44 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/22/13 2:27pm)
By now, you’re probably settled into your dorm room, your parents have left you—tearfully—to make your own life choices, and the ageless behemoth that is the University of Virginia stands before you in all its intimidating Jeffersonian regalia. As you contemplate the year before you, allow a recently graduated first year—otherwise known as a second year—to give you a little advice on how to make the most of your time at U.Va. Disclaimer: as a fellow student along for the journey, I definitely don’t have everything figured out yet. I am therefore not responsible for any bad ends that may arise from taking my advice.
(04/25/13 2:13am)
Since I last sat down to compose a column — a mere week ago — our nation has been wracked by two heartbreaking tragedies: the Boston Marathon bombings on Monday, April 15, and the explosion at a fertilizer plant in Waco, Texas on Thursday, April 18. In a year of school shootings, international war and nuclear crises, it is remarkable how the American public has retained its sense of horror at the surfacing of evil in our society: an increasingly frequent occurrence that threatens to sharpen our cynicism. However, the sad reality is that a decade of the global “war on terror,” increased airport security, heightened alerts, bloated military budgets and a curtailment of individual liberties in the name of national security has transformed the nation. Americans have become fluent in such terms as “radical Islam” and “post-traumatic stress disorder.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a household name.
(04/18/13 12:56am)
The first paragraph of the grand jury report of the Kermit Gosnell case — covering the 72 year-old doctor’s hellish late-term abortion clinic — is so simply and beautifully stated that it is worth quoting in its entirety:
(04/11/13 1:29am)
Even the most casual observer of the 2012 presidential election would know that one topic in particular repeatedly surfaced: the growing wealth and income inequality of the United States. Discussions of reducing the national debt, reforming the tax code and even revamping education often included the realization that the richest members of our society far outstrip our poorest members in terms of income growth, quality of education and healthcare access. As the popular phrase goes, “the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.” The degree to which this trend bothers you will depend, in part, on your political leanings; Democrats tend to decry it more than Republicans. We should be wary, though, of the problem-solving attitude that is quick to propose solutions when presented with a complex issue. Such an approach will likely cause more harm than good. In particular, we must avoid the temptation to solve economic inequality by capping or limiting growth at the upper echelons. Instead, we should work to boost the lower and middle classes.
(03/27/13 11:57pm)
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases pertaining to the illegality of same-sex marriage in the United States. On Tuesday and Wednesday, supporters and critics of gay marriage alike gathered together in person and on social media sites to voice their opinions on the issue of gay marriage. Red equal signs proliferated on Facebook as many U.Va. students expressed solidarity with the rights of same-sex couples. However, the expressions of disapproval and support concealed the fact that the very organ of government that should hold and resolve the debate over same-sex marriage is not the Supreme Court. Whether you long for the day when gay couples can marry or you shudder at the thought, the collective resolution of the American people should not come through the institution of the courts.
(03/21/13 12:21am)
Last week I participated on an Alternative Spring Break trip to Las Marias, Puerto Rico. While there, I learned quite a bit about sustainable organic farming, bio-construction and, more broadly, about how to be a member of a community — not just how to be part of a community, but how to actively contribute to the community’s well-being. Knowing that my actions — washing my hands before helping to prepare dinner, using biodegradable soaps and taking care of the gardens from which we got our food — would impact everyone else on the trip made me especially careful about how I acted. Community involvement is, I think, mostly overcooked in the United States. We all consider ourselves good members of the community — whether it’s local, national or international — and believe that doing a little community service here or there is enough to meet this quota. On the whole, few of us consider ourselves lazy or inconsiderate members of this planet. But the idea of maintaining a good community, and the standards a strong community requires, are much higher than we often recognize.
(03/07/13 12:01am)
When the recent University-wide election results came in, I noticed one number in particular: the voter participation rate. At 40.54 percent, we saw about an 8-point increase in the percentage of the student body that actually ended up submitting a ballot — an achievement many hail as a relative triumph against voter apathy.
(02/28/13 5:55am)
With the budget sequestration looming Friday, threatening the nation with across-the-board spending cuts that would fail to address the long-term debt problem, political pundits abound who are castigating Congress for its inability to compromise. And indeed, our lawmakers’ negligence on this front is disheartening. It sends a message to both the American people and foreign governments that our magnificent experiment in representative democracy may not work so well after all, especially when it comes to reaching a resolution on tough issues. Sending such a message when nations like China are seeking international validation for non-democratic regimes damages the case the Western world has been making for our system of government. But while we should place some blame on our representatives, we must temper our finger-pointing with a healthy dose of reality: a polarized Congress is a product of a polarized populace. In many respects, our legislative branch is working exactly as it should. We may have only ourselves to blame.
(02/21/13 3:14am)
Among the many problems President Barack Obama promised to tackle during his State of the Union address, immigration reform was high on the list. Recently, a draft of Obama’s proposal has hit the press, and Republicans have immediately gone on the attack, with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio proposing his own version. Partisan furor has obstructed sober thinking — surprise, surprise — and has made both parties overlook the significant similarities in their ideologies and approaches to the problem. Mr. Obama’s suggestions are actually in many ways in line with the suggestions of a bipartisan Congressional commission of eight senators. His proposal should be given serious thought if their plans do not come through.
(02/14/13 5:23am)
In his Feb. 11 column “Yes, in your backyard,” Andrew Wells asserts that the solutions to climate change must start with individuals — that we must all do our part to recycle, reduce our energy usage and think about conservation in our daily behavior. In so doing, Mr. Wells touts a line of argument that has been popular for almost a decade. Slogans urging us to “reduce, reuse, recycle” and admonitions to “do your part” have been a part of our vocabulary ever since climate change became a hot topic. Although this approach is admirable and optimistic about human nature, it will ultimately prove unsuccessful for two reasons. First, humans need incentives to change their behavior, and “the doom of the world” has proven an ineffective one; and second, it is easier to fund research that reduces the impact of our actions on the environment than it is to reform the behavior of billions of people.
(02/07/13 5:12am)
Last week the University of Michigan de-recog nized the Asian chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because the group’s constitution required leaders to sign a statement of faith, a violation of the university’s non-discrimination policy.
(01/31/13 4:01am)
IN THE current political discourse, one subject is often overlooked: America’s prison system. The U.S. locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation, costing states billions of dollars in upkeep and lost productivity. Reforming the prison system and how we punish lawbreakers would help fill gaps in our budget, return productive members of society to their jobs and reduce the stagnation of character and skills that occurs when a nation keeps inordinate numbers of its citizens behind bars. Unfortunately, no one has proposed legislation to try to remedy this significant shortcoming in U.S. policy. For 20 years the U.S. has been veering off track. It is time to seriously address these deficiencies.
(01/24/13 2:10am)
As the U.S. grapples with mounting gross debt and annual budget deficits, many government departments will inevitably face cuts to their funding. The National Air and Space Administration (NASA) will be one of those departments. Already NASA has seen its meager share of the federal budget drop to below 0.5 percent, a far cry from the glory days of the mid-1960s when the administration enjoyed 4.41 percent of our taxes. At the current rates, it is estimated that the average American pays no more than $9 a year in order to support NASA — that’s the price of a meal at Subway, if you don’t get the five-dollar foot-long. Even this pitiful amount may get smaller, however, as a money-strapped Congress attempts to address the United States’ budget woes. Although it may be intellectually easy to target an agency that seems to have very little direct effect on the United States — much less Earth — NASA should be spared further budget cuts. In fact, the budget for NASA should be expanded.
(01/17/13 3:23am)
Columbine. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Newtown. All Americans are familiar with these names — signposts along the tragic path down which the gun-laden United States is traveling. After the latest massacre in an elementary school in Connecticut — my home state — the American people seem to be fed up. The old adage “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” has a bitter ring to it; people are beginning to realize that a more appropriate phrase would go something like “people kill people, but guns make it easy.” However, gun control legislation in the works has uncertain prospects. If the United States wants to start making a dent in a gun homicide rate that is twenty times higher than other developed nations, we need to end our love affair with a murder weapon.
(12/06/12 4:33am)
During the global war on terror of the early to mid-2000s, the Bush administration presided over a significant expansion of governmental powers in order to prosecute terrorists threatening our national security. These measures included helping to pass through Congress the Patriot Act — which allowed wiretapping of phones without a warrant — the opening of Guantanamo Bay and the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on suspected terrorists. In so doing, Bush helped to reopen a debate on the use of extra-constitutional prerogative. That debate is about whether the executive use of extra-constitutional powers should be allowed if so doing would enhance national security and safeguard the rights of the American people during a time of crisis. Use of such powers was most visible during the Civil War, during which time President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, both considered outside his jurisdiction. Although critics contend that working outside the Constitution is morally wrong and dangerous for the liberty of American citizens, they have missed the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. Extra-constitutional action by the executive in times of national crisis is both implicitly sanctioned by the Constitution and necessary for the functioning of our government.
(11/29/12 2:47am)
I’m not your typical proponent of Justice Antonin Scalia’s brand of judicial conservatism. Despite my personal admiration for the old warhorse’s vociferously worded dissents, I generally consider the Constitution to be much more than a simple legal document with limited applicability to our modern society. Despite my philosophical differences with Justice Scalia, however, I have found a number of his arguments decidedly persuasive. In particular, his position on how the Court should deal with “morals legislation” is one of the most over-looked, yet potentially most cogent and influential, positions in the modern court and could have far-reaching effects on many contemporary social movements, the gay-rights movement included.
(11/15/12 2:15am)
The November 9 column titled “The jury’s out” offered a critique of the current reforms being considered by the Honor Committee. For those who did not read the article and are not aware of the reforms, they can be summarized as follows: first, that an option called the “informed retraction” will be open to a student after he or she has been accused of an honor offense; and second, that the possibility of random student juries or mixed juries will be eliminated, to be replaced with juries composed of only Committee members. The informed retraction reform will allow accused students who admit their guilt before trial to be rewarded for this honesty by a less severe punishment — namely, a year of suspension rather than expulsion from the school.
(11/08/12 3:37am)
When Representative Todd Akin made his inflammatory remarks regarding abortion — primarily, that “legitimate rape” does not result in a pregnancy — he thrust something else into the national spotlight: the conservative position on abortion. Now, the question of how to treat the unborn is not exactly a new one; in fact, the issue has been plaguing U.S. politics for decades now, especially since the pivotal Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court case. I will not attempt to weigh in on the politics of it, and this article will not lay down a verdict on whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” is the appropriate path for the nation to take — though, like everyone else, I do hold an opinion on the matter. Instead, I want to tackle something that has little to do with the merit of one side or the other: specifically, why the pro-life position cannot make exceptions for rape or incest if it is to be philosophically sound.
(11/01/12 3:39am)
During last week’s presidential debate, the third and final joust between the two candidates before the November election, the broad topic for discussion was the foreign policy of the United States. Among plenty of familiar rhetoric about U.S. greatness and our commitment to promoting liberty abroad, a topic emerged that is dear to this columnist’s heart: US relations with China, and how we ought to deal with the rising Eastern superpower. Both candidates, however, failed to articulate a sensible policy concerning the Central Kingdom, as they competed to outdo each other in coming off as dragon slayers rather than panda huggers. Though Romney proposes a slightly stricter plan against China with his promise to label it a currency manipulator during his first day in office, Obama, not to be outdone, constantly decries Romney’s investment in companies that took jobs from the United States to China. Both, however, are wrong to China-bash.
(10/25/12 2:50am)
Affirmative action has been a controversial policy ever since President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 first implemented it in March 1961. In its present form it represents the policies of educational institutions to consider race as a factor in their admissions process. The Supreme Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) that using a quota system — or setting aside a set number of places for a certain race — is unconstitutional, but institutions had a legitimate interest in “diversity” to warrant considering race a factor in admissions. This opinion was upheld later in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).