The question was rhetorical, the answer is horrible: our morals are out of place and got our lives full of sorrow

Ignorance is bliss.
Or so they say...?
I think if anyone is ignorant in this day and age, they have no one to blame but themselves. These people should not be allowed to have an opinion slash speak, or at least have very limited access to the public and/or influencing other less informed people's thoughts. I understand, by definition (lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact; uninformed; unaware), WE ALL fall within the "ignorant" category at some point. BUT I believe I genuinely make an effort to only speak passionately about things I know, and keep the rest of my gibberish to myself or my very close friends. I try to stick to factual statements, not opinions of possibly correct ideas. A lot of the speaker's I have had the opportunity to hear from in the past two months have held high-ranking positions at prestigious newspaper/news organizations/polling agencies/etcetera. People ranging from Hillary Clinton's primary speechwriter (SO COOL) to Juan Williams (equally SO COOL). Each person has touched on today's 24/7 media, the rush and urgency placed on "breaking news"... Basically, our news cycle is detrimental to the quality of reports we, the American public, receive.
Read: mainstream media is bullsh*t.
The reliance our generation has on blogs as a main newsource is ridiculous. Yes, they are good for commentary. I fully support the search for information and self-exploration via others views, but these political blogs are being viewed as the end-all, be-all, infallible source. FALSE. Completely false. Until these bloggers support their claims with at least two credible sources, they should be ignored in the "news" genre. Jesus, even some newspapers these days only cite one source (USA Today, for example). This alone is a huge problem. But the bigger problem, in my eyes, is my generation’s faith in blogs. And the Colbert report. And entertaining news. HUGE PROBLEM.
...
I have some close friends that will be voting for the first time EVER come November 4th. Not only is it their first time they have the opportunity to use their god-given right as an American citizen to vote, but they have the potential to get the "change" they desire through a new president. Maybe I've lost my naive view of politics, or been exposed to too much policy and "insider" information (especially since being in DC), but these friends think they will be making a difference. Now, don't get me wrong. Voting is important. I think every person that doesn't vote should not be allowed to open their mouth regarding anything political in the next four years, but once someone is elected, it will take a significant amount of time for anything to happen, for any "change" to occur. I think many expect immediate change in policy and the economy and taxes and everything. But that just is not how it works. At. All.
The friends that will be voting for the first time are informed on the issues, or so they say/attempt to be. But only so much information can be fit in between classes and "totally raging man, yeahhhh". Which I understand. We're young. Fun should be had by all. But again with the ignorance-is-bliss theory, I question their sincerity. Do they understand the huge feats that will have to be accomplished within Congress and the Senate before this "Candidate for Change" will be able to actually implement this change he speaks of/promises? Maybe we allllll need a run through of School House Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law"...?

Hint: Congress people and Senators are who really matter. Lobby them! Tell them what you want their priorities to be! You are their constituent. They have to report directly to you. The President has to answer to ALL of America, who hold him less accountable because of this fact. Did you know that Congress currently has a 13% approval rating?? And how many of those Congress people will be back in their seats in January...? You'd be wildly surprised.
My ultimate questions are:
1. Will the youth actually vote?
2. Will the African American/Black (which is PC these days??) population vote??
We shall see......


Time to step off soap-box in the political realm. (I'm one of those damn bloggers with the opinions with no citations that I hate, AH!)
One more thing that absolutely infuriated me today - I was searching for newspaper articles for my internship (daily duty when I'm there; I find it very informative, useful and therapeutic) and found an article about addiction. The drug of addiction in this case was heroin. The author is the mother of this addicted person:
Blahblahblahblah talking about addiction and how it's embarrassing for her... "Experts describe addiction as a chronic, relapsing disease, 'like someone with diabetes that ends up with out-of-control blood sugar that may have been self-inflicted from not following his diet,' in the words of Wilson Compton, director of the division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse." EXCUSE ME MR. COMPTON, but unless you were referring to type 2 diabetics (which you did not clarify because you are too ignorant (yes, I went there) to know any better, no diabetic brings "out-of-control blood sugar" upon themselves because diabetes is developed unknowingly. There are a small percentage of cases that are linked to genetics, but all other diabetics get it because their body is attacking itself because it feels like it. AKA there is no reason a person has type 1 diabetes. I slightly understand his intention if he was referring to type 2, but the fact that he failed to differentiate means he has no idea what he's talking about.

Okay, for happier news, I'm exhausted. I got four hours of sleep last night thanks to a housemate going absolutely bonkers (no exaggeration, we think she's bi-polar and dangerous). I am excited for the weekend, but oh, wait, I have one paper due Wednesday and another due the following Monday. It appears that I will not know what a weekend is like until maybe November? Ohhhh, goodie.