The trouble with 'selfies'
Have you ever taken a “selfie?” You know, a self-portrait that you've uploaded to a social media website?
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.
74 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Have you ever taken a “selfie?” You know, a self-portrait that you've uploaded to a social media website?
The pope wants to end modern forms of slavery.
“God” can be a loaded term. It can define how individuals live their lives, and it can encompass the innately divine purposes of our existence. From Christianity to Islam to Hinduism, different religions have arisen because of mankind's longing to understand God. In essence, different religions all attempt to define God and identify the true nature of reality. But can one be religious without God, or are these concepts irreversibly connected? In Ronald Dworkin's book "Religion Without God," published posthumously, Dworkin discusses whether God is "constitutive" of religion. This discussion got me thinking: Is it philosophically possible to be devoted to a religion without a god? Two semesters ago, I wrote a column for The State Press in which I agreed with those who believe one can be spiritual without being religious. Spirituality is the internal attempt to discover the true nature of reality on one's own. The concept of god, however, is uniquely different from spirituality. It is not just a concept of a superhuman, transcendent being who governs reality, though that is how many people subconsciously define it, which is an example of how a stereotype has grown to define a concept. The concept of god is instead inherently tied to what each individual values. Values are key. Everyone ends up worshipping something. Even atheists, who so adamantly declare there is no god, devote their lives to serving some purpose. That purpose might be wealth, beauty, social justice or some other ideal they consider to be important. Religion, then, is an avenue wherein individuals choose to channel their worship towards an established ideal — in this case, the god each specific religion defines. Our values become our god. This is universally true for people of all religions and even those without religion. I, for example, worship the Christian God of the Bible, and as such I choose to live my life according to the values my god considers important. Essentially, everyone is religious. Humans are religious creatures, whether they acknowledge it or not. Different forms of religions abound among us and we are often enticed into accepting them. You cannot be religious without worshipping some god. Because you will have to live your life for something, I suggest you live your life for something greater than yourself. You have your whole life to try and figure that out. Reach the columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @sean_mccauley.
“Government control of the economy, no matter in whose behalf, has been the source of all the evils in our industrial history,” Ayn Rand wrote in her collection of essays entitled “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.” Anyone who has concern for individual freedoms should be immensely frightened by the recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” and its implications about the role of government in America. The premise of the law’s passage, according to libertarian think tank Cato Institute, is unconstitutional. The bill makes it acceptable for the government to tax an individual for staying inside and freely deciding not to participate in commerce by not purchasing health insurance. Here, the government is not regulating commerce but is rather forcibly creating it. Essentially, the government is giving insurance companies more customers without adding any new medical personnel. An increase in consumers trying to access health services without a corresponding increase in real access to care will create a gap in care, leading to poorer quality. Not at all surprisingly, insurance companies loved the Affordable Care Act. Why wouldn't they? Back on the campaign trail, President Barack Obama, then a senator, promised “affordable health care.” This concept of “affordability” was at the forefront of his campaign. However, according to sources including Business Insider, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Forbes, consumers are looking at new taxes, higher rates on existing taxes and increased costs health care costs. Are more taxes really what America needs in this economy? What this is really telling the American people is that government knows how to spend their income better than the American people know how to spend it. That’s incredibly demeaning. My colleague Jordan Meyer wrote that the Affordable Care Act would be Obama’s lasting legacy, much like President Franklin Roosevelt is remembered for Social Security, or President Lyndon Johnson is known for the “Great Society.” It shouldn't be. Social Security is running a $55 million deficit, while the “Great Society” programs have not eradicated poverty. Throwing government money into inefficient federal programs is a waste. Roosevelt is most remembered for his leadership during World War II and not his unsuccessful domestic policies that only prolonged the Great Depression; Johnson, I would argue, is not even remembered for being a great president. Contrary to what my colleague asserted, the passage of the Affordable Care Act is not a symbol of “freedom” in the health care industry but an example of government overreach. Government is not and can never be the solution to health care injustices. It must be left to the free market. Reach this columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on twitter at @sean_mccauley.
If you’ve ever read any of my previous columns for The State Press, you probably know I lean to the right. In January of this year, for example, I wrote about how our health care problems in this nation need more market-based solutions. As you might have gleaned, I am so vehemently opposed to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional, I practically screeched in ideological frustration. With House Republicans and Senate Democrats refusing to negotiate on any kind of Obamacare compromise, Americans are left with a government that has been shut down for going on two weeks. Take a deep breath. Not all of the government is shut down. Actually, only about 17 percent of government spending has stopped, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates: “This figure assumes that the government pays amounts due on appropriations obligated before the shutdown ($512 billion), spends $225 billion on exempted military and civilian personnel, pays entitlement benefits for those found eligible before the shutdown (about $2 trillion) and pays interest costs when due ($237 billion). This is about 83 percent of projected 2014 spending of $3.6 trillion." While proponents of some sort of federal apocalypse are obviously exaggerating, the 2013 shutdown does present America with a question: What happens now? Will Congress ever compromise? As a registered Republican, I am caught off guard by my party’s inherent divisions. Opposing Obamacare funding is not a good political move. The longer this shutdown drags on, the more uncertainty is cast over America. Initially, there is only a 0.3 percent loss predicted; the longer the shutdown, however, the more hurt this will bring. House Republicans will have to eventually cave. A CNN/ORC poll indicates 46 percent of Americans blame the government shutdown on the GOP. The Weekly Standard, a right-leaning publication, disagrees with me. In eight points, it lists reasons why the government shutdown won’t hurt Republicans. However, they’re wrong. What’s unique about this rationale is that the Weekly Standard seems to think that because Obamacare is unpopular, this means Democrats do not have the upper hand, politically speaking. The fact remains that if people start losing their jobs and forgoing their paychecks because of this Congressional stalemate, they won’t care much about the impending implementation of Obamacare. Let’s flip this on its side just to be sure: How is this a “win” for the GOP? What does the party possibly expect to gain from this? Think about it: Obamacare is U.S. law, and some of its funding is already etched in stone. At most, then, what the GOP is doing is a political circus in which the GOP makes a public point regarding Obamacare before it fully becomes implemented. That’s fine, but the longer this lasts, the worse off America becomes. From a more conservative perspective, I’m as frustrated as anyone else that the government passed this law. I do not like it or its implications. The solution, however, is not to hurt America while damaging the reputation of your party. Eventually, when the GOP does cave, things will revert back to a sense of normalcy. This may not — and probably will not — turn into a crucial issue in the next presidential election. So, House Republicans, let it go. This battle was lost for us the moment the Supreme Court justices betrayed the Constitution. We should now focus on issues that have not yet reached a federal resolution. Let’s put our time and effort into legally trying to win back seats in Congress and pass legislation that modifies the federal government. Instead of slowly killing the federal government, let’s legally shrink it. Reach this columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @sean_mccauley.
As a man living in the U.S. in 2013, gender ideals that are seemingly completely contradictory are being thrown at me from all different angles. With the rise of feminist movements in the U.S., as well as the world, what has been previously understood as "traditional" masculinity is being vehemently challenged.
When George Orwell wrote his famous dystopian novel "1984," I don't even think he could've imagined the global expansion of surveillance technologies that faces the world today.
Foreign policy has often been the spear in America’s Achilles' heel, and President Barack Obama's second term appears to be no different.
I consider myself a Christian, but for me, there has been no “outside voice” and no audible foreign personality directly guiding me from one path to another. It has merely been me, myself and I either following my religious instruction or choosing to do something different altogether.
“Forget the past, let’s try and move on.”
I’m not the biggest Tom Cruise fan. Sure, "Jerry Maguire" was good, and "Vanilla Sky" had its moments, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to see a Cruise-inflated summer blockbuster.
This summer, I applied for an internship. It was a paid internship, but unfortunately I wasn’t selected. This got me thinking: The concept of an “internship” seems to have greatly expanded in the new millennia, especially at the wake of this monumental economic downturn. With fewer jobs available and more people in on the job hunt, it seems feasible that employers would turn to unpaid interns to accomplish various tasks. If you’re in college, you probably have either held an internship position or are aspiring to hold one. A recent CNN article by Alex Footman endeavors to define the concept of an intern and ends with Footman and co. filing a lawsuit against the company for which they were interning. To be more precise, Footman states that he wants the following: “... to see more laws to protect those who work for free. Better yet, we want to see more self-regulation from employers so that the burden of enforcement won't have to weigh down on the people with the least bargaining power.” Let’s examine this for a second. He’s downright wrong about this “burden of enforcement.” Interns, of course, do have a bargaining chip against such employment requirements: How about choosing not to intern for the said business and ending any business relationship with that employer? If you, as an intern, feel that a company is using you incorrectly, you always have the option of leaving if the company refuses to change. Period. Since there is no fiscal exit cost, it’s ludicrous to argue an intern doesn’t have this power. He does. At all times. Don’t berate an employer for taking advantage of free labor if you, as an intern, willingly offer it to them. In comparison, that would be like if a baseball player signed with a team for free and then complained when the coach put him in the batter’s box. It doesn’t work like that. But let’s take his bogus assessment further. Essentially, this article is a call for government to define the concept of internship to every business who hires interns, and to specifically differentiate between mediums of employment. How ridiculous! Every business is different and every internship position is different. This is completely improbable and will serve to inevitably further America’s bloated, federal-regulation database. Yet with a recent court ruling, a federal judge in Manhattan officially penalized businesses for staffing unpaid interns, effectively telling America that interns are too stupid to leave when they feel they aren’t getting their “money’s worth,” and so desperate for income that they turn to the government to award them with retribution. It shouldn’t be this complicated, and government shouldn’t have to get involved. Interns just need to become better consumers. An internship is just a temporary position that assists you in achieving a future goal. It’s as simple as that. If you feel you’re being “abused” or forced to work like a regular paid worker, then quit. Leave all the negotiations between the laborer and the employer. Get the federal government out of business, and force interns to become better consumers. Force them to make decisions about employment and labor by themselves and stop claiming that they’re being taken advantage of, against their own wills. It’s simply not true. Reach this columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on twitter at @sean_mccauley
Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Ouch, Mr. President.
Over a year ago, I wrote about how foreign policy would continue to play a more dominant role in U.S. politics in the coming decade. With North Korea sending missiles to its eastern border, my early suspicions may unfortunately be correct. Both Iran and Pakistan are undoubtedly watching with a close eye how the international community handles the North Korea dilemma, and nationalism and its tendency toward national dominance — including the quest for weapons of mass destruction — pose intrinsic challenges toward the way societies structure themselves. The Middle East in particular represents the most significant of challenges. Remember when Hosni Mubarak, the semi-friendly, pro-Western dictator was being lectured by President Obama about giving up his government's power? While Mubarak's Egypt was certainly no epitome of a perfect society and largely needed its own reforms, fast forward a few years later: Current “president” Mohammed Morsi and his anti-American organization the Muslim Brotherhood have not only taken control of Egypt's new coalition government (which some have argued is not even democratic), they also pose a new enemy to Israel and potentially a new terrorist-friendly country in which to provide for the needs of numerous already-existing terrorist organizations. After Mubarak stepped down, neo-conservative pundits begged individuals not to turn a blind eye to the new Egyptian government that hadn't yet emerged. Several years later, it appears that they were correct in both their cautiousness, as well as their plea to pay attention to the shifting nature of government in the Middle East. Now two years later, America not only has a new threat in the region but a new challenge in their foreign policy goals. Ever since Mubarak was ousted, America has been sending Egypt various anti-riot gear, as well as borrowed money that our government doesn't even possess. So our federal government, despite the fact that we are almost $17 trillion in debt and are running a monthly budget deficit, is sending the Egyptian government — a government that is not even friendly to our own foreign interests — foreign aid money and protest-repression equipment. Consider this my plea to the federal government to stop blindly sending out foreign aid money, especially to a government that has the potential to not only hurt its own citizens but potentially citizens of the U.S. as well. It has to stop. Military spending is just peachy to a fiscally-responsible extent, but providing anti-American governments money that we don't even possess as of yet is just downright ridiculous. This not a partisan issue. This is a common sense issue. We should use our heads and allocate our money to places that are constitutionally permissible and domestically applicable. Morsi's Egypt fits neither criteria. Reach this columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on twitter at @sean_mccauley
The economy is abysmal. Shootings seem to occur practically once a month. North Korea defies U.N. protocol, provocatively moves its missiles to its coast and unconsciously threatens America. Genocides occur with seemingly no afterthought. Governments continue to fund and house terrorism.
Just last Tuesday, I awoke to find that nearly half of my Facebook friends had changed their profile pictures to depict a red equal sign.
“Its' official: Deep cuts in federal spending are under way, $85 billion over the next seven months. The question we should all be asking soon is: Where are the jobs?” begins Center for American Progress senior fellow James H. Carr in his recent opinion piece for CNN.
Our national unemployment rate is 7.8 percent, whereas the estimated number of homosexual men and women in the U.S. is 4 percent.
If you go to college and you're a liberal arts major, you probably know there isn't much of an immediate demand for your particular skill set.
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.