434 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
In the past few decades, we have seen the abundance of new technologies continue to sprawl, leading to incredible amounts of “progress” for humanity. These sweeping advancements, particularly in automation, have not only made consumer products more affordable but have also significantly liberated valuable time previously dedicated to laborious tasks. Additionally, the recent developments in the realm of AI have led to exciting prospects for various industries and fields, revolutionizing the way we live and work.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on, President Joe Biden granted President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for Ukrainian usage of American cluster bombs against the Russian military. Biden’s decision is controversial, as critics point to a consensus that their use constitutes a war crime and that transferring U.S. weapons to other states carries an inherent risk. Meanwhile, supporters claim the bombs are necessary for Ukrainian victory against Russia’s violent invasion that currently employs cluster bombs against Ukrainians. However, there are more just and effective methods for the U.S. to support Ukraine’s freedom. Ultimately, war must not justify war crimes.
On July 3, the Israeli military stormed a refugee camp in the West Bank with bulldozers, tanks and soldiers. While on paper a counter-insurgency attack, it is emblematic of a pattern for the Israeli government — extreme violence with no care for civilians. This mission destroyed houses, harmed the water and electric grids and blocked ambulances from responding to the over 100 people who were injured. It killed four teenagers — at least one of whom was allegedly unarmed.
Amidst the current uproar about the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, one topic is notably absent from discourse: unions and workers’ rights. On June 1, the Supreme Court ordered a workers union to pay for damages incurred during their strike in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. Before that, Janus v. The AFSCME overturned unions’ ability to collect fees from non-union members, while Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid severely limited unions’ ability to speak to workers. These decisions show that this Supreme Court is the most anti-labor Court in nearly a century. All of these decisions overturned decades — sometimes nearly a century — of precedent, laws and widely accepted doctrines. These decisions all but spit in the face of current unions.
This month, the world witnessed quite the whirlwind of events in Russia. Yevgeny Prigozhin led his Wagner mercenary company in a short-lived but shocking mutiny against the Russian military, with Wagner forces driving from the Southern city of Rostov-on-Don to less than 150 miles from Moscow. If they had completed their march, it would have been about the driving distance between Chicago and Washington, D.C. Given that the whole rebellion only lasted about a day, this is quite a feat — and a very embarrassing one for the Russian government. If it can’t even stop a column of mercenaries driving in broad daylight on the highway, the Russian state seems pretty vulnerable. What matters here is that had the revolt lasted longer, it easily could have generated a massive wave of refugees, and it seems unlikely anyone would have been prepared. Next time, we need to be.
In the past year, Stanford University has come under fire for its poor treatment of Stanford students. A November lawsuit alleges that Stanford’s accusations against Stanford women’s soccer goalkeeper Katie Meyer directly contributed to her suicide a year ago. Subsequently, several articles appeared describing the stifling atmosphere the bureaucratic administration has created on Stanford’s campus in the last decade. A piece from Palladium Magazine explained how Stanford administrators have “eviscerated a hundred years of undergraduate culture and student groups” in their efforts to sanitize campus of any tradition or institution that could lead to bad publicity. Another article from The Stanford Daily described how the cancellation of the fraternity event Eurotrash last fall led to students making posters with the words “Stanford is Anti-Fun.” The recent coverage attributed the growth of Stanford’s unaccountable, overreaching administrative bureaucracy to the loss of student freedoms on Stanford’s campus.
We are currently amidst a sea of calamities. There’s the recent expulsion of two Black Tennessee state legislators from their seats for having the gall to partake in a protest advocating for gun control that cruelly didn’t make its targets feel all warm and fuzzy inside. There’s the ever-shrinking legality of abortion in states across the country. Some Republican politicians in Wisconsin have childishly threatened to impeach newly-elected state Supreme Court justice Janet Protasiewicz before she has even taken office. There’s the ongoing assault on LGBTQ+ individuals in wide swaths of this country. We just found out one of our Supreme Court justices has been taking lavish and likely illegal gifts under the table from Republican megadonors for the past 20 — that’s right, two-zero — years. If that wasn’t enough, Iowa and Arkansas are trying to make sweatshop-style child labor cool again, too. I, for one, need something to look forward to.
Winning the votes of environmentally-conscious Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters would be a huge boost for Democrats in 2024. According to the Climate Center in 2020, 68% of all Republicans between the ages of 18 and 54 report climate change as an important factor in casting their vote — a camp large enough to bolster the Democrat’s support base in the upcoming election. But securing that cohort’s vote will require Democrats to adjust their party’s messaging around climate change policies — specifically, the party should assuage Republican concerns surrounding any potential negative economic impacts of environmental efforts and the issue’s politicization. To do so, they must emphasize the popularity of President Biden’s climate policies among non-Democrats, as well as their economic benefits — particularly the benefits they could bring to blue-collar workers.
The other morning, I was chatting with a friend of mine who goes to college in a big city. About halfway through the phone call, he realized that he was out of milk and a few other groceries. “No worries,” he said, “I’ll just run across the street to grab some more.” Jokingly, I remarked, “Oh, off to the nearest CVS?” After a pause, he replied, “uh… why would I ever go to CVS for groceries?”
When I was sixteen, I broke up with my high school boyfriend in the worst way possible. Let me set the scene: It’s the week before Valentine’s Day and I’m sitting at the dinner table doing homework; I was reading “Pride and Prejudice” for class — all too ironic. My phone won’t stop buzzing because my boyfriend and I are text-arguing about whatever high schoolers fight over. The distraction is driving me crazy because at that time I cared about school more than most things — including relationships — and I got so annoyed that I just called him up and ended it. On the phone. The week of Valentine’s Day.
The year is 2007 and I am five years old, standing in a Blockbuster. My dad says I can pick out any movie I want, and I choose the original “Nosferatu” and an unmemorable B horror movie. When I try to fall asleep after our amateur double feature, I can’t. For the first and last time, I am truly frightened by a movie, so scared that I don't sleep the entire night. I consider this a watershed moment in my life — the first time a film evoked any emotion in me.
Like most adults across the world, my dad isn’t necessarily a tech whiz. He’s called me up before in efforts to figure out how to turn on the TV, install a new iPhone app or create a Spotify playlist. Of course, I happily oblige (although I couldn’t help being a little frustrated when he somehow managed to turn his phone’s default language to Croatian). Yet there is one element of his relationship with technology that drives me up a wall. For someone who spends hours of their daily routine on their phone, he’s intensely critical of me, and my other siblings, for the time we spend on our devices.
So here we are again: a week of compounding tragedies — and the feeling that very little of substance is going to change. As a student body, the outpouring of grief for the loss of both Joshua Watson ‘22 and Sam Gawel ‘23 has been visceral and physical; I’ve never seen more communities and campus organizations reach out, offer space and check in. The recent hate crime against a graduate student has also weighed heavily on campus. Top college leaders joined in this chorus, organizing a community gathering this past Friday.
Last Tuesday, the undergraduate candidates for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Miles Brown ’23 and Nicolás Macri ’24, finished fifth and sixth, respectively, in the Democratic primary — several hundred votes away from securing a spot in the general election. Last July, the current Student Government president, David Millman ’23, lost a race for Hanover selectboard by around 300 votes. The most recent student candidate to win a local election was Garrett Muscatel ’20, who ran unopposed in the 2018 Democratic primary for state house.
Many of us have seen the photos and videos coming out of the Kharkiv region of Ukraine over the past few days: abandoned tanks on roads, left-behind munitions, burnt-out wrecks of equipment littering fields and streets. Ukrainian forces have pulled off an incredible feat that hopefully will bring a swift end to Putin’s senseless and pointless war. But the fact of the matter is that wars do not truly end when peace returns. Wars end when societies have been healed, and that will take years. Now is the time to start planning to help heal Eastern Europe.
Life for Dartmouth students is busy and, in many ways, unpredictable. This is not news: Students take two or three classes — maybe even four — all the while juggling jobs, clubs, sports, friendships, family and all the other pressures of adulthood. Our days start early and end late, and despite our best intentions and meticulous planning, random inconveniences can happen without warning.
In spring 2021, I wrote my first column for this paper. I argued that if President Biden didn’t do more to pass his agenda, young voters would have little reason to vote for his party in the 2022 midterm election. Those midterms are now fast approaching, and I saw it fit to reexamine developments since then. My point in that column was limited to commenting on whether Democrats would see success with young voters in the midterms. I’d now like to expand on it. If President Biden and the Democratic Party cannot demonstrate to voters that they both can and will solve ordinary voters’ economic problems, America’s democracy will further, and perhaps irreparably, erode.
For the second straight quarter, the United States’ economy has shrunk, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. What does this mean? Conventional wisdom would say the economy is in a recession. But statements coming from the upper echelons of our government, such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s denial of this fact, would lead one to believe that this is not the case. Their motivations for doing this are simple: If the economy is doing poorly, that bodes ill for the ruling Democratic Party come November. Official recognition of this fact would mean an admission of guilt, but no amount of hemming and hawing can disguise the fact that the economy is approaching a dangerous place. Instead of trying to cover up their mistakes, the Biden administration should own up to the situation it is in, or else they will be soundly rebuked in November.
The fact that insulin prices in the United States are ridiculous should surprise no one given how often the hormone makes headlines. High insulin prices are also a uniquely American problem — prices here are dramatically higher than in any other developed nation. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, insulin costs around 10 times more in the U.S. than the average across 32 other OECD countries. During his presidential run before the 2020 election, Bernie Sanders even went so far as to lead a bus full of Type 1 diabetics up to Canada to purchase insulin for a tiny fraction of what it costs in the U.S. He has a point — the price discrepancy is nonsensical.
For Dartmouth’s Classes of 2025, 2026 and 2027, the admissions office has instituted a “test-optional” policy, in which applicants may choose whether to submit standardized test scores as part of their application, but will not be penalized if they do not. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions’ website claims that “it is not the moment to restore the testing requirement” due to the pandemic. Recently, standardized testing has come under fire for two different reasons: access and equity. But these attacks do not hold up under scrutiny. Recent advancements in public health and technology, as well as extensive research, all show that these arguments are either inaccurate or wholly unfounded. Ultimately, Dartmouth will be less able to accept students who will succeed academically if it stays test-optional. The College should once again require applicants to submit standardized test scores.