Seeking a middle ground in the affirmative action debate
Within the spectrum of most social issues, I fall into the moderate-left or the firm-left camps. But there is one very salient issue of our time to which I often waver: affirmative action.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Daily Cardinal's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
23 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Within the spectrum of most social issues, I fall into the moderate-left or the firm-left camps. But there is one very salient issue of our time to which I often waver: affirmative action.
It often takes a big man (or woman) to apologize, even if he or she is clearly in the wrong. People are simply not inclined to admit they have erred. If someone is not in the wrong, but apologizes only to mend a broken relationship, this plainly demonstrates maturity. Last semester, I wrote an opinion piece arguing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a baby. While I won’t admit that I was wrong to say that—for I am never really wrong—I would like to assert the fact that he is certainly acting like a mature adult on the world stage at the moment.
I once heard a quote that the most sensible stance toward organized religion is to remain agnostic. No one on Earth today stood at Mount Sinai while the Torah was given or saw Jesus turn water into wine. Simultaneously, it is impossible to prove a negative, namely that God does not exist. No matter how much tragedy and hardship exists in the world, no matter how much senseless hatred and violence remain extant in our world, not a single human being will ever be able to prove God does not exist. It is foolish to try.
Because of the advanced nature of its nuclear weapons infrastructure, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the western world’s public enemy number one at the moment. North Korea recently launched its third successful nuclear explosion. North Korea, a country that doesn’t shy away from unvarnished rhetoric, has repeatedly said the aim of its nuclear program is to have the capability to hit the continental United States. It has also threatened the Republic of Korea with what it calls “final destruction.”
After ruminating on the issue for quite some time, I have come to the conclusion that the United States of America should annex Canada. As America’s hat, Canada has provided centuries of fashion and warmth to Alaska and Maine, our vulnerable ears, and has offered millions of American youth a sanctum for underage drinking and ice fishing. But as long Canada is a sovereign nation, we cannot fully exhaust its utility. Therefore, it would be in the interest of all parties involved to render Canada part of the United States. Here is why:
I often think that I am a 1-percenter, perhaps not in the fiscal sense, but in the notion that I am probably more blessed than 99 percent of people in the world. Without going into great detail, I have just about everything I could possibly want in this world: a loving family, a wonderful and supportive group of friends, an incredible academic institution, sound financial backing and so on and so forth.
It is all but impossible to conceive of a Middle East bereft of violence and bloodshed. The Arab Spring, which has stormed through Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, has now claimed over 60,000 Syrian lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians in an increasingly gory Syrian Civil War. Supposedly, removing Bashar al-Assad, the ruthless Syrian dictator, from his authoritative post is the highest priority of the U.S. State Department, as quotidian remarks of the necessity of his departure by outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are ubiquitous in newspaper headlines. However, as we approach the two-year anniversary of Syria’s struggle to emancipate itself from Assad, all predictions as to when the war may conclude are dubitable.
In 1917, when it became clear that Britain was to take temporary control of the land known as Palestine, which had previously been ruled over by the Ottoman Empire, British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour immediately issued a statement in favor of the construction of a Jewish state, which had already been conceived of many decades beforehand.
If I am having a bad hair day, or I’m really not rockin’ that sweater that I sincerely believe looks awesome on me, I genuinely want my true friends to kindly—or harshly, depending on my intransigence—to explain to me that my appearance is not as positive as I may quixotically hope it to be. Similarly, if the United States is in the wrong in international affairs, I would hope that our friends in the world would give us a compelling, well-thought-out argument for why we should change our current trajectory. Israel is one of our best friends in the whole wide world, and so when it is in the wrong, as it sometimes is, I do not think it is a big deal to kindly and gently tap it on the shoulder and say, “Hey, pal, maybe there is a better route.”
Growing up on the works of Shel Silverstein, I quickly developed an affinity for rhyme schemes and wordplay. This preadolescent experience with language games later evolved into a deeper adoration of the English language when, as a 9-year-old, I received my first rap album, The Marshall Mathers LP. I am now a hip-hop head, and proud of it.
When I was in 8th grade, I very much enjoyed playing Connect Four with my younger sister, Sydney. I had a strong penchant for the game, and she did not. Whereas Sydney did not have much experience with Connect Four, I grew up playing it, sometimes for hours on end. I never let her win, not even once. In retrospect, my insistence on domination stemmed from some lack of self-esteem or compensation for a perceived flaw. I would like to connect my petulant Connect Four playing to the way that Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu handles relations with his counterpart, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The Nov. 29 Palestinian trip to the United Nations in order to upgrade their status from “Observer Entity” to “Nonmember Observer State” marks the latest development in the Middle East, where turmoil has become as conventional as wearing layers in January. With the eight—day Israeli-Hamas conflict still widely visible in the rearview mirror, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is engaging in a last—ditch effort to stave off a free fall into irrelevancy. With this status upgrade in sight, its implications may actually greatly benefit Israel and the peace-seeking international community at large, while acting as a detriment to Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a very passionate article just shortly after President Barack Obama won reelection. It detailed the fact that the Tea Party represents a backwards, lying and conniving movement that in no way engages with reality as sane people know it. My point was that I really want bipartisanship in this country, as I think it is how we progress as a society. However, as long as the Tea Party is not only alive, but prevalent within the American Political System, bipartisanship will be an uber-difficult thing to accomplish.
Since 2007, the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian controlled territory southwest of Israel, has been ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas. During this span, Hamas has launched a relentless campaign of rockets into the south of Israel. Temporary ceasefires between Israel and Hamas have intermittently been in play over these years; however, they are always followed by a new barrage of rockets fired from Gaza. These perpetual shellings have obstructed many Israelis from going about their normal lives and have been so terrorizing that President Barack Obama has greatly assisted in the institution of Israel’s Iron Dome, a defense system that intercepts and destroys incoming missiles.
I would like to consider myself an independent voter. In truth, I am probably more of a moderate Democrat than an Independent, but I have always disliked labels because most things factoring into them are contingent and malleable. Tuesday, Nov. 6, I was forced to do something that I hope I never have to do again: vote straight democrat. It isn’t that I will never again vote straight Democrat or that I never again want to vote straight Democrat. Rather, I hope with all of my heart that I never again feel it absolutely necessary to do so. In fact, I sincerely want to be able to one day endorse a Republican candidate.
This past Sunday, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey met with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli Defense Force Lieutenant Benny Gantz in order to coordinate a joint special air defense drill. Three thousand American soldiers will partake in this drill alongside thousands of Israeli soldiers, pilots and sailors in the largest military exercise of its kind in history. Israel, pronounced by both presidential candidates as our greatest ally in the region, is one of the United States’ closest allies in the world overall. “Unshakable” is the term that President Barack Obama fancies in reference to our bond with Israel. Clearly, ties between these two countries are deeply bound. Some who are unfamiliar with the Land of Milk and Honey often wonder why.
With the final presidential debate now in the books, I see one thing above all else with perfect clarity: both candidates have a natural propensity to dance around any given question. Although sometimes their ability to do so mesmerizes, causing the audience to forget the issue at hand, their skills in that realm have increasingly diminished. This became evident at myriad instances throughout the month of October, but it became exceedingly blatant during Monday’s debate. Different rhetoric was used on either side to say the same things over and over again.
There are some people who are so inspiring, whose actions are so breathtaking, that we are so taken aback, so paralyzed by their courage, that our only course of action (temporarily) is to stand and reflect on how we could be more like them. Malala Yousafzai is one of those people. You may have heard the name. Hopefully, you have heard her story, or at least the recent events that have catapulted her into the public sphere.
The back and forth dialogue regarding the Iranian nuclear threat between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama has been dragging on for quite some time. On one side, Israel faces an existential threat if Iran successfully develops nuclear arms. This fear has led Prime Minister Netanyahu to call for red lines that Iran cannot cross without facing military rebuttal by the United States, Europe and Israel. But President Obama and the international community have been loath to set these lines before nonviolent sanctions on the Iranian economy have been completely exhausted. Though Iran is determined to press on with its nuclear program, it is evident that these sanctions are proving effective in crippling the Iranian economy.
Let me start off by addressing the fact that solely by virtue of being human, every person throughout the world possesses fundamental, inalienable human rights. To quote John Locke, and later Thomas Jefferson, among these rights are “life, liberty and property” (or “the pursuit of happiness”). Just as human beings have these inalienable rights, nations too have rights that must be preserved and cannot be infringed upon. The Palestinian people are a nation. They have a history, they have a culture and they maintain the right to be a sovereign state. Regardless of Mitt Romney’s views, as a people they are not hell-bent on obliterating Israel, and their culture is not inherently inferior to that of the Israeli’s. Why then is this Israeli/Palestinian peace process such an ordeal? Why does it continue to remain stagnant? Why is there still such a great magnitude of animosity harbored on both sides?