It was time for McDreamy to die
It’s that time of year again. Exams are beginning, Facebook feeds are flooding with senior pictures, shows are ending and The State Press staff gets to discuss the hard issues.
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.
11 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
It’s that time of year again. Exams are beginning, Facebook feeds are flooding with senior pictures, shows are ending and The State Press staff gets to discuss the hard issues.
“For People, for a Change.” “It’s Time to Change America.” “Clinton for President.” If it wasn't for the fact that this column was typed on a personal laptop and the fact that it’s being read on the Internet — not to mention my ability to fully articulate what I need — I’d think we were back in 1992 when “the other Clinton” — as people will soon refer to Bill — was first making his run for office.
Although this country was founded by wealthy businessmen looking to split from the tyrannical reign of the crown, we have always been, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Yet lately it seems these lines between companies and “people” are getting blurred more and more each day.
As a candidate for office back in 2008, Barack Obama ran on a promise to have the most transparent presidency ever, yet it seems Obama is more interested in opacity rather than keeping campaign promises.
Whenever my brother or I would fail at something, our parents were the first to tell us to get back up on the horse and try again, that although we may fall and get hurt, over time, our welts would vanish, our bruises will fade, our cuts would scab over. We would heal. Even though some scabs left scars, we looked at these as reminders of our past. As injuries which healed, stories which ended with triumph and success. At least, that’s what we were told to look at them as.
Fans of First Friday are familiar with the walks held in downtown Phoenix. Even dorm halls and communities organize a monthly trip on the light rail to visit the eclectic group of artists and their works intrinsically belonging to the arts district known as Roosevelt Row.
Al Gore is a man of many talents who has received numerous accolades. From holding the title of Vice President of the United States to earning a Nobel Peace Prize concerning man-made climate change to providing the voice for his head on the cartoon “Futurama.” Probably most notable of all though, is his self-proclamation of being the father of the Internet. Now, Mr. Gore will be the first to admit he misspoke all those years ago in the CNN interview, but had it not been for Gore’s leadership in the legislature, we wouldn’t have the Internet we know and love. Arizona Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, certainly wouldn’t have been able to play a video of cats meowing on the Senate floor without the Internet. Yet, it seems one man, and his administration, seeks to change the Internet we know and love and warp it into a government controlled utility. President Barack Obama has recently entertained the idea of reclassifying the Internet into a utility, one which is controlled and regulated entirely by a government bureaucracy, much like television and radio currently are. The Internet is not a utility to be controlled by bureaucrats. No matter what you do Mr. President, the round peg will never fit through the square hole. Obama makes the claim that the Internet should be an area where an entrepreneur can successfully compete with the corporations, where access to a high school kid’s blog wouldn’t be slowed down by advertisers. I’m not sure if the President has ever actually been on the Internet — obviously seen by the poor implementation of healthcare.gov — but the site owner chooses whether or not to add adverts to their site in order to drum up more money. Not for the advertisers, but for the high school entrepreneur who owns the blog. As far as entrepreneurs successfully competing with the large businesses go, we’ve all seen the social media startups go to bat against the likes of Facebook and Twitter — two very large and very public corporations. Obama proposes a system of “net neutrality” which would regulate and control the speed and price at which Internet Service Providers (ISP) provide Internet access — something which is already being done successfully by our free market system. Placing such regulations could potentially slow broadband speeds, especially out in rural areas. As well as place unnecessary burdens on small business ISPs which could have the complete opposite effect Obama is suggesting would happen with government regulations. Net neutrality could also gravely hinder the investments into the creation of new technology. As Mark Cuban points out, with our current Internet system, we’ve been successful in increasing the speed and quality of home broadband. We also manage to create new apps, websites and technology, everyday without government interference. One of the quickest ways to prohibit productivity and creativity is to tie it up in a noose of government red tape. Mr. President, you’re trying to take a system which works and mold it into a system which you think might work better. Bert Lance, Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Carter administration, once said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Wise words — the Obama administration should listen to them a little more.Reach the columnist at Derrik.Rochwalik@asu.edu or follow @drochwalik on TwitterLike The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on TwitterEditor’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.
The Colorado Rockies arrived in the Valley a short while ago to begin their annual spring training at the Salt River Fields off the 101. For a little over 20 years now, the Rockies have been training in Arizona, first in Tucson, and then, starting in 2011, at their current location in Scottsdale.
From the time we are little, we’re told an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. However, many of us tend to forget that adage growing up. We replace it with one which better suits the world today — tit for tat. This seems to be the current mantra of the trivial strife between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Jan. 21, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced an impending visit by the Prime Minister to discuss Iran and possible sanctions against them. This was news to the White House as earlier in the week, Obama and Netanyahu had multiple phone conversations concerning the next step with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Obama is notoriously against further sanctioning Iran whereas Netanyahu would like to see harsher actions against the country. Obama has said many times, and most recently during his State of the Union address, if a bill to further sanction Iran came across his desk he would veto it. Yet in the same speech, Obama talked many times about needing the be more bipartisan. It seems like he’s not taking his own advice. Due to the stubbornness of the President, Netanyahu decided to go into talks with other members of our government who favored sanctions against Iran. As the head of one of the most powerful countries in the world Obama needs to be open to other people’s ideas and suggestions. If our only ally in the Middle East would like to see more sanctions by us against their biggest threat, then the President needs to be willing to take that into account. Not to mention Iran is currently in a nuclear arms race. It is within the free world’s best interest that we don’t let this happen. However, it seems that when the Prime Minister comes in March to talk with Congress, the President will be nowhere to be found. The White House, shortly after Boehner’s announcement, commented calling the meeting a “breach in protocol” and announcing that President Obama would not be meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, making the claim that there will be a “price to pay” for what Netanyahu did. How irresponsibly childish. This isn’t an elementary schoolyard rumble, Mr. President. There is no sandbox to claim sovereignty of, no monkey bars to be emperor over, no swings to lay claim to. This is the real world, and you are a dignified— though some could argue — head of state, whose job is to try to make peace with other heads of state, not alienate them and snub them when they’re a guest in our country. It’s a sad day in U.S. politics when the leader of our nation agrees to meet with a Youtube personality famous for bathing in a tub of fruity cereal and then eating said cereal, but refuses to meet with a fellow head of state. For those who are unaware, shortly after the President delivered his State of the Union speech he sat down for three interviews. No, not by Brian Williams, or David Muir, or even Anderson Cooper. The POTUS sat down with a comedian, a make-up tutorialist and a vlogger who are all well known on YouTube. While a smart political move to connect with the younger voters, it was completely unnecessary. As the president said himself, he has "no more campaigns to run." The YouTube questionnaire was a simple way for the President to avoid having to answer tough questions posed by the actual media. Avoiding real journalists, speaking hypocritically and snubbing heads of state: 2016 could not get here soon enough.Reach the columnist at Derrik.Rochwalik@asu.edu or follow @drochwalik on TwitterLike The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on TwitterEditor’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.
When many hear the term "Republican" used to describe someone, their minds tend to automatically jump to the idea of an ultra-religious, super conservative being who’s more concerned about the rights of an unconscious fetus than the rights of conscious men and women. This simply isn’t always the case. There seems to be a disconnect with people of all political orientation when it comes to the Republican Party.
An old saying states, “There are many paths to the same location.” The most common route to the American dream is receiving a higher education. People are told a better job with higher pay awaits them in the future if they educate themselves. The unfortunate part of the matter is with the current social definition of “education” and the arbitrary timeline of “the future,” there just simply aren’t enough jobs to go around.
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.