http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/body-language/#category1-2

Is this really how to read a man?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/fashion/ugly-wedding-dresses

Are these truly the fugliest dresses ever?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/brooks-engaged-or-detached.html?hpw

Take what this article says about politics and apply it to a controversial story being covered by the Tam News. Which method do you believe is better? Should you try to rally those who already agree with you, or reach across and give the objective story, while perhaps not motivating as many people? Would it be possible to accomplish both with a feature, editorial, etc.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/middleeast/bomb-in-central-damascus.html?pagewanted=2&hp&_r=0

Do you think Obama's actions and words have been hypocritical? Is there a danger of the U.S. losing its credibility? How balanced was the article in its skepticism of Obama? Rightly so?

Somewhere in-between the two. Only relevant for the whole "showing the characters in our community" angle, but what really rubbed me the wrong way was the way the story divulged information. The story would be fine if this guy was just kind of an asshole, which is what the author gets you to believe, but then halfway through it's let out that he actually has a mental illness. That makes me feel like this is more exploitation. If we cover people like this, let all of that information out in front, and be very aware, especially if we cover people different than ourselves, that we're giving them a fair and balanced chance to speak and that we're not reporting in any sort of a patronizing way.

What's interesting to me is that the article states that 39% of Americans are "very happy or relieved" that this gun control legislation wasn't passed, when President Obama said that over 80% of Americans supported it. Someone got it wrong, and as the more-liberal Times probably wouldn't make those numbers up, I'd say it's on the White House's end. On that note, good coverage by the times, as the thesis of the article probably goes against the morals of the editors who compiled it. Ignorance surrounding gun control in general is a very relevant issue, and I'm happy to see the Times covering it. I myself barely know anything about the laws already in-existence, but something as simple as basic background checks seems like a no-brainer. As a more liberal person, I still believe American should have the right to carry and own firearms, but it seems asinine that conservatives refuse to contemplate that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and guns are a little more pointless now that pretty much anyone can be annihilated with the press of a button. Grim outlook, but on the other end if this legislation could save one life from a killer, it would be worth it. For the meantime, at least, the threat of a government gone wild is less looming than the chance a raging lunatic will be running into a crowded area soon, and using a gun that should've been more difficult for him/her to acquire. But yet again, even as a liberal I'm reluctant to continue to hamper the rights of the individual, which have seen a most horrible decline since 2001. And yet again (again), with that in mind this STILL seems like a no-brainer. Just shows you the frightening power of lobbying and propaganda in this country.

Insane. So easy to think everything you learn about in class, all of the inequality and injustice, is a thing of the past, something intolerable in the "just" present. But this is something that was more than tolerable when our parents were children. There will always be intolerance like this, but under a different name. The excuse in the article was, "different tastes in music and dancing, and different traditions." Now instead of "we're better" it's "we're just different." Constantly be aware of the fact that injustice still exists in our own communities, and never be ignorant enough to believe that contemporary society is "better than" or has "moved past" anything.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, Jack! It's always a fine line with Anonymous, and it depends person to person. There are some hacks I think are awesome and justified, and others I'm really offended by. I guess, to my personal biases, I'd consider this more warranted, but seeing as it's not for the purpose of disseminating information for the public, but more to be a general nuisance, I support it less. But I think it's them voicing their own opinions, and I feel very limited sympathy for the North Korean government.