America has been inherently pro-Israel in the past forty years. This viewpoint stems from a variety of sources, but the most obvious and well-supported idea seems to be the fact that American-Jews and Jewish lobbies alike have enormous influence on the actions of the American government. Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have tremendous influence in Washington. While AIPAC has been in existence since the 1970s, a new wave of support has also been constructed in recent years: the neo-conservatives. People like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz, who have been in the political spectrum for some time now, have recently come to great power under the Bush administration and these individuals have had long standing ties with right-wing Israeli parties. On top of that, a large amount of America’s recent foreign policy in the Middle East is said to have come from these neo-con ties. The Iraq War, for instance is believed by a variety of scholars to have been a war fought with Israel in mind. The Bush Administration is said to be supporting Israel’s nuclear program as a reason to keep Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program. There are a variety of reasons that the United States supported Israel for the past forty years, more so than any other country it has allied with, but it seems that the most plausible justification for these strong ties are tight-nit, influential Jewish lobby groups in America.
American-Jewish organizations in the United States seem to be the primary reason that the United States has backed Israel. For one, America has nothing to gain by being allies with Israel, as a large part of the rest of the Middle East’s spite for American stems from the fact that they are so closely aligned with the Jewish state. America is essentially making more enemies by standing by Israel and when analyzed from an opportunistic perspective, it simply does not make sense. If the U.S. were allied with countries like Iraq or Iran, it would be much less of a target for global terrorism. According to Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, as quoted in the article “Unsettling signs for Israel over alliance with US” printed by The Irish Times in April 2006, the idea that America supports Israel because of its similar terrorist interests is simply preposterous. “The US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel not the other way around.” Essentially what the professors are saying is that the United States looses much more international safety and credibility by siding with Israel. Thus other claims about the close U.S.-Israel relationship, such as the notion that they share similar terrorist threats, are ludicrous. Clearly the only logical conclusion is not drawn towards Jewish lobbyists, but it definitely makes these groups strong candidates.
The fact that these organizations have been influential for decades, some even set up before the creation of a Jewish state, provide evidence in favor of this argument. The AJC in particular, celebrated its centennial in 2006, which the president not only attended, but gave a speech in which he promised to do all he could to prevent a nuclear program from being developed in Iran according to the article “Bush: US ties to Israel 'unshakable'. Annan Merkel also address centennial gathering of American Jewish Committee” which appeared in the Jerusalem Post in May of 2006. Similarly the AIPAC is being indicted by the UN for handing confidential documents to Israeli diplomats concerning Iran. While is arguable that these instances point more to the U.S. wanting to carry out its own will in the Middle East, the fact remains that America would not need to be as concerned for its own safety, if it did not support Israel. Yet, despite this obvious fact and the knowledge that the U.S. global image has only suffered as a result of this partnership, American leaders intrinsically support Israel, leading one to believe that there must be more at stake than mutual interests in Middle East foreign policy.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Affirmative Action
Although many efforts have been made to correct the societal wrongs created through the racist government policies of the past three centuries, cultural racism still pervades many functions of American society. Because opportunities for education and employment remain unequal for minority groups, the government must take progressive steps in order to level the playing field that has systematically advantaged white people over other races for centuries. One way of doing so would be to implement effective affirmative action programs to help eliminate the racism that both blatantly and covertly infiltrates the selective processes of institutions of higher education and employment.
It is no secret that the United States has a long history of systemic racial discrimination against minority groups, most significantly African Americans. From the nation’s foundation in slavery, to the Jim Crow era, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, American politics have been inextricably tied to issues of racial injustice. Racist social values and government policies that repeatedly disregarded the needs of minority groups have disadvantaged millions of Americans, robbing them of the equal rights that were promised to them by law but never fulfilled in deed. Various studies have proven that covert or aversive racism still infiltrates the selective processes of institutions of employment and of higher education even when those in control of the selection do not see themselves as racist. Because racist ideology is so ingrained in our culture, many Americans have “internalized the espoused cultural values of fairness and justice for all at the same time that they have breathing the ‘smog’ of racial biases and stereotypes pervading popular culture” (Tatum 118). These deeply-rooted ideologies that are often unconsciously held are the target of affirmative action. The program is not intended to favor minorities over whites but to instead give them what the have been denied thus far: the structural “boost” needed to overcome the covert yet strong racial prejudices that inhibit their social progress.
Although many whites acknowledge the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are disadvantaged by the current system, many do not consider themselves to be a part of the advantaged group (even though this would be a logical deduction). This “white privilege” results in unearned benefits and freedoms for whites simply because they exist within a system that privileges whiteness (Wildman and Davis 96). Affirmative action looks to eliminate this white privilege that has disproportionately kept whites in positions of power. Even though already implemented affirmative action programs have shown an increase in the presence of African Americans and other minority groups on campuses and in work places, these groups remain underrepresented when considering their shares in the national population (Fischer and Massey). For this reason, more effective and inclusive affirmative action programs are needed. Without affirmative action ensuring that aversive racism does not affect the admissions or hiring process, white privilege is perpetuated and the racist social hierarchy remains intact. Effective affirmative action programs seek to challenge the “sense of entitlement that comes as a result of privileges given and received without notice” (Tatum 126). By racially diversifying institutions of higher education and employment, members of minority groups will finally obtain the opportunity to change the current racist social structure and eradicate the unearned advantages whites currently hold.
In order to understand the need for affirmative action programs, it is necessary to remember that minority groups have never had a truly equal opportunity to gain the resources whites have enjoyed throughout America’s history. When introducing affirmative action for the first time, Lyndon B. Johnson said, “Ability is not just a product of birth… [it] is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in – by the school you go to and the poverty or richness of your surroundings.” Because racial prejudice limits the opportunities of minority groups throughout their lives, they are already at a disadvantage upon entering college and the job market. Affirmative action programs that have genuine intentions of diversifying the places in which we become responsible citizens can help reduce the effects of this limited opportunity and help achieve the racial equality the United States has always lacked.
Works Cited
Fischer, Mary J. and Douglas S. Massey. “The effects of affirmative action in higher education.” Social Science Research, June 2007.
Johnson, Lyndon B. Speech. Howard University. 4 Jan. 1965.
Wildman, Stephanie M. and Adrienne D. Davis. “Making Systems of Privilege Visible.” White Privilege by Paula S. Rothenberg. New York: Worth Publishers, 2005.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
the digital divide
Technology has become today’s major source of communication, without it many would not be able to get from one place to another, or find out various types of information: it has taken over many of our basic needs and simplified them. These advancements in technology have changed our way of living, as well as thinking, to an alarming rate in the past ten years and for the most part, older generations have been left behind, not being able to stay caught with this high-paced improvements. Technology has simplified many of the normal events we do, but with this high rate of improvement, older generations are constantly confused limiting them to wanting or feeling the need to learn these new ideas. Many concerns have been brought up to the lack of knowledge the older generations have with this new technology and if in the future will they truly suffer from it.
Older generations have been hit hard recently with the large amounts of new technology entering our world today and many have been overwhelmed with the amount of learning they to do to simplify an already simple task. While, on the other hand, younger generations have easily adapted to these new methods because they have grown up amongst this whole process and were born into changes. Various scholars have thought through the idea that growing up with all these changes has really affected their way of learning and the different generations are growing further and further apart. According to an interview of Mr. Marc Prensky (CEO of education software maker Games2train) done by Low, Prensky’s theory revolves around how internet has changed the younger generation explaining “[g]rowing up constantly exposed to digital technology has affected and changed the way natives think” and now “children are multi-tasking” more than the older generation ever had (Low 1). The older generation cannot keep up with these new methods and with that, they are becoming less and less connected with the generation they once taught. Richard Sarson, a writer from The Guardian, explains the difference as how each generation views the computer, that mostly the older generation uses the computer for basic needs, such as word processor or their email, while younger generations use it for the internet and most of their communication. These differences might cause a big gap between the two generations leaving them distinct for many years to come.
With generations separating and the technology growing, the communication rate between the generations will only suffer. In many cases, communication might only be visual between the generations through face-to-face communication. The only solution to close this separation involves an easier method for the older generations to learn these new advancements or at least the basis of them, and without that, the gap will only widen more.
Works Cited:
Low, Aaron. "Bridging the Digital Divide." The Straits Times 5 Sept. 2006, sec. 1.
Sarson, Richard. "Technology: the Kids are Alright Online:." The Guardian 10 May 2007, sec. 1.
Older generations have been hit hard recently with the large amounts of new technology entering our world today and many have been overwhelmed with the amount of learning they to do to simplify an already simple task. While, on the other hand, younger generations have easily adapted to these new methods because they have grown up amongst this whole process and were born into changes. Various scholars have thought through the idea that growing up with all these changes has really affected their way of learning and the different generations are growing further and further apart. According to an interview of Mr. Marc Prensky (CEO of education software maker Games2train) done by Low, Prensky’s theory revolves around how internet has changed the younger generation explaining “[g]rowing up constantly exposed to digital technology has affected and changed the way natives think” and now “children are multi-tasking” more than the older generation ever had (Low 1). The older generation cannot keep up with these new methods and with that, they are becoming less and less connected with the generation they once taught. Richard Sarson, a writer from The Guardian, explains the difference as how each generation views the computer, that mostly the older generation uses the computer for basic needs, such as word processor or their email, while younger generations use it for the internet and most of their communication. These differences might cause a big gap between the two generations leaving them distinct for many years to come.
With generations separating and the technology growing, the communication rate between the generations will only suffer. In many cases, communication might only be visual between the generations through face-to-face communication. The only solution to close this separation involves an easier method for the older generations to learn these new advancements or at least the basis of them, and without that, the gap will only widen more.
Works Cited:
Low, Aaron. "Bridging the Digital Divide." The Straits Times 5 Sept. 2006, sec. 1.
Sarson, Richard. "Technology: the Kids are Alright Online:." The Guardian 10 May 2007, sec. 1.
Dorgan-Snowe Bill
Brittani Dunning
Net Neutrality: Dorgan-Snowe Bill
Network neutrality, referring to the non-discriminative treatment of Internet content, has been a hot issue ever since legislation attempting to ban regulation was not passed back in 2006. In response to legislative failures, Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe have introduced a new, but very similar bill that continues to fight internet regulation. As of right now, web access providers have the right to block and, or slow certain content from certain content providers. This, according to Dorgan and Snowe, "threatens the democratic nature of the internet". Their bill, which will be discussed in this essay, intends to protect the freedom of the net.
The bill began in January of 2007 and was headed by Senators Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan. Dorgan has been known as a leader in the fight to protect the interests of rural America and the freedom of the internet. Along with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, the two have joined forces to bring attention to the importance of keeping the internet an open-wire for "civic engagement, exposure to information and opportunity for education" (Schejter and Yemini).
The original bill from 2006 targeted specific large organizations including Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft for purposely discriminating against non-commercial content on their servers. Opposition to the bill claims that advancing broadband capabilities, and therefore enhancing users internet experience, relies on the money gained from channeling users toward commercial content, and, in turn, away from non-commercial content and content providers. However, activists including Dorgan and Snowe argue that these things can be done regardless of monetary funding from big businesses.
Those for the banning of internet regulation urge others to see the danger of putting the power of the internet into the hands of the few instead of the intended hands of the users. In recent news, the Federal Communications Commission, who is now handling the issue, is holding a public discussion at Harvard University on February 26th to get a wider perspective on the subject. The debate over net neutrality is still obviously very prevalent and in need of attention. Even Presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton are co-sponsoring the bill. Hopefully for net neutrality legislation, the second times a charm.
Triplett, W. (2008, February 13). Net neutrality sesh for FCC. Daily Variety.
Todd Hearne, Dorgan, Snowe Introduce Net-Neutrality Bill, Multichannel News, Jan. 9, 2007, available at http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6405766.html.
The bill began in January of 2007 and was headed by Senators Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan. Dorgan has been known as a leader in the fight to protect the interests of rural America and the freedom of the internet. Along with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, the two have joined forces to bring attention to the importance of keeping the internet an open-wire for "civic engagement, exposure to information and opportunity for education" (Schejter and Yemini).
The original bill from 2006 targeted specific large organizations including Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft for purposely discriminating against non-commercial content on their servers. Opposition to the bill claims that advancing broadband capabilities, and therefore enhancing users internet experience, relies on the money gained from channeling users toward commercial content, and, in turn, away from non-commercial content and content providers. However, activists including Dorgan and Snowe argue that these things can be done regardless of monetary funding from big businesses.
Those for the banning of internet regulation urge others to see the danger of putting the power of the internet into the hands of the few instead of the intended hands of the users. In recent news, the Federal Communications Commission, who is now handling the issue, is holding a public discussion at Harvard University on February 26th to get a wider perspective on the subject. The debate over net neutrality is still obviously very prevalent and in need of attention. Even Presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton are co-sponsoring the bill. Hopefully for net neutrality legislation, the second times a charm.
Triplett, W. (2008, February 13). Net neutrality sesh for FCC. Daily Variety.
Todd Hearne, Dorgan, Snowe Introduce Net-Neutrality Bill, Multichannel News, Jan. 9, 2007, available at http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6405766.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
