858 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
With the horrific event of the Itamar massacre two weeks ago,
one would reasonably think that such a crime of immense brutality
and cold ruthlessness would be treated with humanity and the utmost
consideration. Perhaps the biggest outrage is the media's lack of
outrage and compassion for the untimely deaths of an innocent
Jewish family. On the contrary, what little coverage the media has
given this tragedy has been within the context of the debate over
Jewish settlements and the alleged problems they cause in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The New York Times reported on
the tragedy under the headline, "Suspecting Palestinians, Israeli
Military Hunts for Killers of Five West Bank Settlers."
The topic of affirmative action is visceral and arouses
emotional debates. This letter is written in response to two pieces
published in The Daily Targum — the March 24 column "Remove all
bias from academia" and Tuesday's letter "Affirmative action
provides level playing field." I appreciate the opinions of both
authors and the fact they expressed them civilly. Often, we can let
our emotions get the better of us. I would like to take a moment to
amiably disagree with both authors' presentations of the critical
issue of affirmative action.
Our individual education is not based on memorization of facts
but learning a logical and analytical process of solving problems.
Each major, whether it be physics, biology, history, philosophy,
etc., has its own school of thought that makes their alumni solve
problems differently when they actually go out into the real world.
Engineers think differently when solving a thermodynamics problem
than physics majors do. Philosophers think differently about our
universe than astronomers do. These are just a couple examples.
The author of the column "Separate Libya from Iraq," published
in The Daily Targum on March 28, thoughtfully draws distinctions
between Iraq and Libya. Yet it is surprising that his analysis of
the run-up to the Iraq war is sketchy. The author claims "[former
President George W.] Bush at least attempted to maintain a
semblance of democracy by lubricating the months leading up to the
beginning of the conflict with a public relations campaign
concerning the necessity of the conflict." Unfortunately, this
public-relations campaign relied on fabricated or inaccurate
evidence indicating the existence of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, as well as false suggestions that Iraq supported the 9/11
terrorists. Bush therefore committed our troops to war without
proper justification and alienated many American allies such as
France and Germany in the process.
I read the diatribe-like March 24 column in The Daily Targum
titled "Republicans divide nation in time of need," with
bemusement. I was certain I had stumbled upon the latest Mugrat
issue. It is based on so many distortions, falsehoods and
misconceptions that deconstructing it is near impossible. Instead,
I will offer the alternative viewpoint born of adherence to the
founding principles established by our Constitution's framers.
I am attending the Walk into Action on April 13 because I am
angry. I am angry because I don't have any more money to put toward
my education. I have been forced to mortgage my future in order to
attend a public University. I have friends who have been forced out
of school because of the fee increases. My loans will stay with me
forever. But our state sees us, students, as the people who can
afford to pay more for school.
According to the column "Remove all bias from academia,"
published in The Daily Targum on March 24, "the color of a
student's skin does not reflect the thoughts in his brain" — yet we
live in a society where one's skin color or race can prevent them
from gaining employment with the same or higher qualifications than
others. An article in the New York Times published on Nov. 30,
2009, discusses how black males graduating from high-profile
universities like Yale University are not hired for jobs they
qualify for because of racial obstacles in the job market.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "the unemployment rate
for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 has been
nearly twice that of white male college graduates — 8.4 percent
compared with 4.4 percent."
The vision of the American dream sometimes blinds us from
recognizing what actually takes place around us. After reading the
March 24 column in The Daily Targum titled, "Remove all bias from
academia," I experienced a visceral rush of excitement and a
feeling of satisfaction that the conversation of affirmative
action, which usually takes place behind closed doors in our
residence hall rooms, was now being made public. I applaud the
writer of the column for being brave, as most people fear to speak
on such issues because they can easily be mislabeled as a "racist."
Although I am not a big proponent of affirmative action, as the
solution to fixing the disparity that exists among races, gender
and socioeconomic class, I do believe it is necessary and needed in
I am writing on behalf of the students of the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT). Since my arrival as a student three
years ago, I witnessed NJIT disable the rights of individual
students, professors and employees to speak out against the
university and solve their problems internally. NJIT possesses many
institutional problems, which the current president, Robert
Altenkirch, and members of the administration choose to ignore.
Every time I go to a sports news web page looking for real news
on the current National Football League Players Association (NFLPA)
labor dispute, I usually end up empty-handed. What I do come across
is article after article of players taking the opportunity to get
cheap shots in on the owners. This is petty and it must stop if
they ever hope to get a labor deal done.
More and more, I've noticed a consistent message in at least
some media. It is the idea that we should feel guilty for consuming
luxuries when we could instead be donating that money to charity.
This argument, in my opinion, is entirely fallacious.
Every year, the student governing councils of the University put
together a committee called the Student Fee Advisory Committee to
meet with the administration about student fees. Student fees are
fees paid by students for specific services the University
provides. The purpose of the committee is to give student input
about changes in student fees to different departments.
Administrators propose fee raises to increase services they provide
to students. The committee then shares with each administrator
which services students would want to prioritize. The Student Fee
Advisory Committee writes a report and provides a recommendation to
University Budgeting about whether or not, or by how much, to
increase student fees. If you have feedback, please send it to
email@example.com. An open hearing on the University's
budget, tuition, fees and housing and dining charges for the
2011-2012 year will be held on Tuesday, April 5 at 6:30 at the
Rutgers Student Center Multipurpose Room on the College Avenue
The editorial, "Successful society requires religion," published
in Wednesday's issue of The Daily Targum, affirms the pervasive,
enduring and positive role of religions in cultures around the
world, and it presents several arguments against claims that
religions may be disappearing in certain places or diminishing in
The Daily Targum editorial entitled "Successful society requires
religion," which ran Wednesday, is unconvincing. Non-theistic
humanism can provide the philosophical and inspirational
underpinnings of a just and forward-looking society. The fact that
many countries, including the United States, are seeing a decline
in religiosity does not mean the people are losing their morals or
their sense of purpose in life. Rather, they are seeing the world
in a way that is more honest and more useful to them.
President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act a year ago
this week, which enacts significant health insurance reforms that
will take effect over the next several years. But one very
important piece of that law is already in place and it may directly
It's time for President Barack Obama to defend his own war,
Operation Odyssey Dawn. First, U.S. military operations in Libya
could wipe out a significant chunk of the budget cuts costing
between $400 million and $800 million, according to a report
released by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Most importantly, President Obama failed to gain approval from
Congress before launching military action. Not only is he the first
American president in the history of the United States to attack a
foreign country while visiting a foreign country, but he is
continuing the legacy of Presidents unwillingness to follow the
constitution in regarding matters of war.
Bottled water: a trend that began a decade ago and that, a
decade later, we cannot seem to live without. Is it the convenience
of water on the go? The allure of "purified spring water?" The
picturesque mountains on the label that make you want to buy the
bottle of water? Whatever the appeal of bottled water that brought
the product to great popularity, here are the real facts.
I decided after my sophomore year to commute to the University
after sitting down and taking a look at my term bill. By doing so,
I cut off roughly $5,500 from my loans. I keep account of my budget
and do many things to save up money, including driving to school
only when needed and bringing meals from home. As I sit at the
Douglass Campus Center, eating my turkey sandwich, I realize I'm
one of the few who are watching what they spend, and in the times
we live in, that is not acceptable.
Americans are saturated with information about how to live a
healthy lifestyle, but continue to engage in unhealthy habits
anyway. There is obvious evidence that the country is progressively
becoming more obese. Not only is this leading to more health
issues, but it is also leading to astronomical economic losses from
The letter "Educate yourself on facts about circumcision,"
published on Thursday, March 10, brought up some novel points that
I believe deserve consideration. The argument was made that
circumcision should not be considered "mutilation." Considering
that I might have been overreacting, I looked up the definition of
"genital mutilation." Various dictionaries I used list the term as
the act of cutting all or some of the genital organs. I don't see
how you can not use the term "mutilation" to describe