I really, really, really dislike opinions. Especially when someone tells them.

It might seem odd that a blogger would say this, but there's a major difference between presenting your opinion and presenting the truth. One of them is right, the other is wrong. I personally try not to present my "opinion" on matters; I look at the facts and I say what is correct. Call it arrogance, but truth stands alone. Yeah, I might have said something opinionated before, but falsity is it's own punishment, at least for me, through embarrassment. I try not to be like that anymore. This "shield of contempt" (though not the ignorant kind) is something new I've been trying.

Take my browsing of U Weekly today as an example. There was an article about Karen Holbrook. I was not aware that she was so "hated" by students. Was there something I didn't know about? I read the article. The reasons for dislike were ridiculous. Here's some examples:

- She made the school harder to get into. Oh damn! We are improving our academic standards! What a tragedy! Frankly, if someone can't get into OSU, then they didn't deserve it. It's likely they probably just wanted to come here to party. If so (and couldn't even get accepted), they were going to fail out within a year anyways. Don't waste our money.

- She started a lot of construction projects. I'm not sure where everyone came from, but I came from a place where buildings had to be built. Enjoy the new RPAC and all those nifty places people go to eat and study? Why don't people cry about those times? Oh, because they weren't in school then. Don't be greedy. Other students had to live through their construction, and we get to take all the benefits. Now is our turn. Once the library and Union is complete, they will be really nice places for future students (they were far too outdated before). Do you want to deny them that experience simply because you didn't want your morning walk to class to be "unsightly"? Since when did students care about sightliness anyways? If they care, they can start by cleaning up the weekly mess of beer cans and garbage all over their front lawns.

- She banned some public drinking and outdoor couches. If certain people had any shred of common sense and respect, and didn't get drunk and go crazy at certain events, then we wouldn't have this problem. Yes, non-students are causing most of the problems. Well, don't invite your stupid friends who you know will light couches on fire! If everyone had common sense and self control, there would be no need to ban anything. We have shown the administration that the student body, as a whole, is not responsible enough to enjoy certain sporting events to the degree which we display. Therefore action has to be taken to reduce ugly incidents.

- She raised tuition. This claim is far more reasonable than the rest. However, tuition increase is inevitable. Improving the quality of the school requires more money. Tuition will always increase, and to blame the inconvenience of it to one person is unreasonable. Here's a step to lowering tuition, students: don't make us waste millions of dollars on cleanup and supervision for a single sporting event. Anyone caught inciting a riot should be fined $10,000 and/or jailed for 6 months. They are the ones draining our money. It's completely ridiculous that people can act so disrespectful and irresponsible.

---

However, an article that got me even more annoyed was the abortion article in the opinion (ugh) section. The article was a poorly written rant in a wannable-Gonzo style. The article discusses the author's viewpoint on the abortion pictures that have been around campus.

The first stupid thing: he claims the photos are fake. He puts this in the title of his article. So how does he back up this enormous claim? "The last time I checked, abortion clinics don't hold photo shoots." Compelling. He uses this "proof" to say throughout his article, multiple times, that the people responsible for the pictures are dishonest and doctored the photos.

I find it interesting that he says, "[I]t's clear that the photos are, at the very least, exaggerated. By the looks of the pictures you'd think The Devil himself went into the womb of a women [sic] with nothing but a pick axe and a bottle of whiskey." He seems to have undermined his argument with the entire purpose of the opposition's. He claims that since the pictures are so grotesque and unbelievably violent, they must be fake. The whole point of people showing these pictures is to illustrate that abortion is indeed a violent and gruesome act. It doesn't take much research to verify that these pictures are real, and to understand that certain abortions involve removing a baby halfway, stabbing a vacuum cleaner through it's head and sucking out it's brains. These events happen, the pictures are disgusting, but are all real: so how do you respond? by denying it? No, you reconsider it again with a new understanding of it.

The author wonders what people might say if "anti-war loonies started posting pictures of dead soldiers" to prove their point. I think that if they showed the realities of war, of soldiers being dismembered, disemboweled, crushed, or beheaded, the public would indeed be very swayed. This happens in real life, but is not shown to the public because it is too gruesome. But it is the truth; should our own discomfort from viewing the "discomfort" of others be more protected than those receiving the offense?

The article uses profanity, unfunny analogies, and poor first-person references to supplement the author's self-image, instead of being used to reveal truths or interesting points. It's just a pile of lies, made up facts, and worst of all, ignorant opinions. I don't know why garbage like that gets published. Yes, I guess it makes people want to read it, but it's at the expense of journalistic integrity.