Thanks for lying, Ann

Ann Coulter claimed on her blog that:

Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1 applicants).

Olbermann's incessant lying about having an "Ivy League education" when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a "Yale man."

But wait...? Keith Olbermann did go to Cornell. It says he went to the "real" Cornell on his IMDB bio and he is mentioned in the Cornell University newspaper indicating that his peers considered him a Cornell student. Contrary to what she is trying to imply, Olbermann was actually a brilliant student--he graduated from Cornell at 20.

Cornell University itself lists the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences as part of the Cornell University and, thus the college is still in the Ivy League. As is common, there are several colleges within the greater university, which in this case all falls under the Cornell title. She should know this but intentionally misleads to prove her point.

Which is what? I don't get what defaming Olbermann does to improve her status. His school from over 30 years ago does not matter now. If he did go to a "lesser" school, that should not change how he is looked upon because how a person acts now not his school defines him. That she is willing to pull out this piece of history shows her conceitedness. She, also Cornell grad, wants to elevate herself above him, a "lesser Cornelian." Her ad hominem attacks do not prove she is better than Olbermann is--they show she is willing to throw scum and sink lower.

She is bending the truth and lying to suit her devices. She is a hypocrite, attempting to tout her morals and righteousness when instead she blatantly trample on her own values.

Shame on you, Ann. Shame on you.

Time for decriminalization?

Marijuana is only minimally bad for health: it is nonaddictive, has roughly the same amount of carcinogens as tobacco, leaves few lasting effects on brain function, and even has medicinal value. That it is used recreationally, only occasionally and in small doses makes it even safer. THC itself is a less potent drug than many other legal ones such as caffeine or alcohol, and as such it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana.

Marijuana has many medicinal uses, such as reducing nausea, helping people with glaucoma, and reducing muscle spasticity. Although it is possible to get THC in a pill form, it is less effective than just smoking marijuana. California has legalized medicinal marijuana, but its use is still done in secrecy because federal agents can still seize the marijuana.

By creating a blanket ban on seemingly arbitrarily-defined (see pic below) "bad" drugs, the War on Drugs alienates recreational users of marijuana who hurt nobody with their use and do little to keep drug bosses in power. By making marijuana use illegal, the War on Drugs creates an underground market for it that increases prices and fosters other illegal activities, as was the case during the Prohibition of the early 1900's. If marijuana use was legalized, the drug dealers would be replaced by legal shops that could distribute cheaper and safer fare. Since marijuana can be easily grown in the US, legalization would produce a new crop to farm akin to tobacco or tea. While now, some of the money spent funnels away to Mexico or Canada, from where it is smuggled into the States. If production were legalized, it would produce a new sector in agriculture that could provide jobs and income and keep money within the US.
In the Netherlands, marijuana is legalized and freely available to those of age. Unlike here in the US where drug use is shrouded in secrecy and rarely discussed, there is a culture of transparency and openness. More frank and realistic discussion of this over the complete ban posed by the War on Drugs would help to instill societal norms that would probably work to self-regulate marijuana usage. By this I mean that if marijuana use becomes typical, there is no hype associated with taking it; it would be just as uneventful drug-wise as drinking coffee.

As indicated by the election of a president who has admitted to his fondness for the drug and favors decriminalization and by the proposal of legalization to legalize marijuana in New Jersey, attitudes towards marijuana use are changing. Although there still a stigma associated to smoking marijuana, there is less of one than before. Part of this stems from increased knowledge about marijuana's potency. Now, although children are educated to not take drugs, peer-to-peer contact spreads information widely available on the Internet that marijuana is actually not as dangerous as it is made out to be and that it is not very addictive. Each successive generation becomes more friendly towards the cause of decriminalization and legalization.

Legalization and regulation would provide a taxable and regulated commodity that could be used to pull in money for government. According to Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of California, a tax of $50 per ounce could bring in around $1 billion. Legalization too would make medicinal marijuana more available to those who actually need it. This moral dilemma alone should be enough to warrant legalization: Why deny peace and comfort to those who are suffering just to keep a scientifically-proven generally safe drug out of the hands of people?

Bad Facebook

Not only was Facebook stolen by Zuckerberg from his former classmates, but it can now hold on to your information after you quit and if you're still in, it may sell your information.