Nihil est verum

Here we are after eight years under President Obama getting ready to make a decision between bad and worse. I'm of course referring to our current predicament between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Let's break them down one at a time. Hillary Clinton: Pros:  Has the backing of several former Presidents something Trump lacks. Experience Incorporated good ideas of past opponents into her platform something Trump refuses to do. Rumors around Trump's campaign suggest Clinton's VP will be less powerful (which is a Pro considering VPs don't have to win primaries). Cons: Clinton's emails proved to the FBI that Clinton's negligence with her private server would constitute treason comparable to Edward Snowden, but the FBI mysteriously didn't suggest criminal charges. Clinton resided as the Secretary of State during the Benghazi crisis and seemed powerless or incompetent. Clinton's views on many different issues has flip-flopped over the yea

Have you ever gotten a job through another person? Think back to that experience and compare it to an experience in which you were not referred by another person. Ask your self a couple questions. Did you get the job in both situations? In which situation was the interview process easier? In which situation did you feel more comfortable? Which job was better?  While you mull those questions over. Let me discuss my employment experiences with you. My first job was at a Pizza Hut, no friend recommended me to the job, the store just desperately needed delivery drivers [delivery driving has a low retention rate as I'm sure you can imagine]. The delivery driving job paid minimum wage unless you were out on delivery on which it paid half minimum wage [plus tips] and was part-time work.  My second job was as a Peer Tutor at Gordon [State] College. I got the job, because I failed my English 1101 class. The class was at 7:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and I was tired from

      I jammed! I jammed on him just when he needed me most! One of those people he called "gook" ran up to him with grenades strapped to him with grenades strapped to its' chest and just as he tried to fire me, I jammed! Finally! I can rid myself of this disgusting man, who held me with his diseased hands, who used me for vile, despicable acts! This creature of infinite corruption, this deluded youth who lost itself in war, this-- man. I remember when he first used me to kill, it was a human child, although, he called the child "gook abomination".     The boy, possessing only a shirt and a makeshift diaper of sorts, looked at my owner and asked "Me toi?" or in English "Where's my mommy?". Unaware its' mother was raped and killed by the other men in my owner's squad. The boy repeated this line, and my owner knowing these words from villages past, tells the boy "Shut the hell up you dirty gook!". The eyes of this &quo

In an evolution's theory on creation man evolved from other species which evolved from other species and so on and so forth... From a scientific view on creation life started in oceans and expanded to land, so lets go back billions of years to just before lifeforms were about to expand to land. Now lets assume there is an Anthropologist in this prehistoric time period who records various cultures creation myths.... he/she is on land and looks for any life on land but fails to find it, but sees what he/she perceives to be a blob in the water so he/she swims to this blob to see if the blob can convey it's cultures creation myth. The anthropologist begins to question this creature the first question being what their cultures creation myth is and the blob says there is no such creation myth, what he knows as creation is fact, the anthropologist says oh yes of course please tell me about it. The blob tells the anthropologist of the colliding planets and the development of single cel

I think America is. While perhaps an individual might feel their religion is being "spat upon" by the idea, that individual must remember their beliefs do not reflect every persons. What if someone's religion said that only gay people should be married while straight people must settle for civil unions? Society certainly would not allow that religion some/any sway with established law, but when gay marriage comes up Christianity seems to have this sway. While Christianity is a completely valid belief system which I respect immensely (and am often envious of due to the spiritual fulfillment practicing Christians seem to enjoy), the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion and the establishment clause says the government can not make a law aiding the establishment (or the disestablishment) of any religion, which would include establishing a law against homosexuals. I understand the counterargument to this, "church's should not be forced to marry

             Let's start off with something that has slipped away as completely accepted in this day and age due to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on it just to show the colossal impact on society such decisions make.  Brown V. Board of Education (1954)~ Segregation of races in schools is inherently unequal and in violation of equal protection clause of the 14th amendment . Can any of my fellow Americans even imagine what this day and age would be like without this court case? When just 58 years before Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)  had said segregation is allowed when accommodations were separate as well as equal. White, let's call them supremacists, found a way around this "accommodations must be equal" clause of the ruling, by passing off second-hand textbooks and teachers with lower pass rates on to schools specifically geared toward teaching Black Americans.                Now, how about something a little more controversial, abortion. In Roe V. Wade   (1973)