A pretty "good" rant about a pretty "good" debate, I guess

Let's jump right in. Immediately after the debate, it seemed that the majority was saying that Clinton overpowered her opponent while Trump was somewhat weak and lacking. I disagree with this, to an extent. Like some of the other reporters were saying, I think Trump had a good opening. From the very first question about creating jobs, Trump had some strong points that overpowered Clintons. Something that really bothered me about Clinton's answer was when she talked about taxes. Particularly increasing the tax for the wealthy which will, in turn, pay for expenses of the lower classes like college debt. This, however, doesn't solve any problems, only creates more. Making the rich pay more to pay for the lower classes takes away a key element of why America is a great country. A country where you can work hard, and with your hard work you can become successful and be that wealthy class, feeling good about your accomplishments, but what Hillary wants to do only makes a generation of lazy people. For example, Why should students put any motivation into college, getting a job or career etc. when everything is already paid for them. People need to work hard for their accomplishments rather than it being paid for them when times get tough. As I said earlier, I think Trump had a strong debate, but to an extent. Shortly after the first half of the debate, maybe even less some say, he started to fall, and I think this is where Clinton's political experience really shined. Even some issues that she answered poorly, Trump didn't have anything of significance to exploit her either. When the issue of race came up, Clinton talked very heavily about the police, making little indications that it could be the people's fault, but just the police. I think Trump could have been daring and addressed that, but he didn't, instead he talked about something different which was, like many of his other answers, still weak and in some instances off topic. The fact is Hillary was calm and collected and knew how to answer each question, as well as bait her opponent, which was very successful. I think Trump really could have shined in this debate, but he was too caught up in defending himself against little remarks Clinton would make towards him. Occasionally he would rise back up, but only to fall down again to Clinton's superiority. Trump has the potential to be great, but this debate really showed who has more experience. Clinton was on the offense for the majority of the time while Trump was stuck under her foot, defending himself against her rather than building on his own opinions as well as exploiting "Secretary Clinton's." 

Harambe, Save Us

Harambe. Our lord and savior who was nothing but loving and kind to this world. Subjectively thinking that is, as some people don't think this, just as some people don't find the humor in this funny either. That is exactly what two RA's from the University of Massachusetts thought when Harambe memes started surfacing around their dormitory. But not only did they find them unfunny, they go so far as to say that these jokes "are not only derogatory but also micro-aggressions to some UMass students.''

           As it turns out, Harambe is actually the name of UMass's residential community for students of African heritage, and this is so concerning to these RA's that they say "any negative remarks regarding 'Harambe' will be seen as a direct attack to our campus's African American community." Anyone reading this can see just how ridiculous it is. These RA's need to look up the definition of "direct attack" if they think that jokes about a now famous gorilla will have any reference to a small campus community that almost nobody knows about.

 But it doesn't end there. What better way to follow that statement by saying that these phrases also infringe upon the infamous Title IX. This, of course, is in reference to the ever so popular hashtag #****soutforharambe. The RA's further explain by saying that phrases such as the one stated previously "encourage the exposition of body parts." Therefore it "runs the risk of being reported as a Title IX incident."

Let's take a pause here. These two people say that it "runs the risk" of violating Title IX. However, if you actually read Title IX it states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Sure, the hashtag may have a sexually vulgar word in it, but that's it. It is not specifically referring to anyone. It is just a neutral statement made to get some laughs, and it has definitely worked. Yet to go so far as to say that this phrase is potentially sexually assaulting and categorized as a racist micro-aggression is just ridiculous, and only adds to the confusion and controversy that is already behind Title IX.

If these two RA's find this such a problem, maybe they should try to begin a Kickstarter campaign to start funding cyber police, but to be honest, the only problem in all of this is the fact that someone thought telling the internet to stop something would do anything other than make the problem worse. One could argue that that alone is more outrageous than thinking an internet fad about a gorilla was something of concern. 

Our future generations

           For nearly 20 years, ISIS has been causing terror around the world and recently, they have been gaining more and more traction as we learn more about just how rigid their thinking is. Recently, news from USA Today tells us about "how the Islamic State turns children into terrorists." A jerking title, it continues by stating that "most terror groups find it difficult to rationalize or explain child recruitment." But not ISIS. In fact, they thrive on that notion and are seemingly proud of their achievements and possible future it may produce. However, these children obviously do not want to follow in ISIS's footsteps. Their teachings go against all normal human morals, and they know this.

There are four main steps to their recruitment process and, surprisingly enough, the first step involves a heavy sugar coating of their motives. They seduce these children by giving them toys, candy, games, even ice cream. Making them look like the good guys. Yet once this first step is complete, the true brainwashing begins. To desensitize them to violence as much as possible, they make these children watch and attend be-headings, eventually participating in them. But why is this necessary? Well, it's obvious, the only way to make anyone think for a second that what ISIS is doing is good is to completely get rid of their moral conscience on what is good and bad and to rewire it to think that the murdering of innocent people is something to be praised. They know that the only way to gain followers is to make them go against their natural conscience, and what better way than to start with children. While their minds are still developing, they are easy targets to brainwash into senseless humans.

After the children have been riled up with pointless toys and candy, they are thrown into harsh military training. Survivors have described this as "sleeping on flea-ridden mattresses, being beaten with sticks, and live fire training." However, the children don't question this. At this point, they have already accepted this new reality and are even said to "graduate with a deep camaraderie with fellow troops."

Let's remember that these are children. Most will view them with sorrowful eyes, but that soon changes once you find out they are responsible for a terrorist bombing. But not forced against their will, actually believing that what they are doing is right, and this is exactly what ISIS takes pride in. This shows just how much, or rather how little, the Islamic State values not only the lives of others but also the lives of their own people, their own children.