Kanye West: Crybaby or victim of the media?

In case you haven't heard, Kanye West is apparently feuding with Matt Lauer of the Today Show. Seriously Kanye? You can't feud with other rappers, you have to pick a morning talk show host? Was Fifty Cent not returning your texts?

Anyway, you all may remember five years ago when celebrities came together for a telethon to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Kanye famously spouted off "George Bush doesn't care about black people," as he stood next to a very stunned looking Mike Meyers. In an interview with Lauer early in the week, George W. Bush called that moment the most disgusting moment of his presidency. Nevermind the thousands of servicemen and women who died fighting two wars, a financial meltdown that nearly sent us into a new depression and a huge surplus left over from the Clinton administration that was completely blown. Kanye West was apparently more disgusting than all of those things. But hey-- that's neither here nor there.

So Kanye is being interviewed and gets incredibly pouty when being asked about the Taylor Swift mic-snatching moment at last year's VMAs on MTV. As he is being asked about that incident, the producers roll footage of it. If you want to see the actual moment, skip to about six minutes into the video below.

(continued below...)

So Kanye claims the Today Show set him up, and was so angry that he cancelled a concert that was set for Friday on Today, and in all his maturity, fired off some nasty tweets about Matt Lauer and Today.

But does he really have anything to be angry about? I know the media gets blamed for ambushing people and whatnot, but did this really cross the line? Would love to hear feedback from some viewers on this one!

The argument for NO

Today Oklahoma voters are deciding eleven state questions... questions that, if passed, would become amendments to the Oklahoma constitution. The proposed amendments range from banning Islamic law in Oklahoma courts, to funding education at the regional average, to forcing voters to show ID at the polls, to depositing more money into our rainy day fund.

Upon reviewing the plethora of proposed amendments, it occured to me that the United States was founded on only 10 amendments, and Oklahoma voters are being asked to decide eleven in one election?

What amendments to the constitution ultimately do is remove lawmaking from the hands of lawmakers, and put it in the hands of judges to interpret. So what are our lawmakers there for? I feel there are better ways to pass laws then amending our constitution. My reasons are:

• Many laws may become outdated and useless 20 or 30 years from now. It's much easier to repeal a law passed by the state legislature, rather than amend the constitution again... which leads me to my next point...

• A constitutional amendment should be something we, as voters, should be comfortable with for a lifetime. Are there really eleven things of this magnitude that need to be decided in one year alone?

• Oklahoma is one of the youngest states, with the longest constitution, and every new amendment makes the document less and less valuable. Passing several amendments every couple of years on a whim will eventually make our state constitution a very long, very useless document, filled with nonsense.

• I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but a few of the questions were even confusing to me. It was then I realized that if I have no clue what the state question is addressing, then it probably hasn't been impacting my life in a negative way, therefore, so why change anything? Again, it's more difficult to change the constitution than it is a law passed by House or Senate bill.

All in all, some of the state questions, particularly the one addressing education funding, were authored with good intent. Good intent doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be included in our state's governing document, however. We are basically asking average citizens to make complex legal decisions.

It was for all these reasons that I chose to vote no on every state question proposed. It may not have been the right thing for each individual question, but I felt I needed to stand on principal and reject the notion that new laws should be cemented by constitutional amendment.

I know many will not agree, and I welcome the differing opinions, because at least then I know people are practicing critical thinking.