesn't provide any evidence supporting the fact that liberals are racist or conservatives are not racist. I have firsthand heard some pretty bold racist statements from many Republicans and conservatives. And while I do know several people who only voted for Obama because "having a black president would be so cool," I also know of several people who voted against Obama simply because he was black. Seeing as how the South is predominantly Republican and also the place that justified Jim Crowe laws not even a century ago, it doesn't take an algorithm to figure out that there are more than likely racist republicans.

"Only Chris Matthews is still on racism patrol. After the third presidential debate on Monday night, Matthews said that conservatives and "the white working class in the South" have a "racial hatred" for Obama. Why, Chris is so crazy about black people, he's even considering hiring one someday to work on his show! Not yet, but soon."

Coulter uses this example to stress her point that liberals constantly accuse conservatives of being racist and then backfires her argument by hinting that Chris Matthews is slightly racist. The fact that Ann Coulter has to bring race into the equation when Chris Matthews was just pointing out a black-and-white (no pun intended) fact is enough to make you realize how she really feels. I'm not calling the woman racist, but if she really has faith in her political beliefs, then why does she feel the need to defend it so often? If she really had confidence in conservatism, wouldn't she emphasize the good parts of it instead of barking against the accusations? 

I'm not impressed with Ann Coulter's over-confident ranting and believe that her arguments were childish and implausible. She would take all of that energy and turn it into appreciating diversity, something that she clearly lacks! The liberals and conservatives will always have beef but I think it's impressive when they swallow their pride and learn some respect for the opposing side. Hearing someone argue about why their side is the right way to go has never changed anyone's mind. I have zero respect for those type of people. My vote will always be for the one who shows why he/she is great, not for people that attack the other side, which is exactly why I was not satisfied after reading Ann Coulter and her "informative" blog. 

"Nsa Can Only Spy with a Little Help from its Feds."

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/nsa-can-only-spy-little-help-its-feds

(Disclaimer to NSA since I did include the word "explosion" in this article: I am not a terrorist. I am just a college girl, eating Oreo's and doing Government homework. Please do not read my text messages, otherwise you might be scared from my ultimate weirdness. Thank you.) 


Unless you have been hiding underneath a decent sized boulder the past few months, you are probably aware of the recent reports of the NSA. The NSA (National Security Agency) performs highly specialized data activities in order to protect the United States from any threats of terrorism and all of the country's information systems. 

Recently, the NSA has been under heavy scrutiny for invading the rights of U.S. citizens. I'm sure that most of you know about Edward Snowden, the former CIA/NSA employee who leaked a few NSA procedures to "The Guardian." He enlightened us that not only does the government has more access to our personal information than we are led to believe, but there are millions of collected data files collected of our phone calls and any online communication. This has caused quite the uproar across America. (Imagine how many closet porn maniacs are emotionally scarred.)

This article is important because it reminds us that we have had our rights invoked on since way before the mainstream scandal broke out. It gives examples of times that special intelligence agencies have performed unwarranted tracking and searches and emphasizes the importance of demanding that Congress act out against allowing invasion of our privacy. 

We have received a appreciable amount of support from foreign countries condemning the acts of the NSA. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff commented on the recent misconduct of the country stating "Without the right of privacy, there is no real freedom of speech or freedom of opinion, and so there is no actual democracy." The European Union, which has solidified data protection laws, has considered re-examining and putting boundaries up on the data that they give the U.S. access to.  Their point is sound....Why should they trust this country if its own citizens can't? 

With the explosion of technology in the last two decades, it seems to be obvious that our very government would consider crossing the line and monitoring what we Google search and what we chat about on Facebook. But we do these unimportant/nonterrorist things on a daily basis feeling that we have a hefty Constitution that allows us to say what we want to say and do what we want to do as long as we are not harming other people. The point of the government is to protect us and give our community a structured system that provides us safety and protection. But it's becoming more and more evident that they have gone beyond their control.

I always say that Nixon was a better president than Obama and every time I say it, I never fail to receive the same response. I either see gamma rays of hatred lasering from people's eyes or I get called an array of nice names, ranging from "psychologically damaged" to an "idiot." Or both. And each time, I know that 90% of these people formed their opinion the exact same way. When the average person hears "Nixon," they automatically cringe. Even if they honestly have no idea of one single detail that occurred during Nixon's presidency, they know that he did something really really bad and that he is U.S. History villain. They mimic the opinions of their parents and their teachers instead of taking the time to think for themselves. I am not justifying the actions of the Watergate Scandal in any way, but I do know this: Nixon embraced impeachment, eventually resigned his presidency, and became permanently known as a huge tool for doing something similar to what the NSA is doing to everyday John-and-Jane citizens today. I think he just got caught doing something that almost all powerful officials do: playing dirty.

So why is it suddenly acceptable to cross the line? Why was the invasion of privacy a seismic outrage then but not now? We should demand that the fine folks of congress put a stop to this nonsense so that we can invest some trust into our government once again and feel certain that we really are the free country that we so proudly advertise ourselves to be.