The Joker Weakens all the Villans Around Him

The Joker is the pinnacle of renown for a Batman villain. His arch nemesis is this masterpiece of juxtaposition between the dark knight and this evil clown. Every interpretation of Batman has had a Joker as a counter, and it has gotten old. For decades, this is the only one anyone can remember, when by all accounts Batman has the largest list of villains than any other DC superhero. The Riddler, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, The Penguin, onomatopoeia (if you want to include this newbie), Bane, Catwoman, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke, Manbat, Ra’s al Ghul, Deadshot, etc., etc. His lineup is stacked, and nothing is done about it. My favorite one of these villains is the Riddler, who I believe pairs better with Batman than the Joker. Batman is known for being the greatest detective in the world, incredibly observant and smart, and can solve any question or riddle presented to him. This is in contrast to the master of riddles, games, and mystery: The Riddler. These two characters can create a much better dynamic than any other villain. Unlike The Joker, The Riddler has a well-established past that can lead to his redeemability or his refusal of it. The Joker stays static in his motives and drives, with no definitive backstory for the Joker, that isn't a bald-faced lie. The riddler is allowed to be fun and serious, without being overly edgy and mysterious. There has been major proof of this concept in the recent movie “The Batman” where the Riddler is the major villain at play. While this version of the Riddler is one I personally don’t agree with, it shows that a dark puzzle master can create intrigue, especially for a relatively new Batman. The Joker remains completely absent from all major plot points of this movie, and it allows for a surprise to occur. YOu can’t predict a puzzle maker's next moves, but you can predict a clown. The Joker is rather grandiose, but he sticks to the clown theming, which inhibits much of his ability to horror and mental state type of dramas, while riddles and puzzles can have any number of different sources to create a different picture each time. This is to say, that if we simply retired the Joker to make way for the other villains, we can gain much more interesting forms of Batman media. 

Why Batteries Should be Included

Why in the 21st century do I have to buy batteries separately? We are past the time of resources being extremely limited. We are in an era of plenty, and we should be trying to cut down on wasted time. There is no reason to not include them. Simple tack on a few extra cents or dollars and be done with it. It is not that difficult. And if it is a battery company question, they still get their money either way. Batteries need to be replaced, so buying them in packs would still exist, but including them in the device that requires it will get people automatically hooked on the batteries. Battery companies will literally get more sales from this. They sell to the device manufacturer and they instantly make money even before the product is bought, instead of reusing the same pack of batteries they bought to power the device the first time, they get a second purchase to replace the batteries once worn out. This is a win for all parties. I don’t see the issue, it just seems fruitless. Plus, larger battery companies can try to stake out the market by creating exclusive deals with these manufacturers. People will be more likely to buy the same type of battery that already came with the item, than not. No one has any brand loyalty to battery companies, not a single soul. If you have loyalty to a battery company, rethink your life choices and come back to me. 

-Austin

Hot Take: Stop Measuring Students by a Single Test

With the SAT creeping up on March 5th, there’s a growing pressure in the air, a feeling that this one test holds the key to our futures. But here’s my hot take: the SAT (or any standardized test) shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether a student is worthy of acceptance into college. In fact, basing someone’s potential on a single exam is not just outdated- it’s unfair.

Standardized tests don’t capture creativity, passion, leadership, or capabilities. They measure how well you can take a test on a specific day, under specific conditions, with questions that don’t always reflect the real-world skills we actually need. Some students thrive in test environments, but others, equally smart, equally capable, freeze up or struggle to perform under pressure. That doesn’t make them any less deserving of opportunities.

We’ve been taught to believe that good test scores equal intelligence and success, but that’s simply not true. There are countless examples of people who either skipped college or didn’t excel in traditional academics yet went on to change the world like: Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Oprah Winfrey. Success isn’t about how well you fill in bubbles; it’s about how you show up in life, how you solve problems, and how you contribute to your community.

Schools need to stop reducing students to numbers. We are more than our test scores, our GPAs, or the number of AP classes we cram into our schedules. We are our passions, our talents, and our potential to grow. Defining our futures based on a few hours in a testing room does a disservice to everything else we bring to the table.

So, to all my fellow students stressing about the SAT, remember this: you are more than your score. Whether you’re a strong test-taker or someone who struggles, your value isn’t defined by a test. And if the college of your dreams can’t see that? Maybe it doesn’t deserve you there anyways. 

-Seun