Breaking News: Hilary Clinton Loves Netflix!

Ever since people have started to suspect Hilary Clinton of planning to run in the 2016 presidential election, she has been a centerpiece of political discussions. Some directly about her plans if she gets elected to office, and others about more than that. I wouldn't even call a lot of the news stories about her "political." With the resurfacing of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in january, people have found more than just her political views to talk about. 

This scandal seems to follow Hilary every time she makes a move in the public eye. Everyone is always looking at her for her reactions and comments on the issue. This makes it hard for her to really make people see her as more than just her reaction to an affair her husband had many years ago. 

This article is one of many, analyzing comments made by Hilary about the issue and also her shift in political positions recently when she left the secretary of state's job. "In the People interview, Mrs. Clinton discusses her life since leaving the secretary of state’s job last year: cleaning out her closets (“very calming”); doing yoga and aquatics (“not as much as I should”); and binge-watching the Netflix series “House of Cards,” a Washington-based political thriller." This quote to me just shows the lack of progress we have seen in representation of women in the media. These hobbies aren't as ridiculous as the fact that she is even saying this in an interview. If a male (high-profile) political figure ever admitted to watching too much Netflix after leaving his job he would probably be laughed at and never taken seriously again. I think that people want to paint this picture of Hilary Clinton as your typical harmless woman so that they do not have to consider the fact that she actually might have a good chance at leading this country. People who don't believe in a woman president want to believe that Hilary Clinton's time off consists of binge watching Netflix and organizing her clothes rather than spending every minute of her free time preparing for her possible future in the 2016 presidential election. 

A Crime for a Crime Makes the Whole World Blind

Ever since Edward Snowden began releasing information on the NSA and their methods of monitoring the population, the people of the United States have more been concerned about their privacy than ever. As people are becoming more and more aware of this surveillance, they are discussing ways to prevent access to this information. But is Snowden unjust in revealing this information to everyone? Should we really blame them when so many other huge corporations have a lot of the same technology to commit the same "crime" that the Government is? After reading this article, these are some of the questions that I have considered.

Many government officials paint Edward Snowden as the "bad guy," often calling his actions treason. The people who really benefit from this information he is releasing probably think differently. There is a price to pay in order to uncover larger crimes.  "So the question really isn’t whether Snowden committed a crime, but whether he uncovered larger crimes and that of course is the case, not just in the US, but in many countries. When crimes are committed we wouldn’t know about it if it were not for Snowden." Says Nohl, the journalist that commented on the issue in this article.  Obviously the NSA does not praise Snowden for his actions, however the public should. Though he is seen as someone who betrayed our country and put it under more stress, I believe that Snowden is releasing information that we should already know. 

This idea can go both ways, though. Think about the reason that the government really is tapping into this information. They are, in a sense, trying to "...uncover a larger crime" (Nohl) just as Snowden was. The NSA does not care about your personal information unless you are a threat to the safety of your country. So why is it such a crime that they have access to this unless you are actually a criminal, in which case you probably shouldn't have the right to your privacy. I believe that sometimes we should justify these little crimes by looking at the bigger picture. The question is, what does your bigger picture look like? A society where you are free to communicate without the fear of someone surveilling your every move, or one where everything is monitored by officials for "the safety of the nation"?

The Low-Class Billionaires

Everyone knows who Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are. Not only do we know who they are, we know a lot about their lives. We know that they are very rich, can buy expensive clothes and cars and attend exclusive Hollywood parties. But I wonder what class people would put them in if they were asked.

I know that for me, I have heard many times that these two individuals are "trashy" and "ghetto." If they have so much money and fame then why do people use these words, that often imply a lower social class,  to describe them? I think that something like this definitely shows what it means to be part of a higher class in america.

Kim Kardashian was not accepted to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, according to US Magazine and Kanye west himself in this article. I know, I know, this isn't exactly breaking news and it feels kind of silly to be writing a post about this, but I really think that this says something about our society.

Kim Kardashian is famous, rich, pretty and people seem to care about her life more a lot, considering she has a successful show that basically consists of her going to lunch with her mom, so why doesn't she "Qualify for a star?" (Martinez) The way Kim Kardashian got to be famous is not admired in our society, therefore she is often not considered to be in a higher class than people like Angelina Jolie, whom the public respects and appreciates. They could have the same amount of money, and own multimillion dollar houses on the same block, but they will never be in the same class.