Scientists are Idiots Who Spread Crazy Rumors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/republicans-climate-change_n_7119158.html

     This article by Katie Sola reveals the result of a recent Gallup poll on climate change. The poll discovered that 59% of people who identified as conservative Republicans stated they do not believe we are experiencing climate change, and 70% of the same group don't believe that climate change is caused by humans. 40% don't believe it will ever happen at all, and 19% believe it will affect future generations instead of us. This poll included around 6,000 Americans of various ideologies and took place from 2010 to 2015. While the general scientific community agrees that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are resulting in climate change, most conservative Republicans believe that pollution and rising temperatures are unrelated. They are the only group identified to have a majority believe this.
     *Deep breaths. Inhale, exhale, inhale...* So, let's discuss this rationally. Like evolution and gravity, most scientists agree on climate change and the relationship it has with carbon dioxide. While it's true there have been extreme changes in temperature in the past (for example, during the ice ages), scientists state that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere never varied more than 100 parts per million and that the range was between 180 ppm to 280 ppm. Today, they state that carbon dioxide levels are up to 400 ppm. And... I could go on and on. But I will not. I refuse to spend my night refuting people who are so resistant to science. I mean, seriously?! So you're just going to let us pollute and screw up the atmosphere, happily sitting there telling everyone there's no way we could cause any of the climate change problem?! Or, ooh, I know, let's pretend it's all made up by the crazy, stupid scientific community, who are of course always wrong when they reach a general consensus. Do you know how competitive scientists are? They love proving each other wrong! So if they all agree on something, and everyone's put tons of money into research on the topic, maybe you should believe them and start helping to fix it! Ok *Deep breaths, deep breaths*. The main reason this bothers me is that one person keeping their factory from going green or telling others they don't need to worry about carbon dioxide levels can undo the work of hundreds of people trying to protect the environment. If you have a baby, and twenty people work to keep it away from germs, and then someone just comes up and pukes on it, then it doesn't matter how hard everyone worked (weird analogy I know but I'm super tired right now). So yeah. I am displeased with these people. And continually disheartened by society in general. Yep. Good night.

Religion - How Much Do You Know?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/?tid=sm_fb

    In this article, Rick Noack explains a recent Gallup poll on world religion. Keep in mind, Gallup is considered relatively accurate and unbiased in its polls. As a note, the options were strongly atheist, non religious, religious or unsure. The survey, which focused on 65 countries, found that 63% of the world is religious. China is the least religious country in the world with the highest number of atheists or nonbelievers (90%- most being atheist), while Sweden is the second (76%- equally atheists and nonbelievers). The most religious country is Thailand (94%). Most young people in the world are more religious than their elders, unlike the United States, where the reverse is true. As countries become wealthier and more advanced, they tend to become less religious (here again, America is an extremely obvious exception). Educated people tend to be less religious. America was 56% religious, 33% non religious, 6% atheist, and 5% unsure. This makes it the 41st most religious country (with 1st being most religious) out of 65.
     I find this survey extremely interesting. I feel like I definitely expected the number of religious people to be higher, I guess because people always talk about how the religious majority is forced to concede to a non religious minority, like a '90% obeys the 1%' thing. But it's more like a third of America as opposed to a 1%. Gotta say though, ain't many of those non religious people living in South Dakota. So probably why I thought there weren't many.

Pedophile Protection Program

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-predators-hidden-federal-witness-protection-program-report/story?id=29559093 by Jack Cloherty.

    You know, we in America like to think that we deal with sex offenders pretty well. After all, we have sex offender registries, right? South Dakota has one, and so does the FBI. These registries help warn people about sex offenders (particularly pedophiles) so they can take care around them. Unless you're in the Witness Protection Program, in which case, you may sexually assault and rape in complete and utter anonymity. According to a new report from the Department of Justice Inspector General, the Federal Witness Program has failed to protect people from offenders who were or are currently in the program. Fifty-eight offenders were found to have been in the program- ten were convicted of sexual crimes before entering, thirty-eight after they left, and ten during the program.
    So let me clarify this for you. When you go online and check for people guilty of child rape in your area, some of them may not be on there. This is either because they're in the program or are about to be. I highly doubt that those who committed sexual offenses after the program did it for the first time, so we can probably add them to the list of invisible pedophiles too. These people can be hired at schools, hospitals, as babysitters, or even become married and have children without anyone knowing their true identity. That, to me, is terrifying. This program's flaws do not end here, however. The program was criticized in an earlier report for not alerting the FBI and Terrorist Screening Center about potential or known terrorists. So basically the government is hiding secrets from itself (no big surprise). I'm glad the program has been ordered to make changes, because this is seriously messed up. Yes, we protect people through the Witness Protection Program, but it should not be at the cost of others' safety.

Utah Decides Consent Requires Consciousness (Ya Think?!)

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Bill-defining-sexual-consent-in-Utah-passes-the-house-of-representatives-77449.shtml#.VNvoHUKrlUQ

     The House of Representatives in Utah recently passed a bill with the revolutionary concept that- are you ready?- unconscious people can't consent to sex. Next week they'll probably pass a bill that states stealing from someone's house is still illegal even if that person isn't home, since apparently we are so bad at being decent human beings that moral codes need to be written down and strictly defined. Why was it never assumed that you have to be conscious to be consent? Who questioned this that you felt it needed to be made into a bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy they approved this bill, I'm just irritated that something this obvious is questioned to the point it needs to be discussed. Anyway, this normal (and long overdue) bill wasn't really much to talk about until Rep. Brian Greene asked if sex with an unconscious spouse is ok. And thus I lost my hope for humanity completely. He has since apologized, but seriously? What is so appealing about having sex with an unconscious person that you refuse to wake them up (or detox them- God knows what scenarios he was imagining)? Or maybe he's just worried that having sex with someone wouldn't wake them up (in which case I feel sorry for his wife). In any case, no future rape cases in Utah will be able to use the excuse that the person was unconscious. Hallelujah.

'Frozen' Sets Men Back a Decade (Apparently)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/04/fox-news-guest-says-frozen-makes-men-look-like-villains-and-fools-welcome-to-the-new-culture-wars/


     In this article, Hunter Schwarz discusses a recent debate on Fox News about the Disney movie Frozen. Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said that the film empowers women by tearing down men. Even though Frozen is 15 months old, the soundtrack sold more copies than albums by several well-known artists like Iggy Azalea last week alone. This extreme popularity may explain why it's still being discussed more than a year later.
     I personally think this is ridiculous. Just because a movie empowers women and the main villain is male does not make it degrading to men. There are three men in this film (four counting Olaf), and yes, two of them are villains. Newsflash: the villain in Avengers? Male. The villain in the Matrix? Male. How about the Hobbit movies? Male. Most villains are male. It's not new. None of the other films stated to be 'unfair to men' - the Hunger Games, Divergent- are offensive to men either. There are lots of good guys in these movies, but because they empower girls and the main villain is male, apparently they're degrading to men. Are you kidding me?

The Court Can't Stop Progress

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/26/the-supreme-court-meets-the-real-world/justices-put-great-weight-on-existing-property-interests

    In this article Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, explains that the Supreme Court doesn't like to go against "established practices" or take away rights that have already been given. For example, when the Court ruled on the constitutionality of a national federal bank, many people had already invested their money in that bank, meaning the Supreme Court was less likely to rule it unconstitutional. Since Obamacare has been upheld, judges are now reluctant to overturn it since people have planned their care around it and getting rid of it now would affect far more people. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Court will rule existing same-sex marriages invalid even if it rules same-sex marriage unconstitutional. However, Amar says regardless of the ruling, the spread of same-sex marriage is "irreversible" and will not stop.
      I agree that the Court should be careful about what laws, rulings, ect., they overturn. They should definitely consider how many people will be affected and whether it will be positive or negative. I don't think the Court should rule against same-sex marriage because that would seriously affect couples who were in the process of or planning on getting married. Every time a same-sex marriage ban is lifted, news reports show multiple couples getting married as soon as possible- and many of them are above the usual age of marriage and have been together for years. Same-sex couples wait for years just to be able to marry the person they love - it would be horrible if the Supreme Court set back all the progress that has been made for them.

The President goes on Youtube!

http://www.voanews.com/content/youtube-stars-to-interview-obama-glozell-mota-hank-green/2609416.html

     In this article, Matthew Hilburn discusses Obama's interviews with three Youtubers today. Obama was interviewed by Hank Green (John Green's nerdier brother), GloZell (the woman with green lipstick who swallowed a ladleful of cinnamon), and Bethany Mota (a makeup/fashion guru). Hank, whose main channel is 'vlogbrothers', asked him about drones and the United States' relationship with North Korea. GloZell, whose channel is 'GloZell Green', asked him about recent racial conflicts, particularly Ferguson, and same-sex marriage. Bethany, whose main channel is 'Bethany Mota', asked about education costs, cyberbullying, and how to get younger people interested in politics. Hank has 2.5 million subscribers on his main channel alone, GloZell has close to 3.5 million, and Bethany has more than 8 million.
     I think this isn't a bad idea. Nearly everyone watches Youtube, and most people tend to watch the same channels regularly. If Obama interviews with these three Youtubers, he'll have a combined audience of around 14 million people. I couldn't tell if the author approved of Youtubers or not- he seemed like one of the people who is shocked that you can actually make a successful career out of videos on Youtube. For example, all he had to say about the vlogbrothers' videos was that they "address a wide variety of topics, including how to apologize, flatulence and explaining international news topics.". But in general I think this is an interesting way for politicians to connect with younger generations and I wonder if more politicians will do this.