Zen and the art of Netflix
As a college student with just one week left in the semester, there are two things going on in my life: a frantic push to get everything submitted and the constant sound of Netflix in the background.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of statepress.com - Arizona State Press's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.
18 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
As a college student with just one week left in the semester, there are two things going on in my life: a frantic push to get everything submitted and the constant sound of Netflix in the background.
The semester is quickly coming to an end, which means that finals are right around the corner.
I need new sneakers. While this may seem like a simple problem for the average college student, this need has put me on a strange spiritual journey.
When you first arrived at ASU, you were around 18 years old — the entire world was in front of you, and you were a moron. Or at least I was. I went to exactly one half of an orientation, skipped all other freshman activities and avoided any college-related emails like most people avoid Facebook posts by racist family members.
I am not a fit man in any way, shape or form. It’s actually quite the opposite because more often than not, I am a perfect example of a sloth. On two separate occasions I have thrown a book at a light switch because I was too lazy to turn the damn thing off. I have also spent more than one night watching several torturous hours of Fran Drescher’s "The Nanny," all because getting up and finding the remote was a little too much work for me.
It seems odd that to this day vaccinations remain one of the most hotly debated topics in the U.S. Although we’re one of the most well vaccinated populations in the entire world, the debate over personal rights and public health continues to rage on harder than ever. This was made crystal clear last week when a California bill regarding vaccinations stalled in the state senate. If passed, the bill would make vaccinations a requirement for those attending public schools. After hours of testimony, the vote on the bill was postponed until next week. So, with things still up in the air, the question remains: Can someone be forced into vaccinating their child?
Let’s talk about depression. We’ve all seen enough antidepressant commercials to know exactly what this entails. It’s usually some man or woman lit in blue, sitting up in bed and rubbing their heads in frustration. They go out into the world, shadowed by some gray faceless entity or possibly a raincloud. Then they take a magic little pill, and they’re transported to a bright and sunny world where they’re making all their friends laugh. TV is littered with ads just like this, and I’m here to say screw them and screw everything they represent. Screw the way they trivialize the disease and belittle everyone that suffers from it. And screw the way they show a simple, one-step solution in the form of a pill.
Last week, Arizona Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, continued Arizona’s long history of being one of the most ignorant states in the country. During a debate over a concealed-carry gun bill, Allen remarked that people should be able to carry guns into public buildings because of the moral erosion in the U.S.
The prison system in the U.S. is broken and has been broken for years. This is not some great revelation or big secret. For decades, critics have outlined its many problems ranging from racial disparity in arrest records to the controversy surrounding private prisons — yet one of the most glaring issues facing this nation is the way which we handle drug crimes. Instead of offering rehabilitation or counseling, we lock up addicts in prisons where drug use is rampant. Then they are sent out into the world with new addictions and a criminal record.
There's no question whether or not the New York Police Department is in a state of lawlessness. Time and time again they have reaffirmed the fact that they can do whatever they want without any consequences; whether it be through the racially motivated and borderline unconstitutional stop and frisks or the use of excessive force, the NYPD has continued to dodge all accountability.
If there is one thing Chris Christie does well, it's selling out. Whether to big business or to pig farmers, Christie is willing to do anything it takes to fund his flailing 2016 presidential bid. Christie made this abundantly clear last week with his ruling in New Jersey's case against Exxon Mobil. Originally filed in 2004, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection was suing over the loss of "1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes, meadows and waters in Northern New Jersey." The case had been heard by three governors before Christie made his decision. The state was originally asking for $8.9 billion in damages, but the final settlement came out to just $250 million. While that number may seem criminally low, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for Christie's decision: money. According to the International Business Times, Exxon Mobil has donated $1.9 million since Christie's first gubernatorial campaign. This all may seem illegal, but Christie is well within his rights to protect the oil giant and his future donations.This is not the first time Christie sacrificed his approval rating in order to gain political favor. Just last year, Christie made the controversial decision to veto a bill that would prevent farmers from housing pigs in gestation crates, even though it had almost universal support from the state Legislature and the people of New Jersey. It's a mystery why Christie would go directly against the people living in his home state. The answer lies in Iowa, home of the nation's first caucus and a large portion of the nation's pigs. Christie voted against the interests of his own people (and pigs) in an attempt to gain favor in the Iowa caucus and inch himself forward in the political world. While Christie continues to make his decisions with political gain in mind, public opinion of the governor has slowly begun to shift. Once considered the front runner for the Republican nomination, Christie's approval rating has dropped with each controversial decision. Christie has even started to lose support in his own state. Currently, his job approval rating has sunk to 42 percent, an all-time low for the New Jersey governor. Given his mediocre standing in his own state, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine Christie winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency.With enormous donations already being made, the 2016 presidential election is projected to be the most expensive election in our nation's history and no one knows this more than Christie. Since announcing his campaign, he has made it crystal clear that he is willing do anything to gain the nomination. All of these tactics are proving counterproductive to Christie's end goal. If the governor is serious about being president, he must put aside the political games and focus on improving his public image. If he doesn't, Christie will continue to be portrayed as just another corporate shill, devoid of any real moral fortitude. And ultimately, his presidential aspirations will fade into the background.Reach the columnist at Alec.Grafil@asu.edu or follow @AlecGrafil on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
Last week, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani found himself in the hot seat after questioning President Obama's love for America.
Last week Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas's top aide fired two Arizona Board of Education administrators, Christine Thompson and Sabrina Vasquez, both of whom openly supported the new Common Core standards. The recent firings were almost immediately deemed as a huge overreach on the part of the Superintendent. Gov. Doug Ducey responded on Thursday by overturning the firings, saying Douglas had no legal right to fire the administrators without the permission of the Board of Education. This in turn sparked a response from Douglas stating that Ducey "thinks that he is both governor and superintendent." Douglas still stands by her decision, maintaining that she was well within her constitutional authority.All in all, the recent drama has resulted in a government pissing contest, with each side standing firm in their decisions. A special meeting was even scheduled Friday to officially reinstate Thompson and Vasquez. The vote was almost unanimous, with Douglas being the only member with a dissenting vote. While this drama was going on, the importance of their decisions was lost on both Ducey and Douglas. Both government officials seemed to lose track of what was really important — the Arizona education system. Instead of focusing on education, the fight quickly changed into a struggle for power.Both Ducey and Douglas were completely uninterested in what the firings would mean for Arizona but were completely wrapped up in who had what power. This struggle perfectly illustrates the problem Arizona is facing. More often than not, Arizona officials seem more interested in making political statements than in enacting actual change.The only reason education was even mentioned during this power struggle was in an attempt to gain legitimacy. The word "education" quickly lost all of its meaning in this fight and became a thinly veiled tactic used to undermine the other side. This became perfectly clear when Ducey's office released a statement that said the governor "will continue working every day to improve educational outcomes for every Arizona child, and he hopes she joins that conversation." While this sentiment may seem great on paper, there is something inherently fake about it and for whatever reason, it reads more like a jab than a promise for progress.Ducey's hypocrisy is made even more apparent when his current budget is taken into account. Ducey reaffirms his status as a budget hawk with his current plan to slash $384 million. In his plan, Ducey plans to slash $75 million from Arizona's public schools while budgeting $5 million for a new private prison. So while Ducey can talk all day about improving outcomes in education, when push comes to shove, education is the first thing to be cut. This most recent struggle in the education system is not the fight between good and bad that most people hope that it would be. Instead, it is a struggle between two people who have no right to claim the moral high ground. Douglas did not have the right to fire two high-ranking administrators without the approval of the Board of Education, and Ducey cannot claim to support education when his politics do not back up his claims. In this struggle between two wrongs, the Arizona education system is again left to suffer. Currently, there are no high ranking government officials willing to put aside their political differences — weird, since they're not crossing party lines — and work toward improving our education system. As long as people like Ducey and Douglas keep distracting the public from the very real problems facing our education system, students in Arizona will continue to suffer. Reach the columnist at Alec.Grafil@asu.edu or follow @AlecGrafil on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
Last week, the Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of a federal ruling on Alabama's definition of a marriage, making Alabama the 37th state to legalize gay marriage. While this legalization should represent a huge victory, the backlash in Alabama has quickly become representative of the problems facing the LGBT community.
The Senate voted 62-36 this week to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The vote represents a big victory for the Republican-run Senate, which was able to gain support from nine Democrats. The bill now heads to the House, where a similar bill passed just last year. While the Senate bill has several new provisions, it is widely believed that House will pass the bill as quickly as possible in an attempt to pressure President Barack Obama. With these most recent developments, Obama should stand strong against Congress and veto the pipeline.The main reason that the bill has gained so much support from Republicans is that the pipeline will create jobs. We've heard this ever since the debate began; however this claim is not entirely true. While the pipeline would create the 42,100 jobs during the two-year construction period, the number of permanent jobs created is much lower than expected. According to most sources, only 35 to 50 permanent workers will be required to run the pipeline. There are higher estimates floating around Washington, D.C., and several Internet sites, but the problem with these supposed numbers is that they are based on the price of oil and gas. With the oil prices at the lowest they've been in years, several of the largest oil companies have had to cut down on costs with Suncor oil cutting 1,000 contract job and Shell Canada being forced to cut its work force by 10 percent. While the initial job growth created by the pipeline would be good for the economy, the current plan is incredibly hind sighted when it comes to permanent and consistent job growth. The other common argument for the Keystone Pipeline is that the environmental impact would be minimal. Just like the claim that the pipeline will create jobs, this claim is based off the best possible circumstances. Not only that but it ignores several important facts. In the State Department report, the pipeline is estimated to increase greenhouse gas emissions by 1.3 million to 27.4 million metric tons annually. However, according to a newer study the carbon emissions caused by the pipeline could be four times higher than the estimates done by the State Department. Not only would the pipeline not substantially increase job growth, it would also go against the U.S. plan to decrease emissions.The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline has been going on since 2008. In those seven years a lot of the debate has been lost to political fighting. The topic has shifted to whether you vote conservative or liberal.Instead of focusing on who is voting on what, the president should only focus on the facts in front of him, that the Keystone pipeline is not the dream solution that the Republicans have made it out to be. Instead, it is a quick solution to building many short-term jobs but very few long-term ones. And beyond just the simple economics of the plan, it continues to build upon a long outdated infrastructure based on limited resources. Obama should veto the pipeline and instead explore a more long-term energy plan.Reach the columnist at Alec.Grafil@asu.edu or follow @AlecGrafil on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
Following the death of Eric Garner in New York and the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, police scrutiny has reached peak levels, with protests across the nation calling for answers to excessive police force. President Barack Obama and Congress have both responded by enacting plans for more police body cameras. Critics of these plans claim that police force-wide cameras are too expensive and that there is no evidence that the cameras will help with civilian interactions. While the jury is still out on their effectiveness, new benefits are starting to emerge for both civilians and police.In March of last year, Albuquerque police shot and killed James Boyd, who was illegally camping. Video from a police body camera shows Boyd complying with police orders and grabbing for his bag, when the police used a flash grenade. Boyd then responded by grabbing at a knife, before being shot dead. The Albuquerque Police Department has had a long history of using excessive force, but this is the first case where a police officer has been charged with murder. Police body camera footage has been instrumental in the investigation.Not only has body camera footage been helpful in investigations regarding police wrongdoing, it has recently been used as evidence in civilian trials. In Washington D.C., police responded to a simple assault call between Michael Fouse and Allen Wells. When the case finally went to court, Fouse claimed to be held down by two men and repeatedly punched and kicked; while Wells claimed that the fight broke out after Fouse tried to shove his way past him.Wells's attorney called on footage taken by the responding officers' body camera. On the footage, Fouse never once mentioned the two other men. By calling upon the police footage, Wells's charge was lowered to simple assault. While the cases of when police body camera footage should be called upon are still up for debate, this case clearly shows how effective footage can be when dealing with eye witness reports.The main argument against police body cameras is that the footage does not accurately portray events and cannot capture all the elements that go into police decisions. However, the use of body cameras has recently helped vindicate an Oklahoma police officer. The officer was called out to a Baptist church with a domestic abuse complaint.There, a woman claimed that Terrence Walker had made threats against her life with a gun. When the officer confronted him, Walker made an attempt to flee. While fleeing, Walker stopped to pick up an object which appears to be a gun. The officer responded by firing five shots, which killed Walker. The Oklahoma police department has been completely upfront with the video and details of the incident. The event shows how body cameras can be an effective way of clearing police of guilt.With the recent string of excessive police force, steps must be taken to prevent future incidents. While body cameras cannot be the only solution, they are big step in the right direction. Since the rush to equip officers with body cameras, they have proven to be an effective tool for both police and civilians. Reach the columnist at Alec.Grafil@asu.edu or follow @AlecGrafil on Twitter.Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
With the execution of Charles Warner on Thursday, Oklahoma carried out its first execution in over eight months. This delay came after the botched April execution of Clayton Lockett. After several attempts to find a usable vein to insert the IV, the physician finally located one in the groin area. The execution went wrong when it was discovered that Lockett's vein had exploded and that he was still conscious. This led to Lockett writhing in pain before finally dying of a heart attack 43 minutes after the initial injection. These two executions initially sparked debate over the use of capital punishment, but the real debate should focus on the method of execution.
The average annual cost of tuition for an in-state student at ASU is $19,000, while an out-of-state student is forced to pay $33,000 each year. With that number growing large each year, the number of students in debt continues to skyrocket. More than half of of all students who graduate from a state school in Arizona will leave college with some form of debt; the average sitting just above $22,000. While some of the blame sits squarely on the shoulders of college administrators, most of it should be put on those who enforce and adjust minimum wage.
This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.