During Sunday’s Democratic Debate in Flint, Mich., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., took a moment to highlight what he felt to be a significant difference between himself and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in terms of economic reform.
A common refrain I hear from Hillary Clinton supporters is that even if the country could somehow muster the will to put Bernie Sanders into the Oval Office, nothing would ever get done because Republicans would block Sanders’ ultra-liberal policy proposals at every turn. Admittedly, I understand where these people are coming from. For people who think the government can and should play a more active role in bettering people’s lives by ensuring health care as a right for all citizens, making college universally affordable and reigning in the power of the wealthiest Americans to control the political process, Sanders is exactly the person upon whom we should bestow the presidency. On the other hand, for those in Congress possessing wildly different notions of what government should do on behalf of the people, i.e., Republicans, a Sanders win on 2016’s election night would undoubtedly presage a precipitous drop in legislative productivity.
The article entitled “Sanders’ socialism falls short” that appeared in the Sept. 23 issue of this paper provides poignant insight into the degree to which Bernie Sanders detractors are blind to historical economic trends and the success of socialist principles around the world. In the article the author purports to put backers of Sanders’ aims for things like universal healthcare and free college in their place by noting that these programs would cost money.
It’s official. In the wake of probing by the Department of Justice and a deluge of citizen backlash, Comcast, the country’s largest Internet and cable provider, will not move forward with its plan to acquire Time Warner, the country’s second largest Internet and cable provider. Unless you’re Satan, this is great news. Taken with the recent decision on the part of the Federal Communications Commission to uphold net neutrality, there appears to be a glimmer of hope that the rules of our media landscape aren’t yet written completely by the telecommunications behemoths.
I’m on an airplane right now. Well, not right now, because by the time anyone reads this, spring break will have come to a close and I’ll be settling back into college life in Madison. But as I type these words I’m on a plane to Los Angeles, surrounded by people who might as well be miles away.
I’m sick to my stomach writing this. I’m sickened by the callousness with which people I grew up with are talking about the death of a human being, and sickened by the fact that Madison is now on the map for the killing of an unarmed black teenager at the hands of a white police officer. I’m in disbelief that my fellow citizens would be so ignorant as to look at the pervasive, disproportionate use of lethal force against blacks and not see that what we are dealing with is an explicitly racial issue with an entrenched historical precedent.
Of the 10 highest-grossing films of 2014, eight were franchises and half of those eight were superhero films. Alejandro González Iñárritu, director of the independently produced “Birdman,” proclaimed in a Rolling Stone interview that these movies are “ruining things in a lot of ways” and “keep taking up room that could be going to smaller films.” Conversely, when asked by Rolling Stone if there are too many superhero films on the market, Paul Thomas Anderson, who helmed the also independently produced “Inherent Vice,” quipped that “people need to get a life if they’re having that discussion.”
The recent attack of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo at the hands of religious fanatics has sent many into a frenzy extolling the merits of a free press. That so many of us regard the right to an open press as a fundamental tenet of society has been laid bare in our incredulity at those who would extinguish the torch of free expression and dictate the parameters of permissible thought. In their march through Paris in the wake of the attack, a myriad of the world’s leaders affirmed that those who value liberty over tyranny would not submit to the demands of terrorists.
For those Badgers who feel that the stress caused by their workloads is akin not to that of the typical college student but the most beleaguered, overworked airplane pilots, any break from studying may be perceived as an impediment to ensuring readiness for a final test or essay. However, even though stress is an implicit part of most college students’ academic experiences, knowing when to take a break from studying is an important part of maintaining mental and physical health. In hearing and observing people’s attitudes toward studying, I’ve realized that many students are wont to follow an academic orthodoxy that holds hunkering down for hours on end as the optimal way to guarantee success in the classroom. To be honest, many workloads do require hours of focus and dedication if one wishes to do well. Nevertheless, work habits that consistently forgo exercise and relaxation breaks in favor of uninterrupted studying run the risk of intensifying the stress caused by coursework and increasing the likelihood of illness.
A few weeks ago, over Twitter, I had a slightly tempestuous series of exchanges with the music streaming company Spotify. Its services, which can be accessed by either paying directly or agreeing to listen to advertisements intermittently between songs, are available for both computers and phones.
Read on Issuu
Solutions by The State News
