22 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/23/15 2:40am)
For more than the past decade, Major League Baseball has had a very public problem with its players using performance-enhancing drugs. This problem has been especially prevalent throughout minor league baseball, but there have several high-profile suspensions in the majors over the past several years. From 2007 to 2014, major and minor league players missed more than 25,000 games because of drug suspensions, according to Bloomberg.
(04/16/15 2:38am)
This week the Arizona Republic’s Editorial Board published an editorial urging the Arizona Board of Regents to not raise tuition or fees on any of its students. The column starts by simply saying, “Proposed fee and tuition increases at the state's three universities go too far. The Arizona Board of Regents should pare them back.” Obviously, no students want to see their cost of attendance go up, but Gov. Doug Ducey and the Republican-controlled Legislature have given the Board of Regents very few reasonable options.
(04/10/15 2:45am)
For several months, there has been some debate surrounding whether Sen. John McCain would seek re-election to his sixth term in the Senate. Dispute having previously made comments that he might not seek re-election, many people expected him to launch a reelection bid, especially once he started fundraising for re-election more than a year ago.
(04/02/15 2:02am)
It’s no secret that baseball is no longer America’s pastime — football has surpassed baseball as the most popular sport in the country. This season, the Arizona Diamondbacks are making a push to encourage more people to attend their games by upgrading their ballpark food offerings.
(03/26/15 3:56am)
During his campaign and into his term, Gov. Doug Ducey has been a vocal opponent of the Common Core set of standards. This week he continued his bashing of Common Core in front of the Arizona Board of Education where he
urged the board to “begin by reviewing the English Language Arts and Mathematics standards in their entirety to ensure that our children are well served by the standards you develop.”
(03/05/15 1:26am)
Last weekend, grassroots conservative activists met just outside of Washington, D.C., for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, generally referred to as CPAC. Each year, many big players in Republican politics show up to address the conference’s attendees, but this year's series of speeches show that either CPAC isn’t actually a legitimate gauge of the GOP contenders or the GOP contenders are very out of touch on a number of serious issues.
(02/20/15 1:00am)
Late last year, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner was riding high off of the Republicans' historic wins in the 2014 term elections. Following the Election Day victories, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell penned an op-ed in the Miami Herald in which they promised, “Republicans will return the focus to the issues at the top of your priority list. Your concerns will be our concerns. That’s our pledge.”
(02/12/15 2:09am)
Last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced plans for the FCC to regulate Internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. It was well-received; “following Wheeler’s announcement, average Americans, entrepreneurs, and civil libertarians cheered the use of Title II.” It seems only two groups weren’t happy with the ruling: Internet service providers, obviously, and congressional Republicans.
The dismay from Internet service providers is understandable, but the objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill seems odd. This isn’t about market regulation or government overreach. Their object seems to stem from the idea that President Barack Obama may have placed pressure on Wheeler and the FCC, which is supposed to be an independent board, to regulate ISPs under Title II.
While it is often understandable for Republicans to question the actions of their Democratic counterparts, this situation doesn’t seem particularly controversial. While Obama has said publicly that he wanted the FCC to regulate ISPs under Title II, he wasn’t the only person to speak out publicly.
In the days leading up to the end of the public comment period on the FCC’s potential actions last July, the number of public comments submitted was reported to have exceeded 780,000 and as the deadline for public comment approached, the FCC announced “the commission is now extending it until midnight on Friday, July 18,” from the original deadline of July 15.
According to an article published by The Verge in Sept. 2014, by the time that the public comment period ended, “it closed out as by far the most-commented issue in agency history with a total of approximately 3.7 million replies.” The article goes on to say, in “an automated analysis of just over 800,000 comments, the Sunlight Foundation believes that two-thirds of initial comments supported that reclassification.”
While the analysis of these 800,000 comments doesn’t reflect all of the comments, it’s reasonable to assume that the remaining 2.9 million comments reflected the same sentiment that the FCC should reclassify the Internet as a utility.
Obama did make a statement in Nov. 2014, in which, according to The New York Times, he “said on Monday that a free and open Internet was as critical to Americans’ lives as electricity and telephone service and should be regulated like those utilities to protect consumers.“ Obama obviously speaks with a tremendous amount of weight, but he’s far from the only person who made a comment in favor of net neutrality.
Unfortunately, Republicans are assuming there must be some wrongdoing and as a result, The Washington Post published an article Tuesday titled, “Republicans are about to ‘Benghazi all over again’ on net neutrality.” It’s unclear at this point whether Republicans truly believe that The White House or the FCC did something wrong or they just want to pry into things and summon officials to the Capital the same way they did with Benghazi and The Affordable Care Act.
Stronger regulation of ISPs under the classification as a utility is something that has overwhelming support from the public. According to a poll conducted by The University of Delaware last November, “Fully 81 percent oppose ‘allowing Internet service providers to charge some websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds.’”
With such broad support for the regulatory proposals, Republicans should embrace the policy idea. Simply put, in a democratic system, people shouldn’t be surprised when a governing body adopts a proposal that more than 80 percent of the people support. Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow @zachjosephson 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.LikeThe State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(02/04/15 11:50pm)
Only a handful of candidates for President in 2016 have declared their intention to run, but the recent measles outbreak has already caused a stir amongst the probable candidates. Two weeks ago, a measles outbreak started to spread from Disneyland in California and has quickly reached other parts of the country, including Arizona, where up to 1,000 people may have been infected. In recent history, the measles has been essentially eradicated and as a result, most doctors and medical facilities are not prepared to deal with a serious outbreak. This means the new outbreak should be serious cause for alarm. Many have placed the blame for the recent outbreak on the recent spike of the number of parents who are choosing to not vaccinate their children. As a result, once one person becomes infected, they have a far higher chance of passing the virus to other people who haven't been vaccinated. In order to prevent the spread from a single infected person to other people who can't be vaccinated, such as young infants, “90 percent to 95 percent of people must be vaccinated in order to protect the entire population, or achieve what is called herd immunity.”The blame placed on parents who aren’t vaccinating their children has spawned a new debate over whether the government should be able to force parents to vaccinate their children. Over the past several years, there has been discussion that vaccines could lead to mental illnesses, which lead parents to shy away from vaccinations, but the single study linking vaccines to autism has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. There is absolutely no evidence linking vaccines to autism, but the debate has now moved beyond the potential to cause autism.On Monday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “Parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well.” Christie is the same Governor who quarantined a nurse returning from Africa over the fear that she might have Ebola, which she of course did not.As EJ Montini said in the Arizona Republic on Tuesday, “The best way to suppress an outbreak of any childhood disease with a suitable vaccine, like measles, is to deny access to public schools for children who are not vaccinated.” When parents send their children to public schools, they should be required to vaccinate their children to prevent the rapid spread of such dangerous diseases. Sadly the public health dangers associated with not getting vaccinations isn’t the worst part of the outbreak. On Monday, the Huffington Post published an article titled “Hillary Rodham Clinton Will Be a President Who Believes in Science.” In the run up to the 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton has been labeled as a pro-science candidate. It is unfathomable to think that presidential candidates might actually debate the existent of science, as if it were opinion. Our society is driven by scientific fact and yet the country, or at least the country’s politicians, can’t even agree on the most significant achievements of the past century. So far the debate over the existence of science has been limited to climate change and now vaccinations, but there's no saying how far certain people could take the debate. Candidates shouldn't have to be labeled as pro-fact or anti-fact. Facts are just that: facts that everyone has agreed on, not something to be debated by politicians who, as many in the Republican Party often like to remind us, are not scientists.A measles outbreak could be very dangerous, but it doesn't compare to the potential dangers associated with an entire political party becoming anti-science. If something this dramatic were to happen, all of the significant progress that has been made to eradicate deadly diseases could be lost.Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow @zachjosephson 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.LikeThe State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(01/29/15 12:07am)
In December 2013, during the initial rollout of healthcare.gov, people on both sides of the aisle criticized the rollout of Obamacare and said that the law was doomed for failure before it even got off of the ground. Roughly two years later, the law is an overwhelming success, but nobody’s talking about it anymore.
On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released their latest report on the Affordable Care Act. The report stated that “the number of uninsured Americans has dropped by about 12 million,” and continued to say that “only about 8 percent of Americans under age 65 will lack insurance by the time Obama leaves office.”
Not only is the number of uninsured people falling rapidly, but it’s also approaching historical lows according to a Time article published last December. On top of the tremendous improvements in the rate of uninsured Americans, the annual growth in health care costs is slowing. According to a 2014 NBC News article, “U.S. healthcare spending grew at the lowest rate ever recorded last year, in defiance of predictions that it would surge this year with Obamacare.” The critics of Obamacare claimed that health care prices would skyrocket following its implementation, but that just hasn’t happened.
In addition to accomplishing much of what the law set out to do, it has stood up to fierce challenges from members of Congress. According to an article published by the Washington Post, from January 2011 to March 2014, the Republican-controlled House voted a whopping 54 times to repeal the bill in one way or another.
Even with the tremendous success of the law, after the shaky rollout, Democrats have shied away from the bill. In the 2014-midterm elections, Democratic candidates avoided any mention of the bill and their potential connection to it. A CNN article published during the rollout in the early midst of election season commented, “Talking to Democratic strategists, you won't hear any of them telling candidates to run on Obamacare no matter how good the numbers look, and no matter if it starts to appear that the law is working.”
As most people know, the Democrats were crushed across the country, but it’s interesting to think what could have happened had they chosen to run alongside one of the most successful policies of the past six years. It shouldn’t come as a tremendous surprise that when you run from a bill that’s more successful than your own campaign, you’re going to lose the election.
Obviously Republicans have no intention of reminding people that the bill they’re still firmly opposed to is working, but it’s time for Democrats across the country to step up and win the messaging battle that they’ve been lagging in every step of the way.
Even before the 2016 election cycle gets started, Democrats have an opportunity to make sure that people across the country know that they’ve accomplished something tremendous.
Over the past several decades, many Presidents and Congresses have promised and failed to deliver on health care reform, but this group did it and they deserve the credit for their accomplishment. The next election cycle will be a brutal one, but it’s important that Democrats are getting the word about their successes out instead of letting Republicans dominate the headlines and the stories that people are talking about.
Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow @zachjosephson 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.
LikeThe State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(01/21/15 1:11am)
Arizona is a state that is blessed with the opportunity to aggressively pursue solar electricity generation. However, the electricity companies in the state have recently become aggressively anti-solar; at least solar that they can’t control.
(01/13/15 11:14pm)
With currently low gas prices, Congress should take advantage of the opportunity to raise the federal gas tax and pay for road improvements. Since the beginning of the Interstate Highway program in the 1950s, the federal gas tax has been used as a source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, which is responsible for new transportation projects as well as maintaining current roads.
(01/06/15 5:03pm)
As Gov. Doug Ducey takes office, his inauguration represents a continuation of the past administration's failed policies and a potential reversal of its most successful ones.
(12/01/14 9:30pm)
Ozone emissions affect us all; they have been shown to cause serious health issues including asthma attacks, heart attacks and premature deaths. Given the dangers associated with the pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency was given the task of regulating the level of ozone emissions.This week, the EPA announced a revision to its regulations on the amount of ozone pollution that is considered safe. According to The New York Times, the regulations would “lower the current threshold for ozone pollution to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, from 75 parts per billion.”
Unfortunately for the EPA, the revised regulations have met opposition from both environmental activists and manufacturers who are responsible for a large portion of ozone pollution. Clearly neither side is happy with the new regulations, but the fact that no one is thrilled by the regulations is a likely indicator that the regulations are a good compromise.
Environmental activists have complained that the newly drafted regulations don’t go far enough and give into industry pressure to reduce implementation costs. Green groups have been advocating for a regulation that would set the acceptable level of ozone pollution at 60 parts per billion. They claim that the EPA has a responsibility to set the level of emissions to reflect scientific research about a safe level of ozone pollution. In a move not commonly seen by environmental groups, they have turned to an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia in a case about whether the EPA should take into account the cost of implementing the regulation in which Scalia says, “Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that initial calculation.” The EPA has a responsibility to set the ozone emission standards based on what is a safe level of ozone for people to breath, not based on what it will cost to implement.
While environmental groups have complained that the regulations don’t go far enough, industry groups have complained that the regulations will be expensive to implement and will cost a struggling U.S. economy jobs. In a Politico article about the proposed regulations, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, is quoted as saying the revised ozone regulations “will lower our nation’s economic competitiveness and stifle job creation for decades.” Compliance with the new regulations won’t be cheap, but in this situation, there’s a human cost that also must be evaluated.
At this point, the regulations can be boiled down to a battle between the potential health benefits of few ozone emissions and the cost for manufacturers to implement the new standards. The EPA admits that industry will be burdened by significant costs of roughly “$3.9 billion in 2025,” simply to implement a 70 parts per billion limit – with higher costs for a stricter rule. It contends, however, that the health benefits would be significant enough to offset the costs for industry to implement the regulations. The EPA’s internal estimate “calculates the benefits at $6.4 billion to $13 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 70 parts per billion.”
Industry officials are right to be upset about the prospect of stricter regulations. After all, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to accept the new regulations lying down; however, at some point they will have to accept the new regulations and move forward with the implementation process.
While the out-of-pocket cost may be high, manufacturers and other polluters will eventually see a return on their investment in the form of increased worker efficiency. For environmental groups, the proposed regulations should be seen as a step in the process.According to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to re-evaluate regulations every five years to determine if they should be changed. If in five years the level of ozone emissions is still considered dangerously high, they can be lowered further at that point. But in the meantime, polluters will be forced to make strides in the right direction. The U.S. was built on compromises and these regulations are a perfect example that compromise, now matter how small, can still be achieved despite the hostile political environment.
Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @zachjosephson
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.
(11/24/14 11:00pm)
Tech companies have found themselves up against the U.S. Department of Justice for years — in the past few months more than ever — as they attempt to secure consumer data. This week a report released The Wall Street Journal revealed the details of a meeting between Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell. The meeting was in regards to Apple’s recent decision to enable default encryption on all of the devices it sells, meaning that instead of opting into data encryption, consumers are instead given the option to opt out.
The Justice Department has shown itself to be strongly opposed to Apple’s decision. According to the WSJ report, the Justice Department attempted to strong-arm Apple into reserving its decision by telling the company that one day, “A child would die because police wouldn't be able to scour a suspect's phone.” With any form of technology, there will be people who use it to commit unfortunate crimes, but that doesn’t mean that an entire country should give up its right to privacy or subject itself to hackers.
Most consumers and civil liberties groups have applauded Apple and Google, who recently made a similar announcement, for their commitments to user privacy. However, they have met stiff opposition from top law enforcement officials who have complained that the encryption will take away their access to information that they might be able to use during a criminal investigation.
In a recent speech, FBI Director James Comey made the government’s argument in favor of increased access to personal information; not surprisingly the American Civil Liberties Union was outraged. In response to Comey’s speech, Laura W. Murphy, the director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, issued a statement in which she said, “Federal law explicitly protects the right of companies to add encryption with no backdoors,” and she continues, “Any effort by the FBI to weaken encryption leaves our highly personal information and our business information vulnerable to hacking by foreign governments and criminals.”
As has happened several times in recent years, personal privacy has been pitted against law enforcement’s ability to access data. Attorney General Eric Holder made a statement at a recent conference in which he said, “It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy.” Holder’s stance on the issue is that tech companies can provide a backdoor through which the manufacturer will be able to access data stored on the device and provide it to a law enforcement agency.
The problem with a backdoor is that while it gives manufacturers access to data on the device, there is nothing to stop people from hacking into the backdoor and gaining access to personal information.
In the past year, Target saw how damaging a security breach was to its sales, and Apple saw firsthand how important it is for people to trust the security of their own devices in the aftermath of “Celebgate." Apple is still working hard to gain back the trust of its customers. Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a statement in which he said, “At Apple, your trust means everything to us. That’s why we respect your privacy and protect it with strong encryption, plus strict policies that govern how all data is handled.”
Consumers have a right to know what is being done with their data and more importantly, they should have confidence in the fact that companies aren’t intentionally making their personal data more vulnerable.The Justice Department has drawn a bleak picture of law enforcement’s future without access to personal data, but providing hackers with easy access to personal data is unacceptable. It’s time for the Justice Department to stop bullying companies and accusing them of “marketing to criminals.” But at the end of the day, the tech companies in the middle of this debate have a responsibility to their consumers, not the government agencies attempting to strong-arm them into compromising data.Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @zachjosephsonEditor’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.
(11/17/14 11:17pm)
Net neutrality has become a vital issue in American politics, but many members of Congress arguing against net neutrality don’t seem to understand the issue. Until recently, the battle for net neutrality was a battle between the service providers and the media-consuming public. Given the strength of the service providers, it’s no surprise that it has taken so long for any sort of government action, but in the wake of President Barack Obama’s statement Monday that the FCC should reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications act, net neutrality has suddenly rivaled immigration as the top policy issue today.
(11/02/14 11:00pm)
In an era when voter turnout is so low, efforts should be made to increase the number of people who participate in elections, instead of wasting money fighting a problem that doesn’t exist.
(10/19/14 10:34pm)
Political debates should be about discerning the ideological differences between candidates, not the controversy behind the presence of a fan.That seems intuitive, but formal political debates have disintegrated and are no longer a place for candidates to share their ideas. Instead, they are an attempt to avoid saying anything controversial while allowing opponents the opportunity to make a costly gaffe.
The debate circus was on display this week in Florida where Gov. Rick Scott, reportedly refused to take the stage for his debate with his challenger, Charlie Crist because Crist had a fan installed under his podium. In what can only be described as one of the weirdest moments in televised debate history, Crist stood on stage while the moderators explained that Scott was in the building but was unwilling to take the stage because the rules stated no fans would be allowed.
Scott eventually took the stage, but the damage had already been done. Crist was seen on stage questioning why they were debating over a fan, when there are far more important questions facing the state of Florida. In the day following the debate, everyone had his or her own opinion on the incident, but several people have suggested that Rick Scott may have lost the election as a result of what has now been dubbed “fangate.”
I have to assume that many important issues were discussed once Scott took the stage, but those were all ignored as fangate exploded and captured all of the headlines.While it’s an entertaining story, it’s also disappointing that such a small issue has overshadowed the more important issues debated. Even more disappointing, this debate exemplifies what has happened to political debates across the country.Instead of showing up to provide more depth on their ideas for office, candidates agree to participate in debates with the hope that their opponent will say something to cost them votes. According a story published by the Huffington Post, the Crist campaign actually sent out a fundraising email about the fan, before the debate was even over.
Candidates across the county seem to have a "do no harm" mentality when it comes to debates. As long as they can escape the public spectacle without saying anything that their opponent can put in an attack ad, they’ve done their job. When a candidate says something harmful, though, the opposing campaign is ready to strike.The social media campaigns begin almost immediately, pushing a one-line gaffe to the outer reaches of the universe along with the idea that it was the most important statement of the entire debate.
The voting public deserves a better brand of political debate. The debates shouldn’t be driven by the desire for a social media campaign decrying an opponent’s statement. Candidates should provide explanation and defense of the policies that they’ve presented on the campaign trail, instead of the same prepared political talking points that they’ve been using for months. As long as campaigns and candidates continue to see debates as an opportunity to score votes on an opponent’s slip up instead of on the merits of their policies, debates won’t reveal necessary information. Voters and candidates should work toward a more honest form of debate where candidates are held responsible for what they’ve said but won’t be ridiculed for a one-line comment in an otherwise strong debate.Reach the columnist at zjosephs@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @zachjosephsonEditor’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.
(09/28/14 9:30pm)
Tesla Motors has become the most well-known electric car manufacturer in the country; yet, many states have not been so keen on the brand. Certain states won’t let Tesla sell its cars in their state as a result of clearly antiquated regulations. In the current age of technological innovation, it’s time to lessen regulation so that an innovative car company can try something new.
(09/14/14 10:55pm)
In an era of constantly available data, reporters are being pushed away from waiting for the facts to come out and toward making more assumptions and including their own opinions in an attempt to increase readership. This opinion-driven news cycle has led to a degradation of the quality of our news.