44 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/29/15 12:49am)
President Obama’s recent decision to cut short his trip to India in order to go to Saudi Arabia — in the wake of the recent death of Saudi monarch King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud — is a testament to how dependent we are on the oil-rich kingdom for geopolitical support on a multitude of issues, including energy, fighting ISIS and containing Iran. In the wake of the Saudi transition of power to Abdulla’s half-brother, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud — and his recent cementing of power — it seems that Obama wants to take advantage of the opportunity that this new administration brings in order to ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong friend in the region.
But is Saudi Arabia a friend, or just a “frenemy”? Even as the photo shoot continues between the president and the new king secure on his throne, there are dark forces still at large, including al-Qaida and ISIS. Obama is probably in Saudi Arabia for more than just a state funeral; after all, Saudi Arabia is part of the international coalition that is fighting ISIS and helping to train rebels in Syria. But it seems that Saudi Arabia may be playing both sides. According to numerous reports, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are some of the countries that have been funneling money to ISIS and certain branches of al-Qaida, which gives them more leverage and power to attack. In fact, King Salman himself has many ties to terrorist groups, from the former mujahideen in Afghanistan to offshoots linked to al-Qaida.
But this "frenemy" relationship does not stop in the arena of foreign policy. It reaches into the arena of human rights, demonstrating that Saudi Arabia is an enemy to our values as well as our geostrategic goals. The gross inequality and human rights violations in Saudi Arabia include a lack of gender parity – in line with a strict interpretation of Islam – as well as sky high unemployment for youth and a blatant disregard for political opportunity based on the outdated monarchy.
In fact, the human rights violations of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia are so egregious and pronounced that there the greatest controversy was stoked not because of Obama’s slight snubbing of India, but over the attire (or rather lack of attire) worn by the First Lady. Many in the Saudi delegation refused to shake her hand, and social media in Saudi Arabia lit up as people criticized Mrs. Obama’s lack of a headscarf.
But even with this insult and all the facts, the force of world politics and national security has much more sway over the White House than the internal affairs of Saudi Arabia. President Obama is a smart man, and he realizes that without Saudi Arabia, the U.S. would be out of special access to a very special resource (oil, of course) and would be severely hampered in its ability to project its power in the Middle East and also to protect its national security interests at home, despite the contradictory and hypocritical foreign policy of Saudi Arabia.
He’s not the only one, though. An entire delegation accompanied the president, the size and composition of which hinted at the seriousness of the meeting. Besides much of the top diplomatic and military brass from past administrations as well as Obama’s, also joining the president were Republicans and Democrats, including our own Senator John McCain.
What does this signal? It signals that whether Democrat or a Republican, diplomat or a soldier, old or new to geopolitics, everyone understands the importance of Saudi Arabia, and how necessary it is to keep these aging autocrats both happy and in power. The U.S. needs to do something about this dependence, so that we can speak law to Saudi Arabia’s power. How to do this is still just a very good question. Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow @MrAmbassador4 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.
(01/23/15 12:08am)
Defense Secretary nominee Ashton Carter’s time in office will be just as effective, if not more so, than that of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In both instances, the U.S. faced unprecedented threats and challenges to its national security. Like Obama with Gates, the next administration would be smart to keep Carter on.
(01/22/15 12:34am)
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…” This is how Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution describes the event that took place on Monday night that was broadcast on TV sets and computer screens across the country. This simple clause has spawned an entire season of political activity and projection of power by both the president and by Congress in order to reach the American people regarding how they think the country should be run.
(01/15/15 12:08am)
ISIS sympathizers successfully hacked into the U.S. Central Command Twitter account on Monday — but ISIS is not the only organization that is hacking. Its actions come in the wake of similar attacks against the U.S. institutions, such as the infamous attack on Sony by North Korea and friends late last year.
(01/11/15 10:38pm)
"Je Suis Charlie!" Across the globe, cries go up and tears fill the eyes of thousands as they hold vigils, organize marches and post millions of messages to social media, highlighting the vicious and barbaric attacks by al-Qaida jihadists against the 12 employees of Charlie Hebdo magazine this past Wednesday. "Je Suis Charlie!" It has become a rallying cry for proponents of a free press, free speech, human rights and a world free of terrorism — from the U.S. to England to Israel.
(01/06/15 5:03pm)
The sun rose over a brisk, cold morning with clear skies and bustling vehicles. It spoke to a fresh day that characterized the challenges and obstacles that will shake and rattle the state of Arizona moving forward, but also to a day that proved that the sun will not be deterred from shining over our state. As that sun rose, interns, volunteers and security at the state Capitol bustled about under the watchful gaze of the Goddess of Victory, laying the groundwork and preparing the stage for the man who would ultimately take the stage and speak at noon: The Honorable Douglas A. Ducey.
(12/03/14 12:00am)
Nicolas Sarkozy is the Comeback Kid. Despite a crippling defeat in the 2012 French Presidential election against then-Socialist candidate and current French President Francois Hollande, Sarkozy is rising again like a phoenix from the ashes. Over the weekend, Sarkozy was elected the leader of the opposition Union for Popular Movement party with 64.5 percent of the vote, well ahead of his nearest rival, Bruno Le Maire, who received less than 29.2 percent of the vote. This is the first step toward a new house for Sarkozy with a job to go with it in 2017: the Elysée Palace and the presidency of France.
But it will be an uphill battle all the way. There are a great deal of people who believe Sarkozy should stay a private citizen and his victory in the UMP party election was less than convincing compared to his performance in 2004. These naysayers definitely have some reason to believe that their opinions are correct. At the moment, Sarkozy is being investigated on a corruption charge — bribing a Supreme Court judge — that threatens to send him to jail rather than to the Elysée Palace. On top of that, the founder of the UMP party, Alan Juppe, is also running for president in France, and he is resoundingly beating Sarkozy in polls.
Despite all of this, the real issue for Sarkozy since his loss in 2012 is the economy of France. In fact, this is primarily the issue which cost Sarkozy the election to Hollande. However, it may be the Sarkozy's strength now. The economy of France, despite the promises of Hollande to the contrary during the 2012 election, is still in a dire state of crisis.
In fact, Hollande is still promising the French public that he has and is continuing to do everything he can to end the economic hardship and skyrocketing unemployment that has gripped France since the global economic crisis of 2008. Yet even now, Europe, and in particular France, still has that sinking feeling — sinking like the job rate in France has been consistently doing, even as recently as last month; sinking like Hollande’s private life is, as the scandal of his love affairs is exposed by his former girlfriend in conjunction with the French press; sinking like Hollande’s approval rating is doing due to all of these factors.
So as Sarkozy faces an uphill battle for election as President of France in 2017, it would be good for France if someone gave him shoes with good traction. Laying aside the corruption scandal and the “Mr. Bling Bling” private life that Sarkozy leads, Sarkozy had a good presidential record overall. During his tenure, he took forceful action on the economy, using his close relationships with his contemporaries in other European countries to be proactive on the issue of the Eurozone. The fact that he was not able to pull France out of the crisis is more a testament to the fury of the crisis itself than a lack of leadership skills on the part of Sarkozy.
Sarkozy also had a relatively well-balanced foreign policy record while in office, from his role in the freeing of the French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt to his intervention in the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. His joint leadership with David Cameron of the campaign against Libya was impressive as well. In fact, the only unstable leadership aspect that Sarkozy and Hollande can be said to have in common is lack of internal government management skills.
Yes, there are other good candidates for the French presidential election of 2017. Yes, Nicolas Sarkozy is a wild card, especially with the scandal attached to his name. Indeed, if the charge of bribery of a public official turns out to be founded, I would be the first to call for accountability on the part of Sarkozy and for him to suffer the consequences of his actions.
But keeping all of this in mind, at the end of the day I believe that Sarkozy would be good for France because he has a good presidential record, he feels that it is his duty to serve, and he has an incentive to prove himself. Besides, everyone deserves a second chance to do the right thing. Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4Editor’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.
(11/25/14 1:07am)
Candles lit the dark courtyard around the Memorial Union on Wednesday night as students gathered in the cold. Small candles lined the cement around the plants in the center of the courtyard, shining bright in a dark moment in Jewish history. A violent tragedy has taken place, but there is no violence in response. There are no loud cries for justice, no shouts for blood, no rush to organize a riot or a military response. Instead, Sun Devils for Israel, Chabad at ASU, Hillel at ASU and Jewish Arizonans on Campus were found in peaceful silence; silence in remembrance of those who died in Jerusalem Monday, their innocent blood shed in the most horrific and shocking circumstances.The candlelight vigil was held for one reason: to remember Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, Rabbi Moshe Twersky, Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky, Rabbi Kalman Levine, and Officer Zidan Saif. The first four were praying to God, wrapping tefillin, just trying to worship. And then they were butchered — cut down in the middle of the synagogue by Palestinian terrorists armed with guns and a meat cleaver. They were massacred when they should have been the safest. The last one? He was a Druze police officer who succumbed to wound he sustained while trying to protect these four holy men.
But these weren’t just ordinary rabbis; they were peace-loving and tried to make the world a better place every day. One of them was from Kansas City, Missouri, and one was from Detroit. In fact, three of the four rabbis were American citizens, the last was British. All of them will be sorely missed by those whose lives they touched. “I will always remember our friend Moshe, his modesty, his brilliance, his smile, his kindness,” said Naty Katz of the Maimonides School in Brookline of Rabbi Moshe Twersky.
Yet even as the details of these senseless attacks are recounted, even with the anger and the bitterness that something like this can provoke, I still hear only solemn silence and words of peace from the Jews here at ASU. I do not hear hate, or see anger or violence. Instead, I see mourning students responding with courage in the face of pain. Chana Goldstein of Jewish Arizonans On Campus at ASU, responded by saying: “When President (Mahmoud) Abbas (of the Palestinian Authority) calls for hate, I call for love. When the media calls for judgment, I call for understanding. When Hamas call for death, I call for life.”
The students at this vigil organized by Sun Devils for Israel have shown true courage. They showed the courage that can only come when one understands that in order to fix what is happening in the Middle East and around the world, we cannot turn to the knife, or the gun as the terrorists who committed these vicious and uncalled for attacks did. In order to fix what is happening, we must see people as people, not as objects of hate. That is not to say that the Palestinians on campus don't share this opinion. Ibrahim Halloum, the president of Students for Justice in Palestine responded at the Fast-a-Thon 2014: Interfaith Charity Dinner that his group condemns the violence, especially because they are a non-violent group. However, he says that we shouldn't just look at the circumstances on the ground, but rather what caused them. His view is that the institutional oppression that Israel has perpetuated caused the attack in the first place.
While I may disagree with Mr. Halloum about what the root cause of the attack was, we both agree that there is a need for peace and nonviolence. It's time to stop being divided and pointing fingers. It’s time to come together and build each other up, not divide and rip each other to pieces with our actions and our words. It’s time to stop the negative rhetoric, and speak life into each other’s lives.Let’s follow the example of Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama in condemning violence and advocating peace, so that something like this never happens again. Let’s listen to the words of Chana Goldstein and use this moment to build a more intimate and positive community. Let’s try to prevent another horrific tragedy like the one that occurred this past Monday.Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4Editor’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.
(11/18/14 10:00pm)
The U.S. and China have been remarkably friendly of late. A slow transition from mutual suspicion and blockage have been replaced by steps towards a genuine strategic relationship. It all started with an announcement by the Chinese at the U.N. Climate Change Summit two months ago, where they stated that they were going to start working on cutting emissions. Now that announcement has become more concrete through an historic climate change deal Wednesday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit between the U.S. and China.
Cutting down on the carbon is not all that the U.S. and China discussed at the APEC summit: trade was also a topic of discussion which yielded progressive results. The U.S. has agreed to start scaling back on tariffs that have targeted Chinese exports of technological efforts in an effort to stimulate more successful between our two countries. While not as broad reaching as a comprehensive trade deal, this does give hope for larger steps in the future.
This newfound relationship between the U.S. and China is definitely a step in the right direction, especially since it creates the potential for greater cooperation and negotiation between our two countries on other issues, such as strengthening of domestic human rights within China and the resolution of territorial acquisition disputes in the South China Sea. In fact, this new rapprochement between the U.S. and China has significant geopolitical ramifications, since two of the world’s major global actors would be cooperating.
However, the U.S. needs to look at this spirit of cooperation in a cautious manner. It seems that the Chinese may be playing both sides of the field. For instance, while China has been seeking our goodwill on the surface with trade deals and climate change cooperation, state-sponsored cyber-attacks against the U.S. have increased.
The most recent examples of this were suspected attacks on the U.S. Postal Service, and confirmed attacks against National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the National Weather Service. These attacks are troubling because they hit at the highest levels of the U.S. government, and could be a prelude to higher level attacks. On top of this, China is also playing both sides of the global political spectrum. China just agreed to a major gas deal with Russia that would help to boost Putin’s administration despite U.S.-led sanctions.
These mixed messages that China is sending to the U.S. mean that we need to ensure that the Chinese are sincere before moving any farther with deals on technology, foreign policy, climate change, or any other important topic. We need to ensure that we are not opening ourselves to attacks by the Chinese from their technological products as we lower tariffs on them. We also need to ensure that the Chinese understand our stance towards Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Until the issues of cyber security and foreign policy have been addressed both in both international legal terms, perhaps through a U.N. resolution, and through the honest exchange of information, a stable relationship of mutual collaboration cannot exist. We can be optimistic about what has already been accomplished. But that optimism needs to be tempered with caution. Let’s hope that we can move forward with the Chinese instead of falling back into a stalemate. Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4Editor’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.
(11/14/14 1:53am)
We as Americans share certain values. Most important among these values are an appreciation of diversity, both in population and in expression. These values are echoed at ASU. It is a testament to the tolerance and appreciation of diversity at ASU that all forms of expression are encouraged and supported, including a recent symbolic demonstration by the Students for Justice in Palestine.
SJP erected an “apartheid” wall up on Hayden Lawn at the Tempe campus in order to mimic the security barrier that Israel has placed on its border with the West Bank. SJP called it an “apartheid” wall because the real one was allegedly built in order to insulate Israeli citizens from Arabs, keeping the populations separate and attempting to give Israelis more preferential treatment. However, there are a number of problems both with the idea of the security barrier being an “apartheid” wall, and with the way in which the way SJP portrays Israel because of it.
First of all, the barrier, as its name suggests, was built for security. The security barrier was erected along the border of the West Bank in response to the massive amount of terrorist attacks perpetrated against Israelis during what Palestinians term the “Second Intifada.” The infiltration of suicide bombers into the state of Israel made the barrier a necessity to keep the citizens of Israel safe from arbitrary and horrendous attacks.
With this mind, the accusation of the wall being an “apartheid” wall is erroneous for two reasons. First, the word “apartheid” directly references the system of segregation that existed within South Africa until the mid-1990s. However, this does not hold true in the case of Israel. Arabs that are citizens of Israel have equal rights, as both Israeli President Ruby Rivlin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have stressed of late, and the Declaration of Independence of Israel makes clear.
But besides this, the immorality that the “apartheid” wall label implies is also falsely based. In fact, it would be highly immoral for the state of Israel not to take every measure necessary to protect its citizens. Israel has a moral obligation to its citizens to protect them, whatever ethnic or religious background they may have. This means that if the wall is what is necessary to stop indiscriminate terrorist attacks on its people, the state of Israel is justified in erecting it.
In truth, the “apartheid” wall that SJP constructed highlights a much more serious fault line in the university side of the Arab-Israeli conflict: the fact that the doctrine of SJP is more in line with the very atrocities that they accuse Israel of being party to, and is extremely hypocritical. SJP exercises its freedom of expression with its building of a model of Israel’s “apartheid” wall. And yet the doctrine of SJP and those that support it would be intolerant of the expression of others.
What do I mean? SJP and another organization, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, both use tactics that seek to end the “occupation” of Palestinian lands by the “apartheid” state of Israel. BDS has been known to support the actions of Hitler because he hated Jews and wanted to wipe them from the face of the earth. Some also claim that both organizations are linked to Hamas, which has been declared a terrorist organization by the U.S.
So then, the Students for Justice in Palestine should probably change their name. Why? Because they do not live up to their title. If the group were truly in favor of justice for Palestine, they would highlight the terrorism, human rights abuses and corruption that are practiced by both Hamas and Fatah, rather than trying to demonize the state of Israel as an occupying power. They would focus on helping their people escape the oppression of the autocratic leadership of the Palestinian territories rather than on Israel, which often tries to help the Palestinian people.
I personally would like to see an invitation from SJP to have a dialogue about the reasons why they felt the need to build an “apartheid” wall with Jewish students on campus. I don’t mean a one-sided rant against Israel. I mean a clear and open dialogue that brings all the issues out in the open and seeks to address the valid grievances that SJP voices. Israel is not a perfect country and definitely has room to improve, and therefore it would be good to hear legitimate concerns from SJP. Perhaps in the environment that ASU provides within the values that America holds dear, solutions can be found that would never be possible were they to be attempted in the Middle East. Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4Editor’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.
(11/09/14 10:03pm)
The date is Nov. 4, 2014. The ballots are counted and the winner emerges. She smiles and looks near to tears. History has been made.
Rewind nearly a year; the date is now Dec. 6, 2013. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints releases a webpage reiterating its re-defined stance from 1978 on the status of African-Americans within the church, from being second-class citizens to being full members. Again, history was made.
These two history-making events are linked by Mia Love, the first African-American Republican woman to win a seat in Congress, a Mormon born of Haitian parents who will represent the Beehive state in the coming Congressional session. Against all odds (60 percent of Utah’s population is composed of Mormons, while only 1.3 percent of Utah is African-American), Love demonstrates that America is again taking steps forward in its racial attitudes.
But even as Love’s election is a step forward for America, it is not enough. The GOP will be tempted to brag about Love’s election as an example of its progressive attitude and its color blindness, and the Mormon church will be tempted to do the same thing. And yet if one black Congresswoman is all that both of these organizations have to show as evidence of their lack of racism and sexism, then it is a pitiful display. Yes, this is a step in the right direction. But both organizations need to go further.
The fact that African-Americans were banned from full participation in the activities of the Mormon church due to a “curse” from God that made blacks inferior to whites is a very clear demonstration of racism. This was only repealed in 1978, when the presidency of the LDS Church proclaimed that “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color” and was only re-affirmed just last year.
Yet the Mormon church has never repudiated or refuted the culture that made the ban possible in the first place. The Mormon church needs to offer a very public apology for its perpetuation of racism all of these years, not just quietly “accept” African-Americans as “true” Mormons. That would be a welcome change for all involved, and it would provide closure and help us to come to terms with the past.
The Republican Party is not exempt from the criticism that is directed at the Mormon church. The GOP has been notoriously hostile to immigrants and other ethnic groups, both in terms of party leaders and in overall composition. If the GOP really wants to prove that it is racially progressive, it needs to move forward on immigration reform with President Barack Obama as soon as possible. The president has already made it abundantly clear that the two pillars upon which his legacy will stand will be the Affordable Care Act and immigration reform.
Therefore House Speaker John Boehner and presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should demonstrate their party’s willingness to be more racially progressive by working hard on immigration reform, instead of wasting time on trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which will never be repealed so long as Obama holds veto power. This would be mutually beneficial to both sides, since Obama would be able to cement his legacy and Republicans would be able to attract African-American and Latino voters.
It is true, as Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis says, that America is “not a post-racial society.” But I believe that if the GOP and the Mormon church were to take the steps recommended above and continue to work together with those different from them towards a better and more diverse America, we as Americans can get to that a point of racial equality.
Perhaps we can learn best from Love herself, whose reaction to the media efforts to portray her victory in an entirely racial light was enlightening and refreshing: “I wasn’t elected because of the color of my skin; I wasn’t elected because of my gender. I was elected because of the solutions that I put at the table because I promised I would run a positive issues-oriented campaign and that’s what resonated.” Now that’s what I like to hear from our elected leaders.Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4Editor’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.
(11/05/14 5:02am)
Columnists Jordan Meyer and Jordan Brunner give their perspective on the outcome of the midterm elections.Arizona Governor — Republican Doug DuceyMeyer: During Ducey's governorship, we can expect more of the same in resisting the federal government and the state's supposed right to override it. The approval of Proposition 122, will act as another tool in the arsenal for the state, and subsequently Ducey, to make a mockery of Arizona on the national level. The proposition allows (constitutionality pending) the state to reject any federal sanction that the state deems unconstitutional — namely, the continuous battle against the health care law proposed by President Barack Obama. Brunner: Governor-elect Ducey ran on his business record at Cold Stone Creamery throughout this hard-fought election, targeting DuVal for his lobbying practices in a huge number of negative ads. Running a state is not the same as running a business, and the office of state treasurer is not the same as the office of governor of Arizona. Ducey will be facing a state that has a rising unemployment rate and a rapidly approaching fiscal cliff, and the test of his administration will be whether he can create jobs as he promised he would. Ducey has promised enormous tax cuts for both individuals and businesses. However, that may just be a band-aid for the current problem. On his first day of office, Ducey needs to provide a comprehensive economic vision for Arizona in order to aid our rapidly decreasing workforce here in Arizona, and that includes stimulating local businesses and encouraging big businesses like entertainment and industrial giants to settle in Arizona. Ducey needs to market Arizona extremely well, using the best and the brightest in his administration. Meyer: The direction of education is another uncertainty in the face of Ducey’s victory. While DuVal’s plan for education was praised by local educators, Ducey’s plan for public education is not as pragmatic and offers a precarious future for education in Arizona. He alleges he is able to provide primary students with an adequate education with the current budget (which has been diminished in the past five-plus years). Brunner: The sticking point for me is Ducey’s position on Common Core, which is a very controversial issue to begin with. Common Core would at least force teachers and school administrators to re-evaluate the way they are teaching, especially in Arizona. Let’s face it — Arizona is nearly last in the nation on education, and the policies of yesterday will not work. What is surprising to me is that Ducey was able to win on a pro-business platform when Mitt Romney lost his election after he used the same tactic. Then again, Romney was running for the presidency in a very diverse populace, while Ducey was running in a very conservative, business-based state with which Ducey is very connected. Immigration will also be key in the coming months, especially since Arizona has still been a lightning rod for controversy over Senate Bill 1070 bill that Gov. Brewer signed into law. Although Ducey has stayed very party line leading up to the election, I believe that he needs to take a different stance now that he has succeeded in winning the governor’s seat. Representative for 9th Congressional District — Democrat Kyrsten SinemaMeyer: Sinema was the sole victor and ally to the Democratic party in the state. Her victory last election cycle was unexpected; however, she is what the district and the state needs. She supports the federal government increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. The raise would greatly benefit a large segment of her congressional district who maintain low-waged jobs — college students. Sinema’s stances on minimum wage, women’s rights, among other concerns for the young electorate, makes her an ideal representative for the 9th District on the national stage. Brunner: Tempe was the deciding factor in Kyrsten Sinema’s victory in the 9th Congressional District. Her stances on key social and economic issues — same-sex marriage, minimum wage, and the voice of younger voters — allowed her to galvanize the younger populace of her district in support of her campaign. It didn’t hurt that her opponent, Wendy Rogers, provided a lackluster performance for her party, which knew from the beginning that Sinema’s district was hers to lose. Not that any of this is bad. Sinema has proven herself to be both a moderate and reasoned voice in Congress, and I’m sure that her stance on many issues will be quite valuable with what looks like will be a largely partisan House of Representatives. Secretary of State — Republican Michele ReaganMeyer: I am unusually indifferent on the election of Reagan. Although Terry Goddard was the right choice to become Arizona’s next Secretary of State, both candidates' concerns on the influx of dark money were parallel. Dark money is a grave concern to the integrity of the electoral system in Arizona and needs to be the foremost concern for the next Secretary of the State. However, Reagan overstates a concern for voter fraud, which has proven to have minimal consequences to the electoral process. Brunner: Reagan brings a great deal of experience to the office of Secretary of State, and a lot of great ideas. For instance, Reagan’s idea to have kiosks on college campuses that allow students to register to vote virtually, which was voiced during her speech at the Sparking Democracy event her at ASU, is a wonderful idea that would probably attract a lot of attention not just to the voting process but also to Arizona as an election innovator. Attorney General — Republican Mark BrnovichMeyer: Ultimately, the most concerning result of the night is that of the new Attorney General Mark Brnovich. Brnovich is an adamant anti-abortion advocate and gained the support of a number of questionable allies that may inevitably impact his decision-making as attorney general. One of his more dubious supporters is the National Rifle Association, which poses an obvious concern as a state with some of the loosest gun restrictions in the nation. His election is disconcerting, to say the least, to liberal principles, including women’s rights. Brunner: Although Brnovich is beholden to the National Rifle Association in some respects, he has criminal prosecution experience that Felecia Rotellini definitely lacked. Sure, Rotellini has legal experience and has a large record dealing with big business and corporations. But at the end of the day, the biggest problem that Arizona is facing is not white-collar crime on the part of big businesses. Instead, as far as crime is concerned, our biggest problem is protecting our border. But partisan politics aside, either candidate is definitely better than the outgoing Tom Horne, who disgraced the office of Attorney General in Arizona during his term.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
(11/04/14 10:00pm)
The U.S. public measures the president on foreign policy by how well he can handle our enemies while also bolstering our allies.
(10/26/14 11:19pm)
I am shocked and appalled. It has been nearly 70 years since Adolf Hitler ended his life in a bunker, his dream of an Aryan master race that would conquer the world and eradicate it of the Jewish race in tatters around him. That is why I can’t understand why the attitudes of anti-Semitism and ethnic hatred behind that dream are still alive and well in the most unlikely of places: the United Kingdom. That is why I am shocked. That is why I am appalled.
(10/20/14 10:53pm)
I have often heard adults around me ask this question, “Why is youth wasted on the young?” They obviously haven’t met Malala Yousafzai. The 17-year old girls’ rights activist began crusading against oppression before she even reached her teens. Despite numerous death threats and a nearly-successful attempt on her life that left her hospitalized for months, Yousafzai has valiantly continued her fight for girls' right to go to school in countries like her native Pakistan.
(10/14/14 10:47pm)
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
(10/06/14 10:00pm)
Making up is always a precarious process: Trust must be re-built, partners' egos need stroking, and there are always naysayers who are overly pessimistic, always thinking that the relationship will crash and burn and hurt everyone involved. But, given enough time and support, the makeup process will help a relationship blossom into a strong bond, and create a peaceful and happy environment.
(10/01/14 12:04am)
China rarely helps America out. In fact, other than holding 8 percent of our debt, China wants little to do with us. So I’m sure it was a big shock for many in the U.S. when Chinese officials came out at the U.N. conference saying that they were going to help President Obama on climate change by releasing a goal and a timeline for substantially cutting carbon emissions “as soon as we can.”
(09/22/14 9:31pm)
If we don’t see a more rapid and robust response to disease by the U.N., our world may soon look like the worst part of the film "Contagion." Only this time, the virus that kills millions will have a different name: Ebola.
(09/15/14 11:45pm)
Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t helping us move forward in our foreign relations. If anything, he is moving us backwards. Recently, the fiery Republican from Texas attended a posh gala that was organized around the plight of Middle Eastern Christians. Cruz made the comment that “Christians have no greater ally than Israel.” He was then booed off stage.