In an era when a serious political discussion with those of differing viewpoints is nearly impossible, when attention spans have been reduced to sound bites of 30 seconds or less cut and sold for Instagram and Twitter, film remains one of the only mediums capable of piercing the cloud of anger, distrust, and myopia that hangs over our nation and seeps into every aspect of our lives. Conservatives working themselves up into a frenzy to stop the screening of perhaps the only mainstream Hollywood film that will ever give any level of credence to their beliefs is not only counterproductive but decidedly anti-American.
Imagine my confusion when Gelson’s announced that Broguiere’s would be shutting down — with milk sales brisk and social media abuzz, what could be forcing this otherwise vigorous business off the market? Large corporations like Kraft and Nestle have always eaten into sales, but owner Ray Broguiere says that state and local regulations are making continued business untenable.
Coca-Cola, the massive international beverage consortium best known for its 1985 “New Coke” failure in the midst of the American coke epidemic, naturally says that serving sizes and dieting are not to blame for the health crisis; they say that Americans must simply exercise more. While stating that the sedentary hungry, hungry hippos that constitute two thirds of American adults require more exercise is certainly valid, Coca-Cola’s position that fast food and serving sizes are not an issue is—excuse my bluntness—bullshit.
The decline of the middle class in California is not irreversible, but if Governor Newsom’s plan succeeds and citizens do not stand together to stop the overzealous state, then California’s grim, tragic fate as a failed dystopia is all but guaranteed.
Nationalist, though often abused by those who usurp its rightful name for the sake of bigotry, ought not to be a slur but a badge of honor for those who choose to value national identity over division and selfish vendetta.
Today we see it fit to discharge our elders into what we call “retirement homes,” little more than waiting rooms for Death’s final embrace, abandoning those who brought us into existence and built the nation and society we so are so blessed to behold. By throwing away our duty to the past, throwing away the experiences of lifetimes, we leave ourselves stranded, with no land in sight, sailing to a desperate future with no grounding in the American spirit and in the practices and values that have brought America from a speck on the Atlantic coast to the world’s sole superpower. Whatever happened to the notion of caring for one’s own instead of giving up and allowing some distant entity to take society’s place? Whatever happened to pride in our shared national heritage? It’s time for us to get back in touch with our roots and bring our elderly home.
The American public is outraged, as it should be, by the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Uncovering their efforts is direct proof of Russian meddling in American affairs, but this discovery should not be taken at face value. One should remember that there is a clear distinction between collusion with the Trump campaign and efforts to undermine faith in American democracy; collusion requires active cooperation, and there is no evidence thus far to support this conclusion.
With ISIS largely defeated, Iraq has retreated to the periphery of American attention; America and its allies abroad have left Iraq on its own after over a decade of intense involvement.This lack of engagement leaves a power vacuum open for exploitation by Iran, and yes, even a resurgent ISIS. A policy of complete disengagement is not only to the detriment of American interests, but those of its regional allies. The United States must decide whether it will stand idly by as the modest but appreciable gains made by trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US service members are swept away by Islamic extremism, or selectively engage in the region to counterbalance growing Iranian influence.
We are proud to announce that today, July 8th 2018, marks the official rebirth of the California Review. The California Review was established in 1982 to provide an open forum for political debate, a space for views and beliefs that otherwise would not have adequate, fair representation on college campuses. Today, 36 years after our inaugural issue, this central mission still stands at the core of our ambitions. Fair representation of arguments popular and unpopular must have a place for discussion, especially in today’s campus culture of suppression. To achieve this goal of equity, a clear distinction of biases must be made.