Nutrition advice is, quite frankly, subjective.
See, locking people up who present no real danger to society isn't just unfair to those people and those who love them. It is, but it's also unfair to the people who pay to keep them there: the taxpayers. Let me be clear: Locking someone up is not free.
If I had my way, no one would ever be separated from his or her family over a personal choice that involved only his or her body.
The truth is, sometimes the best way for the government to help those in need is to stop itself from 'helping' them at all.
Now, to anyone with even half a brain, a newspaper apologizing because a reporter did some reporting makes about as much sense as a doctor apologizing because he gave someone a diagnosis.
Absolutely no one should be arguing for a system aimed at increasing ignorance.
There are cruel, terrible things that happen in this world that are even more traumatizing than the existence of Jeff Sessions. Yes, it can be painful to read about them - but we can never hope to change what we cannot first recognize.
Straight-news pieces are supposed to be just that: straight news. They are not supposed to be biased, and a longtime practice for ensuring this is to ask all subjects of a story for their comment.
Politics has become absurdly, stupidly, restrictively partisan.
One of the main foundations of our country is supposed to be that we value individuality, and unfortunately, that seems to be getting lost.
No one should ever feel compelled to replace the development of and adherence to his or her own set of personal values and beliefs with an adherence to some partisan label.
It's true: Whenever I see a government rule that could clearly be used to punish people for doing innocuous things, it is never enough for some government official to just assure me that it won't be used that way. Those assurances, after all, aren't binding; they're lip service.
The bottom line is: If any government has a rule that would legally allow it to punish people for things that don't deserve punishment, then that law should be scrapped or changed.
All too often, I will see people on the left slam Trump for the way he treats or talks about other people. Then those same individuals - sometimes even in the same breath - will go on to say even worse things about the people who voted for him.
The bottom line is: It is fine to have issues with President Trump; I've had them myself. The thing is, though, the best way to argue against the things that you disagree with is never to use abusive tactics.
I myself have been the victim of some absolutely horrific speech throughout the years; I know how bad it can make you feel - and yet, I still believe firmly that no words directed at me could ever feel worse than having to worry about losing my right to use my own.
College is supposed to be a place that prepares its students for the real world. That's the entire purpose of attending! Learning how to be an engaged citizen is something that should be encouraged in this kind of environment, not restricted.
See, believe it or not, I actually support complete free speech not because I don't care about the welfare of the American people. I support it because I do.
It's true: What one person might consider 'hate speech,' another might consider to be harmless, or even funny.
The greatest risk in giving our government any power to control our speech is that it would then have a vehicle to prohibit speech that was critical of it.
