Journalism's New Frontier: It's pretty fucking beautiful.

Here I will list some of my favorite "new-start-up-techy" online news outlets that have popped up. So if you want to stay informed without having to deal with Fox/CNN/MSNBC's bullshittery, look no further. Isn't it refreshing? Aren't these new things exciting?! (says the news geek).

Vox

I can't fully articulate to you just how much I love this site. I love it so much, it's crazy. They comprehensively explain the news - they give you context and history so you actually know what the fuck is going on in the world beyond what the headlines tell you. It's BEAUTIFUL, ok? Fucking revolutionary, this shit is. And if you aren't impressed with the news part, just go on the site to look at the gorgeous interface and web design. If the graphics on the site don't make you wanna marry the crap out of the site, then don't talk to me.

Politico Magazine

I also love this little segment of Politico with all my heart. If you want political news with a punch, this is your place. All of their articles are oh-so-very well-written by people who know their shit, and the web design is just out of this world. 

VICE News

People may know VICE for their weird culture magazine. And while this is Vice Media's mainstay, they have been putting serious resources into expand VICE News. They report current events with their signature grit and alternative attitude, their short documentaries are really something else, and they cover important stories from all around the world that aren't really covered by the mainstream media. It's  awesome, period.

FiveThirtyEight

For most of their stories, they take statistical data and interpret it to current events. God bless.

BuzzFeed: Just News

Have you ever been on BuzzFeed, wasting time reading various lists and taking various quizzes, and then clicked on an interesting headline about Hillary Clinton or Syria or something like that? You then read the article that corresponds to the headline, and then you realize, holy hot shit, I just voluntarily read a news article. That's right guys! YOU JUST READ THE NEWS! Feel proud, because you have taken the first step to becoming an informed electorate and an educated citizen of the world around you. Now read some more. :)

READ THE NEWS IT'S IMPORTANT OK? OK. BYE.

The Communication Gap

This has nothing to do with the post, I just thought it was funny

While the "Confidence Gap" between girls and guys have been making major news across all mediums of media, I think that a major communication gap is going on between the sexes, particularly between the Feminists and the Men's Rights guys.

This broken communication is highlighted by the tragic UCSB shooting that happened yesterday due to the hand of Elliot Roger, a seriously ego-centric dude on a major God complex and with some influence by the Men's Rights movement. (If you want to read up on how he was influenced by the Men's Rights movement in detail, click here) In his video manifesto, he basically stated that he had no clue why females and popular people as a whole weren't paying attention to him. All he wanted was "adoration" by women and was brutally denied of sex, pleasures and love. Therefore, he was going to go to a sorority house on campus and shoot all the "blonde sluts." You'll just have to watch the video to believe it. It's disgusting.

Facebook automatically blew up with anger. A lot of girls, including myself, couldn't even comprehend this guy's entitlement mentality. He felt that he deserved sex and adoration, and he didn't get it. He, in "retribution," would kill a bunch of girls because "it wasn't fair" that he was a 22 year old that had never been kissed. He granted himself the license to kill because he was no one was paying attention to him, the "supreme gentleman" and "alpha male," while all of the girls threw themselves at other "obnoxious" guys.

But, in reaction to the girls' reaction, the guys blew up a bit too. The guys, in short, stated that it was wrong to drag feminism into a tragedy where people died, and this crime wasn't due to his attitude towards women, but it was his very unstable mental state. Some guys even stated that, by speaking out, the feminists were lumping all men into Men's Rights believers and enablers, even if they were just disagreeing.

So, I feel obligated to clear some of the water between the guys and girls because I was one of those girls that posted on Facebook about this. I can't speak for all girls out there, but I think a lot of them would agree with me. In my opinion, there were a buttload of things that made this guy do what he did, one of them being that he felt that he deserved sex and love from women. I also think that this guy was unstable as hell and had really, really deep-seeded insecurities. So the Men's Rights influence wasn't the  sole factor for this, but it was a factor that shouldn't be minimized.

I also think that last month's stabbing of that girl who declined a prom offer by the dude who asked her shows a disturbing start of a trend. I won't call it a full-blown trend because the Prom thing and the UCSB thing is only 2 instances, but I hope to God something like this never happens again. But in these two instances, the girl's "no" was not respected. In both of these situations, the guys acted violently to rejection rather than taking it and moving on. It's very troubling to see that, in these two instances, a girl's "no" was lethal. And I understand that plucking up the courage to approach a girl is hard, and getting rejected is even harder, but that rejection gives the guy no right to act violently. I've been in the guy's shoes too: I asked this guy to Winter Formal this year and he declined. I didn't react violently, nor did I make his life hell afterwards. I just took the hit and moved on. I respected his right to decline my offer, and I didn't feel entitled to a yes.

And when girls are speaking out against a guy's rather horrid actions, we are not clumping ALL guys into this particular guy's category. Let me repeat that: We are not clumping ALL guys into this particular guy's category. This goes for Elliot Roger, this goes for the crazy prom guy, this goes for those disgusting guys who catcall girls and harass them verbally from the sidewalk. WE DON'T MEAN TO CLUMP. WE REALLY DON'T.  There are some really great guys out there. We are not men haters. Most guys are normal and nice and totally with it. If you're reading this right now, you're probably one of the good ones. We like guys. We especially like you nice guys in a nice suit. So, please, don't take it personally because it's not personal at all.

So what the hell do girls want? They want to be on equal footing with men, and yet, they want guys to be chivalrous and treat them like princesses? (the princess thing only goes for some girls, I'm not really one of them) They want nice guys, but a nice guy comes along, and they friendzone him. They flirt with guys, they string them along, they make them pay for food and presents and what the hell?! And dude, I empathize with you. Truth of the matter is, girls really don't know what they are feeling 75% of the time, or at least, that's what I'm like. You feel that girls are demanding more from you and giving you less of what you want in return. And I get that, I recognize your frustration. We are pretty damn confusing, so lemme try to clear some stuff up.

The modern woman wants to be respected. The reason why we really hate hearing "get back in the kitchen," and "go make me a sandwich" is because they are commands. No girl, or human being for that matter, likes to be told what to do or be backed into a corner. Does that mean we will never make you a sandwich? NO. I will gladly make you a sandwich if you ask nicely and are respectful. You make me a sandwich in return? You get bonus points. If I really don't want to make you a sandwich because x, y, and z? You can make your own sandwich, and I will make my own as well. Simple as that. We can both make dinner together, or we can switch off, or we can just order takeout (ugh, yum). It's a balance. We are not your subordinates, we don't want to be ballbreakers either. We just want to be your equals. I don't know about other girls, but I hold doors open for guys when I get to the door first, because it's common courtesy. So if you hold a door open for me, I will say "thanks" and be happy that you did, and maybe will hold the door for you sometime in the future.

But at the same time, don't get carried away with "common courtesy" concept. Just because you are nice to a girl, does not mean she owes you anything emotionally or sexually. Just because you give her a great first, second, or third date doesn't mean she owes you sex. Sex is not like making sandwiches for each other or holding doors, it's not a matter of common courtesy. Stuff like that is really personal, and the girl shouldn't feel obligated to give it to you. If she's diggin' you and she's feelin' it, she'll probably let you know. Let that choice be hers, like that choice is for you.

And there is a difference between being nice and friendly and being flirty. Some girls are just natural flirts and her "friendly" might be easily confused with "flirty." That's just humans though - I'm sure guys do the same thing sometimes. If you get a hunch that a girl likes you, but doesn't and wants to remain friends, she shouldn't be punished for that because GUYS DO THE EXACT SAME THING. Girls are friendzoned too - I've been friendzoned! It sucks but you get over it. It's a different story when a girl purposely flirts with a guy to lead him on or have him buy things for her or any other ridiculous thing like that - that's not respectful nor is it right.

The world is different than it was in the '50s. I'd make a horrible housewife, I really would. I'd just get bored and I'm no chef either. But my point is - girls just want to be respected as men's equals. I'm sure the Men's Rights movement just wants respect too. I think both the Feminists and the Men's Rights guys have super extreme wings - but I think that most girls today who like the Feminist movement just want respect and equality, and guys really don't feel like being a girl's servant at her every beck and call. Both guys and girls have desires, wants, and needs, but it's all a give-and-take, two-way-street thing. If we both just understand that, maybe the UCSB tragedy would have never occurred.

And if you read this whole thing, thanks! You deserve a medal. And I spoke kind of candidly too, so if it was weird, sorry. k bye.

Cybersecurity and Cybersecrets

This post was a long time coming. I have no idea why, but I have a healthy obsession with the lives of Snowden (as in Edward) and Assange (as in Julian). Which is weird, right? What these men did was treasonous, and wrong, and put the US in danger, right? 

Or what if what they did was an extreme form of citizen journalism or whistle blowing? Sure, what they did was risky and questionable/downright wrong legally speaking, but was it morally wrong? Are these men criminals? Or are they the ultimate martyrs for truth and transparency?

Personally, I think the latter is true.

Think about how the world would be today without folks like Assange, or Snowden, or Deep Throat and Daniel Ellsberg if we want to go back further into history. What if WikiLeaks didn't exist? What if the NSA leak was smothered before it lit aflame in the media and the public? What if The Washington Post never printed that article? What if the public never got to see The Pentagon Papers?

WikiLeaks: Exposed corruption in Kenya, "friendly fire" in Afghanistan, the US government's blind eye regarding reports of torture in Iraq during the Iraq War

Snowden: Exposed NSA's PRISM (and more) programs, use of metadata interception, and various international and commercial partners

Some may argue that this type of action, especially regarding WikiLeaks, is "aiding and abetting the enemy." But is that what it's really doing? Has the actions of Assange or Snowden put a major number or lives in danger? I think if that was the case, we'd hear something about the life-or-death thing blasting in the media. 

What is does endanger is the chance of governments getting away with questionable actions and it highlights the fact that "transparency" is to "government" as "classy" is to "Kardashian."

Governments denouncing Assage and Snowden? Snowden threatened with treason? Of course! They just got caught. You think that they're going to let him get away with it?

My point is that people like Assage and Snowden, like Deep Throat and Ellsberg, are brave. In the face of big, BIG punishments, they go out and they speak the truth, wether or not it wants to be heard or wether or not it is allowed to be heard.

And I know I shouldn't, but I can't help but find that honorable.

(This is here because I like Benedict Cumberbatch's face)

Have a "Correct" Christmas

Fighting: 2013's Holiday Caroling

This is something I have wanted to blog about for awhile, and I think the Holiday Season is the perfect time to do it.

That's right ladies and gents: Political Correctness. Oh yeah, I'm going there.

Society may want me to walk on eggshells and tiptoe through the tulips on this subject, but I refuse to. I'm sick of it. I'm tired of having to censor what I say.

I have one question: Why is everyone so so so OFFENDED? ALL THE TIME. People of all colors seem to be offended. People of all genders. Heck, animals and objects are offended. Why in the world is everyone so damn sensitive. 

Schools can't have images of Santa up in classrooms. We have to call ugly christmas sweaters "ugly sweaters" if you want to have an "ugly sweater" day in December. I want to put up a mini-Christmas tree in my school's journalism room? No can do! We can't even call it a Hanukkah Bush. I can't even buy a "Holiday Fern." Why? Because the school afraid that people are going to get offended and sue them.

I'm all for the separation of church and state. Forcefully putting students through any type of serious religious promotion in a public state-funded school is unlawful. But decorations with good ol' Saint Nick on them aren't allowed? Really?

I honestly can't identify a person at my school who gives a damn. I'm pretty sure teenagers don't care if they see a Santa or a mini tree. I'm pretty sure they'd find it cute and festive. Why can't everybody just bring in their own decorations? Christmas is December 25th... so it's pretty fitting that most December decorations are connected to Christmas. But do students want Hanukkah represented? What about Kwanzaa? What about other religious holy days? The more the merrier! Bring your decor! Let's all celebrate together!  What I don't get is that schools in general seem to preach and simply love the idea of multi-culturalism, yet they block every sort of religious expression when it December comes around... talk about "Bah-Humbug."

But I'm not just talking about schools here. The whole "What race is Santa?" debate? WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH? WHY? SOMEONE TELL ME. Santa has been an icon since forever, and he has been depicted as a big, fat, jolly-looking white old dude with a long ass beard. It's always been that way. People weren't offended before, why are people so offended now? And I have done my research, and it turns out that Saint Nicholas is of Greek nationality. Should Santa be white? Should Santa be black? If we want to be factual, he actually should be Greek. 

My point is that December celebrations are really good-natured and everyone has their heart in the right place. In my eyes, the real Scrooges in this situation are the people who claim that one religious group can't do a certain activity because it is offensive. Does someone want to bring a menorah to school? How about something to represent Kwanzaa? Scientology? Heck, why not! I'm Roman Catholic, and I'm not offended one bit.

We should be evolved enough to speak up if the term "Secret Santa" offends us or makes us feel uncomfortable. You wanna call it "Holiday Homie" instead? I'm down with anything at this point.

We shouldn't have to tiptoe around people. We shouldn't have to be hyper-sensitive about every issue. We shouldn't have to spend our holidays worrying about being "racist" or "intolerant." That's not what the holidays are about. I just want the freedom to express my merry December spirit, uncensored.

P.S: Aren't we technically offending Atheists by saying "Happy Holidays" considering they don't believe in any sort of holy celebrations? Idk...

Happy Holidays/Christmas and a Merry New Year! :)

Union Issues

Unions are great, they really are. But I believe unions have their time and their place. Those times and places should not involve students.

To give you a bit of backstory, the teachers union at my school is severely butting heads with the district, due to the fact that the district is attempting to postpone negotiations regarding salary and the teacher evaluation system until after School Board Elections. Of course, this is a straight-up douche bag move and pretty damn idiotic of them. They are also shoving the idea of "iPad integration" down the throats of all teachers, classrooms, and students in the district, which is also completely idiotic and further proves that the district is seriously not listening to what the teachers and students are saying. I mean, let's be real. The middle school in my district, who jumped in head-first into this iPad education thing, had a drop of 18 points on their API score this year. EIGHTEEN POINTS. The largest drop they've had, ever. Clearly something is wrong and clearly the district refuses to see past their bureaucracy. 

I support teachers because I believe that they are truly a foundation of success and growth later on in life. But in reaction to all this bull that the district has been pulling, they have refused to work past their pay. Their doors are closed at lunch, meaning school clubs cannot meet in classrooms. This is the second time they have done something like this. Last year it was a bit more dramatic, they wouldn't do any letters of recommendation for the seniors. Obviously, this method got the district to meet the teachers halfway, but I think it was still morally wrong.

To use students and their parents as political pawns? To utilize their anger and frustration as a means to an end? I don't approve of the teachers' actions. Teachers do noble things, but that does not make it right for them to pull cruddy political moves. This is in no means ok. Some might say that this is all about the students and their well being, BUT it still does not give teachers to, in essence, use students as leverage to get whatever they want, in this case, it's higher salary and an upper hand in negotiations. Some might even proclaim that teachers were basically boxed in a corner, and this move is a move of desperation. Once? Maybe. But twice? I don't think so. This is the second sequential year that the teachers have pulled this move. This doesn't look like desperation to me, it looks like savvy political strategy.

So, my conclusion is that both parties are at fault here. The district and the administration continue to be, well, the district and the administration, and teachers now think it's ok to pull moves like these. I say that the district needs to man up, keep to their word, and be straight forward with the Teachers Union. They deserve that much. In addition, I think the Teachers Union needs to cut the crap and stop using pupils to their political advantage. It's not right. It's not ok. Be truthful teachers, you are not getting the students involved to benefit them, you are using them to get what you want, which has nothing to do with our education and has everything to do with the size of your wallet and the benefits you receive. Do I believe that teachers need a higher salary and more benefits? Yes, absolutely. But do I validate their current actions? Do I think it's ok to use students as political leverage? Heck no.

Broadcast Journalism: The Red-Headed Stepchild?

Newsroom Porn: The BBC Newsroom in Central London

Control Room Porn: BBC's Control Room

Writing in this little blog of mine is so much easier than writing college supplements, so much easier.

Alright. With that little confession out of the way I wanted to get something off my chest. I'm sad to say it, but I think, especially in this time of this era, that print is dead. (Not to me, I still read newspapers like crazy. I mean in the general public.)

Which is why I was tremendously puzzled when my broadcast journalism advisor stated that, "Broadcast is the red-headed stepchild of journalism."

Uhm... excuse me? What? What? What? What? I'm not quite sure I was catching his drift.

I couldn't help but feel a bit weird when he said that. It was like being told that you weren't the center of the universe for the first time. Like you were being told that Santa and Faeries and Unicorns weren't real (I believed in all that shit when I was little). Like realizing that despite the fantastical worlds that were in your head due to books and daydreams, they were all fantasies. 

Needless to say, It burst my bubble a bit.

But I found this kind of haughtiness and attitude that favored print in other places. In Newspro magazine, in internet comments regarding different J-Schools, etc. My question was: Why?

It's obvious to me that broadcast is superior, on multiple levels, to print. I thought it would be obvious to other people as well too, but apparently not. Let's take a look at the facts: Broadcast undoubtedly reaches more people in a more "reachable" format. People watch the news everyday. It's more informative as well. Instead of looking at a picture of the event, you have actual footage of it happening. Instead of reading the words that someone supposedly said, you have the ability to hear it from the horse's mouth and to see their mannerisms and expressions as they are saying.

Why are broadcasters the "stepchild of journalism?" WHY THE HELL ARE BROADCASTERS "RED-HEADED?" I don't understand. I can't even begin to compute this quotation! "Stepchild?" Really? That kind of talk is basically saying that broadcast is separate from journalism. We don't even get the coveted title of "daughter" or "son" or "sister/brother." We are the "stepchild."

Broadcast journalism is real journalism. No matter what anyone says. Sure, print has more history. Yes, I am very aware that CNN was not present during the Revolution. I am also very aware that Ben Franklin didn't intern at KCAL Local News, but his brother's printing press. I know, I know. But broadcast has made lots of strides in history as well. The JFK assassination, Queen Elizabeth's coronation, countless other milestone events: covered by lovely broadcast journalists. Broadcast is also lucky enough to have some great journalists in it's history as well: Walter Cronkite, Fred Friendly, Tom Brokaw, and others that have transcended our past and present.

I know how broadcast journalism looks today in the eyes of Americans. I'm not blind nor am I stupid. We see politically fragmented cable news networks. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and others caught in partisanship who will say and do anything to get their numbers up each night so they can keep advertisers in their wallets. But that's not what true journalism is. That's not what it used to be. 

Here is the opening scene from "The Newsroom" to give you a bit of journalistic and American nostalgia. (This made cry, I'm not going to lie to you.)

My point is that broadcast is a bit of a mess right now, but we will rise above the partisanship and the messy political games, and we reclaim the first and only virtue of journalism: the truth. (and that Broadcast Journalism is way better than print. It is fact.)

Broadcast Journalism For Life
#BJ4L

Online ObamaCare

So, I'm sure that ALL of you have seen this little gem... but in case you haven't, here's Jon Stewart beautifully RIPPING the ObamaCare website by the seams.

The Daily Show

Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

I mean, really? If the White House can't even run the OC website properly, things aren't looking up for this policy's approval ratings overall...

Just thought I'd share a little chuckle. :)

- Julia

Rights on Rights

You must have been living under a rock if you don't know what's been going on politically for the past 24 hours.

For those of you who DON'T know what's been happening, here's a Rapid-Fire Update for ya:

• Yesterday Morning: A vital part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, freeing 9 states (mostly southern) to pass any voting laws sans federal approval (unlike before, when they did have to get federal approval).
• Yesterday Night: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D) was a straight-up badass, filibustering for 12-13 hours (in running shoes and a back brace no less) to kill a bill for abortion restrictions during a special session. There was a sh*t-ton of drama. Republicans (predominately male) were trying to illegally end the filibuster (they did end it because she went "off-topic") and tried to vote on it. Turns out, the vote was at 12:03 PM, and the vote was supposed to be made before midnight. So, it's dead, for now. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) called for another special session (in other words, buckle up).
• This Morning: DOMA = Dead. That's right, ladies and gents. Gay married couples now have the right to get the same federal benefits as straight married couples do AND California gay couples now can get married!

Alright, Rapid-Fire Update: over.

Let's get to the deets, shall we?

I know the Voting Rights Act is all about racial equality, but my question is how does one determine whether or not a voting process is racially discriminatory. I'm all for racial equality, but is there a standard for racial equality, or is the determination of discrimination all subjective? I guess you could say this is where it gets dicey. I still don't understand how in the world showing your ID is racially discriminatory. You can get IDs, it shouldn't be an issue. Passports, Driver's Licences, etc. Why is that racially discriminatory? It's only trying to prevent voter fraud! Unfortunately, I don't know as much on this issue as I'd like to, and I plan on digging up more info.

I'd also like to say that I LOVE YOU WENDY DAVIS. YOU GO GLEN COCO. Tumblr last night was on FIRE! It exploded to make wonderful, angry, feminist, politically-charged confetti. It was simply gorgeous, and I thought I'd share some:

[WARNING: There's foul language in the following images and I didn't censor it because it's completely necessary for this issue in my opinion.]

I've said this before: Separation of Church and State is so important, and my fellow Republicans are forgetting that COMPLETELY. I understand that the issue of the unborn baby is important, and I can completely see the legal concern for murder.  I still think Roe v. Wade is the best and closest compromise for the issue at hand. But the behavior displayed by the Republicans that night? Trying to illegally end the filibuster and simply not giving Davis the respect she deserves? That is completely inexcusable. Those who disrespected her that night ought to be ASHAMED. It makes me so angry that women still are not treated equally on a social and legal level. I'm utterly sick of this nonsense and America deserves better.

I take the same stance with gay marriage. Separation of Church and State, is that SO HARD to understand? What does it matter to you if two guys/girls get married? WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH? STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGIOUS MORALS DOWN UNWILLING THROATS! I repeat: WE ARE A SECULAR NATION. WE LEGALLY CANNOT DO ANYTHING LIKE DOMA. Oh, and for those dipwads who claim that 2 men/women would hurt society by raising a child that isn't a traditional family: Calm the hell down. I have friends who have been raised in gay/lesbian families and they are awesome. SO F YOU, and please consider the following image:

And some fantastic parting words, courtesy of Tumblr:

- Julia

PS: I'm headed to the UK this Saturday and going to be out of the US for a month-and-a-half. I'll try to write one more time before leaving, and I'll drop some pictures and short updates when I'm overseas. 

PSS: For those who actually read this and care, thank you so much for reading. I really appreciate your support! POLITICS ROCKS, AMIRIGHT? (well...sometimes)

Summertime, Sherlock, and the Stock Market

Hey everyone! Long time, no type... (I'm sorry. I blame finals.)

But it's a great time to give some RAPID-FIRE updates about my life and what's been goin' on. READY, SET, GO:

• I got accepted to a program to study Journalism and Business at Oxford University. I will be leaving for England in 8 days.
• I have joined the Sherlockian, Trekkie, Cumber-babe, and the Hiddles fandom. (If you don't know what that even is, GOOD. STAY IGNORANT. FANDOMS WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.)
• Today was my last day of school... SUMMERRRRRR
• I think it's safe to say that I'm obsessed with anything British.
• I'm officially a senior now and I'm kinda flipping out about it.

Ok, Rapid-Fire Update is over. Now let's get down to the deets...

So, first topic: SUMMER! Yes, it's officially summertime. I will be in the UK (or the Cute-Accent Country) in approximately eight days. I'm going to be studying, staying at the dorms, and living the life of an Oxford student in just a few days! It's safe to say I'm stoked. I mean, great people have walked the halls and the paths that I will soon walk. W.H. Auden, Margret Thatcher, Tony Blair, James Cameron, Stephen Hawking, and tons more! GAH I'M EXCITED. (Don't worry guys, I'll post updates w/ pictures.)

Second, Sherlock. What can I say about BBC's Sherlock... I guess I can say that it's an amazing piece of art. It's absolutely gorgeous. I'm freaking obsessed. It's actually quite unhealthy. It's probably my favorite thing about my life right now.

Third, the Stock Market. (YUP! I'm going to do some actual reporting today...)

Today, the DOW Jones Industrial Average dropped 353.87 points. In one day. I know that in today's context, that doesn't sound like much. But on Black Thursday (the day that pretty much kicked off the Great Depression), the DOW dropped a little less than 300 points that day (in 1929 money). In the stock market crash in 1987, AKA Black Monday, the DOW dropped a little more than 500 points.

Well, clearly, we aren't in a Great Depression, but these numbers to me are really disturbing. Even though our economic system isn't on the super-über-brink, I think these numbers are show that our economic system is in a weak position. Weaker than we think it is. My opinion? If irresponsible economic policies continue, we will see a collapse. SOON. It's easy to get caught in a bubble of fiscal ignorance when you are a teen, but I think people my age really ought to pay more attention. In a few short years, we will be legal adults. So if the stock market collapses, we are the ones who will have to deal with it.

Alright. It's the first hours of summertime. 

How am I going to spend it?

Watching Sherlock on Netflix.

:)

- Julia

The Right, and the SUPER Right...

So, this happened on Twitter today...

Oy Vey...

This, unfortunately, is how A LOT of people see the GOP today. Islamophobes, homophobes, the Westboro-Baptist-Church-kind-of illogical, ideological, old white guys who have VERY backward ideas about US society and foreign policy. These are the kind of people who give the GOP a bad rap, and you know what? I'm sick and tired of it.

Our nation, the United States of America, was pretty much partly founded on the search for religious freedom. And while the Puritans and Pilgrims didn't practice tolerance, the Quakers in Philadelphia did. Colonial Philadelphia soon became known as the "Best Poor Man's Country." You know what that means? Brimming opportunity for ALL (including immigrants w/ different creeds) white (it was colonial times....) men. 

We are a SECULAR nation. I really do appreciate those who want to protect our country from Jihad-ists. I really do. But assuming that all Muslims are extremists? Assuming that non-extremists Muslims who don't take significant action to denounce extremism are "enabling" extremists? That's straight-up Islamophobia.

Not all Muslims are extremists! And clearly, not all extremists are Muslims.

I appreciate your voice and your opinion, but I would like to politely disagree with your aggressiveness against a certain religion you are generalizing into a LUMP. The Super Right, a slim minority (that means well), is now the publicized face of the GOP, giving the rest of us a BAD RAP TO PUT UP WITH 24/7. For Pete's Sake! Not all the GOP is the same.

Oh, and that "respect for both sides of the aisle" thing I was talking about? It goes both ways for Dems and Repubs.

LIBGINAS? Really? Last time I checked, respect was a two-way street... #NoHope

So, I guess I've seen the darker side of the Republican Party, and I've seen that both parties can be absolute, nonsensical nutheads...

Welcome to politics, I guess.

The F-Word: Feminism

This was posted at a high school after new dress code was enforced.
YOU GO GLEN COCO.

Anyone noticed the new spring of Feminism sweeping young women (and even some very brave and cool young men) across the nation? Thanks to tumblr and other social media sites, I think "feminism" and efforts against the rape culture have become "cool" again.

One problem. I'm a Conservative Republican.

A couple months ago, one of my friends in my English class said,

"Julia, I could totally imagine you being a feminist."

Automatically, I cringed. Physically cringed at the very word being uttered to describe ME. Born and raised Republican, I was taught that feminists = bad. When my friend said that, pictures of lesbians eating tofu and braiding their armpit hair flashed in my head. Naturally, I responded that I was sort-of-ish a feminist-ish. I immediately wanted to disassociate myself from that term.

But then, I kind of thought about it. I read articles regarding other public schools being super sexist regarding their dress code because they don't want it to be "distracting" to the boys in an educational environment. (I mean, you're not going to allow me to wear MY BELOVED LULULEMON PANTS?? How about NO.) I read things going on in the country, like girls getting raped while they were passed out drunk, and the boy's defense was that, "She didn't say no." Those same girls who got raped then were humiliated via the internet, and then some resorted to suicide.

It's NOT ok for schools to restrict girls from wearing shorts on a hot day just because it shows our legs, yoga pants just because it makes our butts look pretty great, or even v-necks just because it shows more of our chest area then crew necks do. It's NOT ok for girls to cater OUR clothing choices and OUR behavior to teenage boys who can't control themselves.

Here's a really nice alternative: Teach teen boys how to be men. Teach them how to respect a woman's body like it should be respected. Teach them to be mature. This is the future of the nation we are talking about, let's get serious about this issue.

Now, I'm not totally off the deep-end. I'm no Sandra Fluke. I don't think contraceptives are a government responsibility. But I do think that women should be equal to men in every legal and social regard. No double standards should be tolerated in this day in age.

I'm a girl who doesn't wear skirts or dresses often. I think that pants are extremely comfortable, and dresses are lovely for special occasions. I love primping pre-night out, but often times I'll throw my hair up in a pony tail and rush to my 7:00 AM class. Does that make me any less feminine? Any less desirable? No. That just makes me a modern woman.

So, I'm feminist-ish, and I guess I'm proud of it.

APs Everywhere

Advanced Placement Stress (oh APUSH...)

Dear Associated Press, YOU RULE.

May seems like a very AP-ish month, considering I had my AP US History test recently (I thought I did alright, for those who care) and the whole AP/Obama Administration scandal.

For those of you who don't really know what's up, Associated Press is currently under some serious crackdown or a "sweeping records seizure" from the Dept. of Justice, more specifically, 2-months worth of phone records from 20 phone lines in 4 different locations due to the reporting of super-sensitive material regarding a CIA mission in Yemen.

Apparently, the reporting of these deets and speaking to someone on the inside about the specifics (a leak) was a big national security threat. The CEO of AP, Gary Pruitt, went on Face the Nation and said that this action was unconstitutional, and sets a really dangerous precedent for the future of the press.

Mr. Pruitt, I whole-heartedly commend your strong stance on this issue. I think that's it definitely, utterly, completely, NOT OK for the government to do this. Freedom of speech is what we journalists pretty much live on, its our duty to the nation to report what's going on.

I thought that Sen. John Cornyn's (TX, R) remarks were smart and absolutely in the right. He stated that the government shouldn't get ticked off at the journalists (who are just doing their JOBS), but rather focus their energies on the leaks within government itself (where they actually have the power to do something). He also stated, "What confuses me is the focus on the press, who have a constitutional right here and we depend on the press to get to the bottom of so many issues that we, as individuals, cannot."

Bottom line is that this crap against the press it NOT OK. So, DOJ, please back off and watch what you do. I don't know if we've made it clear enough, but the journalists of this nation are NOT going to deal with your crud without a fight. Same with you ETS/College Board. If I don't get a good score... I will throw a hissy-fit. :)

-Julia