Opinion: Different sides are vital and important to democracy.

Source: Conflict Research Group, Intl.

I've failed to realize until recently how absolutely disgusted people are with views that are different than theirs. Especially at my school -- where the progressive agenda is the most popular view -- people are literally mortified at the thought of someone having a different set of views than someone else.

Here's the thing. In a democracy, differing views are vital and the lifeblood. Without differing views, you have the epitome of group think, you have totalitarianism and a bunch of robots who can't think for themselves. You need differing viewpoints. You need people who think in different ways to bring things to the table.

I am sick and tired of hearing this mindset of, "if you think this, don't talk to me." I'm sorry, but who made your viewpoint the king of America? I understand saying that when someone condones murder or another clearly wrong thing like white supremacy, but when someone is in favor of same-sex marriage and you're not, you have no right to act like your view is the only view that should be heard and accepted.

What is democracy if not for sitting down with someone and exploring opposing points? What is democracy if not for having the ability to have free thoughts and emotions without government regulation? What is democracy if not for the ability to speak your mind, even if it's a minority opinion?

Minority opinions have made history people. Larry Flynt was a porn peddler, and he became a huge champion for the First Amendment. Lenny Bruce was a raunchy comic, yet he set the precedent for being able to use obscene gestures and language in comedy. Norma McCorvey became the pioneer for the woman's right to choose, even though she became pro-life herself later in life.

All of these people had staunch opposition against them, yet they took their minority opinion and made change happen. That's powerful. That's what democracy is all about.

Our society is becoming so increasingly progressive that the thought of anyone having even moderate views is totally unfathomable. Why is that? Why are people so afraid of the other side? It's all sides. I don't understand why everyone acts like the other side is poison. They are people. They have opinions. They won't bite you unless you bite them.

This country will absolutely go down the drain if people do not start crossing aisles and start listening to one another. Do me a favor; toss out your condescending and belittling language that you love to use when someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Stop being passive aggressive and actually listen to people. Stop using slurs and derogatory language about the other side and perpetuating that we cannot bridge this divide. We can bridge the divide. It's those who use these tactics that are throwing our country back, not those with the views differing from our own.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor Visited UAlbany

On the evening of April 4th, 2017, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the speaker at the UAlbany Speaker Series. I was beyond excited to attend after reading her book, My Beloved World, the past summer. I have been fascinated by her early career, before becoming a Justice, as that was such a formative time. Her strength is incredible, which was even more evident last night.

Justice Sotomayor has continuously suffered from Type 1 Diabetes since she was a young child. She stated that her diagnosis and prognosis for a short life, as medicine was not as advanced when she was diagnosed as it is today, made her live every day to its fullest. It motivated her to take risks and push her limits to see what she could achieve. Personally, I beyond grateful that it did because she is an amazing role model because of it. Also, she is hilarious. She had all of laughing at her quips.

Not once, did she discuss her opinions on the election, even though many of us can imagine based on what she values most. She did speak often about her trials and tribulations as a woman in a male-dominated work-place; from being called "honey" to being asked to get coffee while being the only woman in an important meeting with other lawyers and judges. At this point, she reminded all of us women to demand the respect that we deserve and to not be discouraged, but to remember that we still have a long way to go before we will be considered equal to men. But it will happen.

I wish that she was able to talk more about her early career, but the interviewer shied away from those questions. But she did speak about her ever present love, the New York Yankees. Nevertheless, she was awe-inspiring.

My Side: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life

On such a controversial issue, that usually encompasses two opinions, mine is a bit more complicated than the typical "yes" or "no." If I were forced to identify as either pro-choice or pro-life, I would have to choose pro-choice, but don't let that deter you from reading this because you stand on the opposite side, or don't start pumping your fist in camaraderie because you think that you agree with me either; it is much more complicated than you think.

Now, here is what I mean by complicated: I personally, would never have an abortion. My parents were 17 and 19 when I was born. My father didn't even think that I was his until he had me DNA tested when I was 2 years old, but he raised me. My mother wasn't ready but she raised me. My mother worked her ass off as a mom by day and bartender or waitress by night. My dad worked his ass off at three different jobs and a dad at all hours of the night, often not even sleeping before he had to be to work again. I could never justify myself having an abortion after all that my parents have done for me. I don't even know if I could justify myself participating in giving a child up for adoption. Hopefully, I never have to make that choice. Now, even though I would never have an abortion, doesn't mean that I am pro-life.

If my best friend were to call me saying that she was pregnant and needed to get an abortion, I would inform her of her other options first of all. I would. I would want to know that she knew that she had other choices. If she were to ultimately choose to have an abortion, I would take her. I would sit in the waiting room. I would go home with her and watch all the rom-coms with terrible acting and cinematography and eat lots of ice-cream afterward. I would make sure that she knew that I was there for her no matter what.

Also, if someone has a medical situation that is either going to cause the pregnancy to kill them or the fetus anyway, then yes, I would want them to have that choice. I would want them to feel that they didn't have to spend their entire pregnancy fearing for their lives or waiting for their fetus to ultimately die, be stillborn, or live a horrendous and painful life. I would support them also.

Now, onto the real controversy... Planned Parenthood.

For me, this is the most important part. Planned Parenthood provides abortions. Planned Parenthood obtains federal funding. That federal funding is not used on abortions! If you don't believe me, there is a ton of evidence to show you that I am right on this. Also, Planned Parenthood does so much more than provide abortions. Abortions are only 1% of their services. Planned Parenthood provides vital health services for both men and women. They provide STD testing, pap smears, mammograms, and so much more as little to no cost! They give birth control and condoms to those who can't afford it because they don't have insurance that covers it, in order for them to prevent pregnancy so that they don't have to have an abortion. BECAUSE NO ONE WAKES UP ONE DAY AND SAYS "LET'S GET PREGNANT SO THAT I CAN HAVE AN ABORTION, JUST TO SEE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE!!!!" But, people do wake up and say "I better go get some condoms" or "I better remember to take my birth control."

Now, if you are pro-life, that is absolutely your choice, but don't make people who are pro-choice feel like bad people, and vice versa. Also, if you are pro-life, support Planned Parenthood because they do 99% more than just abortions. They save lives! And one day, they may save yours!

Rest In Peace: Judge Shiela Abdus-Salaam

The first Muslim and first African American woman to be a judge in the New York Court of Appeals was found dead, floating in the Hudson River Wednesday, April 12th, 2017, after being reported missing, mere hours before. Police say that there was no foul play and investigation shows that it was seemingly a suicide, but the investigation will continue for certainty and clarity. Governor Cuomo said that she was an incredible judge with "an unshakeable moral compass."

Rest in Peace.

Opinion: Sean Spicer needs to step down.

Source: NBC News

Our wonderful press secretary has one again made a major flub.

Perhaps you remember Spicer's recent brush with reporter April Ryan, when he told her to stop shaking her head at answers and that she was writing stories solely to fit her agenda. On the first days of the new job, Spicer and company consistently pushed the narrative that Trump's crowd size was larger than Obama's, and used a picture to prove it. Truth is, I think the Trump cabinet were the only people who genuinely cared about the crowd size. The press kept reporting because they kept digging the hole. Or we can talk about the repeated pushing of an unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the 2016 campaign. No evidence has been presented, yet Spicer continues to push the narrative of the president and dismisses any concerns reporters have.

Today, Spicer was talking about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who recently attracted worldwide attention when he gassed his own people, causing over 1,000 deaths and even more injuries. This chemical attack caused the retaliation of President Trump, who decided to fire 59 missiles at a Syrian air force base where the chemical weapons allegedly came from.
Spicer said today, in trying to prove a point about Assad's brutality, that even someone as evil as Hitler did not gas his own people. He then said that he knew that Jews and other prisoners were transported to "Holocaust centers" where they were killed.

Utterly false and fictitious, Sean. Everything that you just said is complete garbage.

First off, Sean, those are not "Holocaust centers." Those are concentration camps. Say it with me Sean, concentration camps. Those camps aided in the systematic extermination of over 11 million innocent people during their time.

Second, have you ever heard of a gas chamber, Sean? A gas chamber is a chemical weapon. Gas was filtered into these airtight chambers via trucks and pellets and slowly suffocated the people inside of it. Yes, chemical weaponry was used. Gas chambers were one of the biggest killers in the camps because they could kill large groups of prisoners at once. Big camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau literally exterminated hundreds of thousands of people via gas chamber alone. When you use Zyklon-B gas to kill someone, it's using chemical weaponry. Mass murder via chemical weaponry.

Third, Hitler did kill his own people. In Hitler's quest for an Aryan race, nobody was spared that did not fit the mold he was looking for. German Jews, who were citizens of Germany up until Hitler revoked their citizenship, were murdered in these camps. So were Austrian Jews, who came from Hitler's homeland. Hitler showed no mercy to his own people. His own people voted him in, and then many of the same people who voted him in were sent to camps because they didn't fit the mold. Hitler was chancellor, and then fuhrer of Germany. Revoked citizenship or not, those were his people. When he took over countries like Poland and Denmark, those people became his people too. He murdered them.

Let's talk about the timing of this statement. We are in the midst of Passover, one of the biggest Jewish holidays of the year. We have Holocaust survivors that are still alive. We have family members of Holocaust survivors that are still alive. How could you be so dumb as to minimize the suffering of their people, especially during a holiday where it's time for them to celebrate their faith, so callously? It's an insult to the Jewish faith to act like Assad's crimes are worse than Hitler's.

There is no comparing the two because both are evil, brutal subhumans who take pleasure in the murder and torture of their own people and others.

It's time for Sean Spicer to step down as press secretary. The man repeatedly peddles fiction after fiction as fact. He tries to set policy in the briefing room for how reporters should be treating the president. He fights, argues, belittles, and disregards everything the press does.

The press is important in this democracy. Even though Trump won the electoral vote, 52 percent of the population voted for Clinton. Trump's approval ratings are dipping dangerously low for only being in office 82 days. The press' job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Do we baby the 52 percent of the population who did not vote for Trump? Absolutely not. But, we do listen to what that 52 percent has to say, just as we listen to those who did vote for Trump.

Spicer is a miserable failure. If he stepped down, the administration might actually have some room to work without having to wrangle in this man's countless errors. We already have a president that barely has a filter. This guy isn't helping the cause.

Opinion: It's not discriminatory to have preferences.

Source: cowgernation.com

Lately, I've been watching a lot of politically based YouTube videos. In my voyage across YouTube, I came across a channel manned by a transgender woman named Riley Dennis.

One of Riley's videos really stuck out to me. It was called, "Your dating "preferences" are discriminatory." In this video, Dennis goes on a rant about how if you wouldn't date someone purely because of the fact that they have genitalia you wouldn't find appealing, or they are trans, or any other factor, it's discrimination.

Being the loudmouth that I am, I wanted to expand how absolutely ridiculous I find these statements.

First off, let me preface this by saying I am a straight, cis woman. I know I have privilege. But, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have preferences.

When I am looking for someone to date, I want men. There is no situation, ever, where I would date a woman. I am not attracted to a vagina. I am not attracted to women. Dennis says that by only dating someone based on their genitalia, you are reducing them to their genitalia. So, Riley, you mean to tell me that because you are a lesbian, you are only reducing women to their genitalia? To their vaginas? Although the population of bisexual and pansexual people is increasing in the world, many still exclusively date one gender. That is not discriminatory. That is just preferences. That is life.

Second, many people do not date transgender people simply because the trans population tends to stick to itself? Even so, I want to have children someday. A trans person could not give me a child. Hormones and the steps that trans people go through to achieve their transformation often sterilize the person, hence why children are often not allowed to transition until they reach adulthood and can understand the impact of the choice they are making. It's not discriminatory to want a partner that can someday give me a baby. If someone is okay with going through a third party service to have a child, that's fine. I personally think adoption and other alternative methods are beautiful, but at this point in my life, I want to have a child with my future husband. Again, not discriminatory. It's a wish.

Dennis ends the video by saying that she's not here to tell people that they need to like everyone. No, she's not, but essentially what the video is doing is telling you that if you aren't attracted to every single person under the sun, you're bigoted and participating in discrimination.

If someone is willing to date both genders, or is willing to date a trans person, or is willing to date a frog for all I care, that's fine. Quite frankly, what people do is none of my business. But, what grinds my gears is when SJWs like Dennis claim to be open to everyone, yet they basically talk down to you if you do not share their exact same mindset. No matter what dictionary definitions you throw at me, or what scientific studies you cite, it doesn't change the fact that humans are BIOLOGICALLY wired to have preferences that they find attractive in another human being.

Save your soapbox and your inherent biases for someone else, Riley.

Opinion: Rachel Dolezal, you actually need help.

Source: vibe.com

We are all familiar with her; Rachel Dolezal, the Spokane, WA woman who was a head NAACP figure before she was outed as a white woman who has been passing as a black woman her entire adult life by utilizing spray tans, weaves, and ethnic clothing.

After her humiliating outing by none other than her white parents, Dolezal faded into obscurity. Now, she's back in the spotlight. She's claiming she's broke; a month away from homelessness, on food stamps, and cannot get a job due to her controversial name. She is releasing a book, "In Full Color," detailing her life as a black woman soon. She's even changed her name to reflect her inner self: Nkechi Amare Diallo.

Now, I sympathize with anyone who is running on financial hardships. My family has been through those murky waters many times. However, Dolezal's situation is entirely on her.

Dolezal's entire identity was based on her assumed skin color. Dolezal was born white as snow and used skin darkening techniques like spray tans to appear like a light skinned black woman. She accepted scholarships, took positions, and became a powerful executive at the head of an organization that is literally for the advancement of black people.

If Dolezal had done all this while disclosing that she was a white woman, it wouldn't have been a big deal. She would have been seen as an ally, and she could have been extremely instrumental in forging the bridge between blacks and whites for the NAACP. But, she chose another way. She chose to assume the identity and the skin color of a black person, which is called blackface, and rallied that way. And it worked, except when it all came crashing down and she was exposed as a fraud.

I see so many people on Facebook saying that this woman is no different than someone who identifies as transgender. A transgender person chooses to identify as a different gender and we don't ostracize them, so why are we ostracizing Rachel Dolezal for identifying as a black woman?

The difference is transgender people do not deny that they were born the opposite gender. I have never met a trans person who says, "I was born a female. I've always been a female. I did not have the surgery, I did not take the hormones." Or vice versa if they are female to male. Transgender people also do not capitalize on their situation (for the most part) like Dolezal does and then deny it ever happened.

Dolezal outright refused to admit she was once a white woman. Dolezal is a white woman. Now she admits it, but the damage is too drastic. Both liberals and conservatives alike are DISGUSTED with how this woman chooses to blatantly disregard how others keep trying to tell her that what she is doing is not okay.

Is it cultural and racial appropriation? Probably. Quite honestly, I'm not well versed on those topics. I could not give you a definitive answer. Based on what I've seen, though, I'd say yes. Rachel Dolezal epitomizes what is wrong with American culture in the sense that she takes what she wants and refuses to understand why it is wrong.

I'm all for living the life you want to live as long as that life does not infringe on the rights of others.

The point is, though, that Rachel Dolezal is penning a memoir that is not rightfully hers. She is penning a narrative that she doesn't fully understand the implications of. She is committing actions that she doesn't understand the consequences of.

She needs help. She needs to speak with professionals. Not because she wants to be something that she isn't, but because she refuses to see that she wants to be something that she isn't.

Opinion Piece: My Thoughts On The Women's March

On January 21st, 2017, all across the world, people marched together in solidarity, against newly inaugurated United States President Donald J. Trump, for women's rights, in support of Planned Parenthood, against racism and homophobia, in support of immigrants, and most importantly against bigotry and tyranny of all kinds. The main march was in Washington, D.C., USA but there were many sister marches all around the world, from New York City to Los Angeles, to Sydney Australia, coast to coast, and across the pond. In total, on Janurary 21st, 2017, around the world, there were 673 marches.

In my opinion, what started as a march to show solidarity amongst women, against Trump's presidency and against any policies that he may put in place that would infringe on women's rights, turned into a movement. A movement against Trump's presidency, but for a myriad of other reason, as well: to protect women's rights, to save Planned Parenthood, in support of Gay Marriage, in support of transgender peoples, in support of our African-American and Muslim brothers and sisters, against building a wall, to protect immigrants,to protect our climate, and the list goes on. Everyone that marched had one reason or another for being there; their reason may have been different than the person marching alongside them, but they stood together because together we are stronger.

The Women's March in D.C., a day after the inauguration, had 3 times as many people as Trump's inauguration, the smallest inauguration in history.

  

Trump Inauguration

Women's March

Now, I can not give you a more eloquent reason behind this movement than American Ferrera did in her speech at the march in D.C.

  

Nor, can I give a better female representation than Ashley Judd.

And Bernie Sanders brought down Trump in the best and most fervent and valid way possible.

Here are some of my favorite signs from the marches.

Using Old Photos For Propaganda Purposes

The other day, I was browsing Facebook and I was seeing a lot of commentary about the recent inauguration of President Trump. I came across this meme:

My friend who shared this, who also happens to be an awesome journalist, shared it with a message about how violent protesting is counterproductive to a cause. What she didn’t realize is that this picture is actually a picture that was from the 2014 Michael Brown protests in Ferguson:

The dialogue that ensued in her comments touched on a lot of points. For one, the picture was being used as propaganda to make it look like there was more violent protesting than there actually was. As of that night, over 200 people were arrested for violent protesting and law breaking, a small fraction of the number of people who showed up to protest. As far as we know, these people were not there.

Second, this picture supposedly enforces racial stereotypes because the subjects of the picture are black. This picture gives no context to these people. Who are they? Were they breaking laws? Is this their car? What were they doing prior to this picture, after, during? We have absolutely no information on these people just by viewing this image. Is the smoke from them? I don’t know, and chances are, neither do you. If it is their car, they can mark it up all they want. I’m not saying that this picture is not enforcing negative racial stereotypes, but how do we know for sure that these people were in fact breaking the law? We don’t. So by saying that this enforces them, you are enforcing them. If you assume it, you are.

Third, if you want to share memes like this that promote your political agenda, that is fine. America is a free country, even still with President Trump in office, despite what many think. However, do your research before you share something like this because it’s spreading false information. Trump loves to slam the use of ‘fake news’ unless it goes against his agenda. He loves to twist different statements so that it fits what he thinks is correct. If you do that too, it’s fine, however you then can’t turn around and cry out about ‘fake news’ because you partake in it as well. This is fake news. This is propaganda used to make the protesting look much worse than it was. This is also a great way to spread misinformation.

Part of journalism is giving news – raw, unfiltered news. This is contorted to fit an agenda. This is propaganda at its best. I get the point that the author is trying to go at, however using a picture of an actual Trump protestor rather than a picture from a Black Lives Matter protest kind of defeated any point that was trying to be made here.

Think. Use media literacy. Do your research.

Opinion Piece: Let's Discuss President Trump's Executive Orders Thus Far

Thus far, President Trump has signed executive orders to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reinstate the "Global Gag Rule" nationally, and imposed a hiring freeze on non-military workers, an order which allows further construction on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, and now it is said that within the next few days he will be signing an executive order to impose restrictions on immigration and visas. He is literally trying to upset every person on this planet within his first 100 days of office. 

Let's start from the beginning. He is no longer allowing the U.S. to participate in a pact that's entire point was to "counterbalance China's growing economic clout in east Asia.". This executive order has the potential to ruin the U.S's foreign relationships in East Asia, but I do see his point. He is trying to thwart the amount of jobs leaving the U.S. I know that, in this case, he has good intentions, but I don't believe that they are going to pan out the way he wants them to and the way his supporters expect them to either.

For his second executive order, he reinstated a law from Mexico City during President Reagan's administration, nationally, known as the Global Gag Rule. This has the potential to destroy women's reproductive health. This law "freezes funding to nongovernmental organizations in poor countries if they offer abortion counseling or if they advocate the right to seek abortion in their countries," even if the funding for these services comes from other sources. This order has sparked more fear that women will once again have to search out unsafe methods of abortion. As Roxanne Gay said in her book, Bad Feminist: Essays, "women have been forced underground for contraception and pregnancy termination before, and we will go underground again if we have to. We will risk our lives if these politicians, who so flagrantly demean women, force us to do so." I truly understand this fear. Although I could never go through with an abortion myself, it is the woman's choice, and when a woman is determined, there is no stopping her. So the Women's Marches must continue!

His third order is a hiring ban of non-military workers in the government. From what I understand, he is not allowing any part of the federal government to hire anyone new at this point in time. It is his way of "draining the swamp," of corruption. 

Most recently, he signed an executive order, allowing further movement on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, which was recently just stopped by President Barack Obama, before he left office. This is what happens when you have a President that is an avid denier of scientifically proven Climate Change! He plans to ignore environmental protection regulations. He is going to allow the drinking water of Americans on the nearby Suoix Native American tribe to be ruined. He is validating this  by saying that it will bring more jobs to Americans. Yeah, maybe, but it could potentially kill others. So, the protests commence!

Now, it is being said that Trump will be signing another executive order, this one will impose restrictions on immigration and people already with visas from countries such as, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya. I understand he wants to thwart terrorism, but not all Muslims are extremists, actually the majority of Muslims are not; also, the majority of Muslims trying to immigrate here for asylum are not extremists. This reminds me too much of how the U.S. turned away thousands of Jews durring the Holocaust, thousands of people that we could have saved, but didn't. It is the same thing. Histoy is repeating itself. 

Actions you can take if you are participating in #NotMyPresident

Image source: progressiverags.com

If you are like 52 percent of the population, you did not vote for Donald Trump. With his inauguration coming up in just three short days, people are more on edge than ever about what he could bring to the table in this new administration. So, instead of going on a rant about how it's ridiculous to participate in a movement where you say the new president isn't your president (like many Americans), I want to extend some resources to you all who actually want to make change. Here is what you can do to help feel more secure in the Trump administration.


1. Write to him!
The beauty of democracy is being able to voice your opinion without fearing political retribution or for your life. If you disagree with something that Trump does, write to him at the White House and tell him your thoughts! Just be sure to be specific about what it is that you are writing about. And don't send hate mail, that's just not cool. Rise above it and talk about legitimate concerns. Your voice matters, even if you don't feel like it does. To get in contact with the White House, click here.

2. Contact your local representatives.
Even if your local representative is partisan to Trump, contacting them can do a world of good. Many Republicans are actually at odds with a lot of Trump's policies. Contact them and tell them what policies concern you and ask how you can help bring forth policies that can change your community. Your local representative is your mouthpiece to Washington, and by contacting them, you can create change. To find your local representative, click here.

3. Join an advocacy/interest group.
Part of the beauty of American politics is that we can form interest groups to facilitate change. If you want change, you need the resources to bring it about. By joining an advocacy group that pertains to the matter that you are trying to change, you will have people behind you who can help bring about the change that you are looking for. Plus, government figures are more likely to listen to groups with some power behind them than they are an individual. There is strength in numbers, use that to your advantage.

4. Form a peaceful protest.
Now when I say peaceful, I mean peaceful. Not blocking traffic, breaking cars, or looting neighborhoods. Peacefully protesting can create media attention, and the strength in numbers philosophy once again will help. As more people become aware and join you, more will talk about you, and political figures might join or help you get in contact with the people who might be able to help you. Protests are a beautiful thing. Petitions are also a viable way to create change if you don't want to form a physical protest. Once a petition hits 100k signatures, the White House is legally obligated to address it.


Next time you are feeling disheartened by the administration, use tools like these to bring change. Yelling at your friends and alienating your family isn't helping. Use the avenues provided to you to show people that you want change that is beneficial.

Opinion: Do we really care if Trump likes golden showers?

Image source: slate.com

BuzzFeed, a controversial media source known for its celebrity and gossip news, has published a dossier about President-elect Donald Trump. In this dossier, sources claim that Trump exhibited disgusting behavior while in Russia, and talks about how he has deep ties to the communist country. None of the information in the report has been verified at this point.

If you want to read the actual dossier, please click here.

One of the claims is about how Trump hired prostitutes to visit a hotel room where Obama stayed in and pee in the bed. Now, whispers about trump's sex life has come out, suggesting that he likes 'golden showers' and he slept with the prostitutes while in Russia. This revelation has inspired the hashtag #PEEOTUS, and the disgusting #pisschallenge, where people dump buckets of urine onto themselves.

First off, let's talk about the merit of BuzzFeed and websites like it. BuzzFeed is a glorified gossip magazine. You see political news, but right next to it you'll find articles about how Selena Gomez shared a topless photo or how a Kardashian is suspected to have had cosmetic work done. Why are people believing anything political from a glorified gossip source? Why would a former intelligence officer (the main source of the story) give such critical, groundbreaking information to a place like BuzzFeed when, if they really wanted to make their bones, they could give it to 'reliable' mainstream media sources like CNN, MSNBC or ABC? Even if they gave it to FOX, this would have more merit than it coming from BuzzFeed.

Second of all, Trump's ties to Russia are of concern. But none of that has yet to be substantiated. Why does the American public care so much about Trump's sexual fetishes and/or sex life? None of this was done while in the Oval Office, and while the behavior in this dossier is disgusting, why do we care if Trump likes to be peed on during sex? That really isn't relevant to the question of this man being able to perform the job at hand well. If it was, sexual fetishes would be a topic discussed when applying for a job. It's not relevant. He could like hanging from the ceiling by electrical cords for all I care, that's his personal life. I don't care. Do the job at hand, do it well, and nobody will worry about it.

I'm not a Trump apologist. As a journalist, I do my job to call a spade a spade when things aren't right, regardless of political affiliation. Trump's ties to Russia, if any, are a concern in the political spectrum, as it would be for any other candidate. What he does in his spare time? Not so much.

CNN and other mainstream media sources who have given this dossier as much time as they have are not even questioning the validity of the source itself. BuzzFeed is terrible, and since the original source looks to be anonymous, how do we know that the source doesn't have an axe to grind? If they did, how do we know that the reporters at BuzzFeed didn't also have that axe? Again, BuzzFeed is known to be an extremely left-leaning magazine. Who's to say that the reporters on the case fully vetted this source, especially since they made the really questionable decision of publishing this information without attempts to verify it further? Would they publish an equally damaging (and unverified) account about a Democrat if they won? I highly doubt it, but again, that's just me. In my opinion, they'd probably go further to verify the information before they released it.

Do yourself a favor. Before you start getting angry, question your sources of information. Do a search to see how this information was obtained. Don't blindly believe everything you read, hear or see.

Opinion: Oh no, we're probably going to war soon.

Source: wallpoper.com

I'm watching the news just now when I see that a U.S. Navy destroyer has fired warning shots at Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. This is just another example of rising tensions between the West and East.

I long ago resigned to the fact that the Middle East will forever have instability due to the land disputes and corrupt governments that reside over there. More than 2 million people have fled the Syrian crisis alone, not counting the other countries which are currently under siege by ISIS or other forces that are traumatizing citizens.

Now, we have Iran. Iran is one of the more powerful Middle Eastern countries because they do have nuclear weapons, and we know it. Heck, we facilitated a deal with them to make sure their nukes complied with certain sanctions. It's no secret that the Iranian government is not big on the United States, and whether they should be or not, it's a fact that agitating them is not something we should be doing.

I did not hear why shots were fired. Were the Iranians being non-compliant to demands made by the United States? Were they breaking a law? Did they threaten to fire shots at us, and we retaliated to prevent it? I'm not 100 percent sure.

I'm not necessarily saying that the U.S. was wrong. Chances are, they were in the right if we are talking about the ships getting too close. I don't condemn the Americans for asserting their dominance. I just worry that things are getting worse, and this isn't going to go backwards.

With President-elect Trump's willingness to go to these places militarily, I've been saying it's only a matter of time before we go to war once we get through the inauguration. I'm hoping this does not speed up the war, nor put us in a conflict with Iran because that would truly be the end of the world. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones because civilization will annihilate itself in the fight that World War III would give.