So far this summer, the midterm congressional campaigns have been interesting to say the least. The Tea Party has emerged as a legitimate player in voter opinion, and their participation has elicited high tensions amongst Americans over political issues. Voter discouragement no doubt stems from the so called "jobless recovery", but no doubt some of the loss of support Obama is receiving from his "liberal" base, stems from the fact that his change promising campaign has turned into a status quo administration, no matter what right-wing pundits would have you think. The truth of the matter is we'd be doing far better off if President Obama was truly a socialist. Maybe then we'd reverse the current system where legislators are scared not to bail out our largest multinationals and banks, but agonize and delay and finally, barely give some assistance to out of work common folks, struggling to make it in one of the most opulent countries in history.
Sharon Angle and Harry Reid squaring off in Nevada has actually ended up a close race as of this writing. This is likely because Senator Reid is at that age where men typically put their foot in their mouth regularly. Of course this could be disastrous for democrats to lose their senate majority leader to a candidate representing the extreme right-wing of the republican party. Not saying Harry Reid is worth his weight in tofu, but Candidate Angle's views are quite scary, such as ending public education! Yikes!
Joe Miller went on Fox News Sunday and said that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. Then when asked later to defend that position, he deferred to conservative talking points about balancing the federal budget and slashing debt. When press a second time he responded with the same talking points. Joe Miller is currently poised to win one of Alaska's senate seats from incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
Of course there's Rand Paul vs. Jack Conway in Kentucky. Rand Paul made waves earlier this year with an appearance on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program, in which Mr. Paul claimed he felt the final clause of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents businesses from discriminating against people because of race, was unconstitutional and violated that business' rights as property owners. Paul has articulated other views that are contradictory to his alleged political ethos. For instance, candidate Paul claimed he felt the Islamic cultural center planned for a move to three blocks from ground zero should have to move. This sentiment is, unfortunately, increasingly prevalent since September 11, 2001 and the perceptions surrounding Islam, since the perpetrators were Muslim. But this twice violates the owner's First Amendment rights. First it violates their right to freedom of religion. Telling certain faiths where and when and how they can do things utterly violates this right. Second, it violates the owner's property rights, which of course one would assume Mr. Paul might take a stand on this issue. But he took the easy road, pandering to the overwhelmingly rural constituency he hopes to sweep, and their racial and spiritual fears.
All in all, it should be interesting to see if the Tea Party can actually succeed in establishing itself as a political entity, or if they'll just succeed in tearing the republican party apart.
9.23.2010
5.10.2010
4.06.2010
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ryan Smith
ENG 102
Professor Benton
Annotated Bibliography
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE: The Center of All Controversy
Few issues raise as much furor among those who discuss politics, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has gone on now for over sixty years. In many ways this conflict is a miniature version of the broader world struggle of the non-powerful, poorer nations verses the powerful, well supplied nations. Israel has been bankrolled by the west, particularly the United States, since it’s reformation in 1947. With the billions of military and non-military aid flowing into Israel from the west, the Israelis have managed to rise to a standard of living comparable to the west, and well beyond that of their neighbors in the region. This is a prime characteristic of a client state. On the other hand Palestinians have been living as exiles in their own home, being pushed to the outskirts of Palestine, in the most impoverished, and resource poor lands in the area. Partition walls, and military checkpoints now cut even further into Palestinian lands, adding insult to injury in the sixty plus year fight for Palestinians to be recognized as legal and equal citizens in a land which their ancestors lived in for thousands of years. Efforts have been underway since Arafat and the PLO made clear that Palestinians, like Israelis at one time, desire their own sovereign state, to make that independent state a client state of Israel and the west. A client state essentially receives assistance through finances or military support, from a more powerful state, in exchange for complicity in the agenda of that more powerful state. Complicity in this case could mean cooperation economically, militarily, and the use of lands and military facilities to achieve broader control over regions not near to such a nation’s territory. The U.S. government provides massive economic and military support to Israel, in exchange Israel supports and conducts military and social policies the U.S. deems fit, and each side may deviate in how they bring this agenda to fruition, but will never change the nature of the relationship or the standard protocol from which it operates. Israel is of high value, particularly to the U.S. political class because of its geographic location on the outskirts of the most energy resource rich area of the world. The Palestinian state envisioned by Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank in 2005 sought to partition the Palestinians into even less territory via walls and military check points to be administered by Israeli troops. This is meant to lock the Palestinian people into a low growth, low wage manufacturing based economy. Since these issues were at the forefront of the debate, many new events have unfolded, such as: The Israeli invasion of Gaza in December 2008 and the current issue of Israeli settlement in what are supposed to be Palestinian lands. My essay will attempt to establish some historical precedents which set into motion the modern problems, such as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the U.N. resolution re-establishing Israel in 1947, and the successive history of the Israeli-Arab conflict since Israel has been a state. The major focus will be on more modern events, particularly the most recent decade, because so much has unfolded, and so much needs to be addressed so we as a group of individuals can work together and change it. As I said, this conflict is a miniature version of events that are occurring in various scales all around the world. Perhaps nowhere in academia are those struggles more vividly personified than by Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove’s Voices of a People’s History of the United States.
Barsky, Robert F. The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007. 381. Print.
Barsky’s book is basically a biographical assessment of Linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, who of course is an outspoken critic of Israeli and U.S. policies, some of which are referenced, described, and assessed in this book, making it an excellent resource for this essay’s topic. This book and the views described within it are going to be an excellent basis for a counter position to the more mainstream Newsweek articles that will be used, as well as evaluating the reception from the broader public when one criticizes the policies of the United States or Israel.
Chomsky, Noam. What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World Interviews with David Barsamian. New York, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007. 223. Print.
This book, set up in interview format, is an excellent resource for interpreting the general nature of United States power, and its effects. Israel is probably the foremost trophy of U.S. power. Chomsky’s simple wit and common sense approach to society and politics is allowed flourish in his responses to Barsamian’s excellent questions. As I mentioned in the description before Chomsky, himself Jewish, is an outspoken critic of Israeli policies and the U.S. - Israeli relationship.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2007: Media Democracy in Action, the top 25 censored stories. Story #9 World Bank Funds Israel- Palestine Wall. New York, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006. 432. Print.
This book has multiple resources within it that will be extremely useful to this essay. It not only has the story concerning the Palestine partition wall, but also the nature of the Israel lobby here inside the United States. Project Censored provides an annual assessment of the top 25 censored stories, and every volume is an extensive resource for a multitude of topics. This book, like the two previous sources provides an excellent counter source to more mainstream articles being used.
Weisberg, Jacob. The Not-So-Special Relationship: Why Democrats are down on Israel. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2010.p19. Print.
This article assesses the recent quarrels between Israeli and U.S. officials, mainly due to Israeli refusal to halt settlements in the West Bank. Weisberg attempts to lump various groups and individuals into categories based on traditional viewpoints of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The article will provide some insight into the up- to- date nature of Israeli- U.S. relationship.
Zakaria, Fareed. Israel’s Biggest Danger. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2009.p41. Print.
This article is an exploration into recent elections in Israel, and generally tells us an idea of current voter psyche in Israel. It is also useful to investigate what’s driving Israeli internal politics. It will prove useful to my paper in the capacity that assessing the public political workings of either Palestinians or in this case, Israelis; and provide insight into the inner workings of the political situation, which may not only aid understanding of the conflict, but also provide possible breakthroughs in solutions.
Zakaria, Fareed. BIBI’S BLUSTER: The Israeli Prime Minister says his Nation’s security is his top priority. Too bad he is undermining it. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2010.p33. Print.
In this article Zakaria is describing the Icy relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments, and essentially, how this is undermining future Israeli security, since the U.S. underwrites Israel’s security. This article is a great resource for the most recent events in U.S.- Israeli- Palestinian affairs, particularly, the supposed deterioration of relations between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations.
Cohen, Roger, Stuart Eizenstat, and Rashid Khalidi. The U.S. should step back from its special relationship with Israel. New York, New York: Intelligence Squared US, 2010. Debate.
This debate is a great example of the divide between the issues this essay hopes to address. It provides the viewpoint of the establishment, and the viewpoint of those who are suggesting changes to the status quo. This debate and its effects on those who witnessed it, are great examples of the absurdity behind Israel’s stance, and how quickly public opinion gravitates toward logic, once the issues are spelled out without the outside influence of terrorism and individual religious beliefs.
Imperial Ambitions by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian
and The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are books I am trying to locate and will include as sources for the paper.
ENG 102
Professor Benton
Annotated Bibliography
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE: The Center of All Controversy
Few issues raise as much furor among those who discuss politics, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has gone on now for over sixty years. In many ways this conflict is a miniature version of the broader world struggle of the non-powerful, poorer nations verses the powerful, well supplied nations. Israel has been bankrolled by the west, particularly the United States, since it’s reformation in 1947. With the billions of military and non-military aid flowing into Israel from the west, the Israelis have managed to rise to a standard of living comparable to the west, and well beyond that of their neighbors in the region. This is a prime characteristic of a client state. On the other hand Palestinians have been living as exiles in their own home, being pushed to the outskirts of Palestine, in the most impoverished, and resource poor lands in the area. Partition walls, and military checkpoints now cut even further into Palestinian lands, adding insult to injury in the sixty plus year fight for Palestinians to be recognized as legal and equal citizens in a land which their ancestors lived in for thousands of years. Efforts have been underway since Arafat and the PLO made clear that Palestinians, like Israelis at one time, desire their own sovereign state, to make that independent state a client state of Israel and the west. A client state essentially receives assistance through finances or military support, from a more powerful state, in exchange for complicity in the agenda of that more powerful state. Complicity in this case could mean cooperation economically, militarily, and the use of lands and military facilities to achieve broader control over regions not near to such a nation’s territory. The U.S. government provides massive economic and military support to Israel, in exchange Israel supports and conducts military and social policies the U.S. deems fit, and each side may deviate in how they bring this agenda to fruition, but will never change the nature of the relationship or the standard protocol from which it operates. Israel is of high value, particularly to the U.S. political class because of its geographic location on the outskirts of the most energy resource rich area of the world. The Palestinian state envisioned by Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank in 2005 sought to partition the Palestinians into even less territory via walls and military check points to be administered by Israeli troops. This is meant to lock the Palestinian people into a low growth, low wage manufacturing based economy. Since these issues were at the forefront of the debate, many new events have unfolded, such as: The Israeli invasion of Gaza in December 2008 and the current issue of Israeli settlement in what are supposed to be Palestinian lands. My essay will attempt to establish some historical precedents which set into motion the modern problems, such as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the U.N. resolution re-establishing Israel in 1947, and the successive history of the Israeli-Arab conflict since Israel has been a state. The major focus will be on more modern events, particularly the most recent decade, because so much has unfolded, and so much needs to be addressed so we as a group of individuals can work together and change it. As I said, this conflict is a miniature version of events that are occurring in various scales all around the world. Perhaps nowhere in academia are those struggles more vividly personified than by Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove’s Voices of a People’s History of the United States.
Barsky, Robert F. The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007. 381. Print.
Barsky’s book is basically a biographical assessment of Linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, who of course is an outspoken critic of Israeli and U.S. policies, some of which are referenced, described, and assessed in this book, making it an excellent resource for this essay’s topic. This book and the views described within it are going to be an excellent basis for a counter position to the more mainstream Newsweek articles that will be used, as well as evaluating the reception from the broader public when one criticizes the policies of the United States or Israel.
Chomsky, Noam. What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World Interviews with David Barsamian. New York, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007. 223. Print.
This book, set up in interview format, is an excellent resource for interpreting the general nature of United States power, and its effects. Israel is probably the foremost trophy of U.S. power. Chomsky’s simple wit and common sense approach to society and politics is allowed flourish in his responses to Barsamian’s excellent questions. As I mentioned in the description before Chomsky, himself Jewish, is an outspoken critic of Israeli policies and the U.S. - Israeli relationship.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2007: Media Democracy in Action, the top 25 censored stories. Story #9 World Bank Funds Israel- Palestine Wall. New York, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006. 432. Print.
This book has multiple resources within it that will be extremely useful to this essay. It not only has the story concerning the Palestine partition wall, but also the nature of the Israel lobby here inside the United States. Project Censored provides an annual assessment of the top 25 censored stories, and every volume is an extensive resource for a multitude of topics. This book, like the two previous sources provides an excellent counter source to more mainstream articles being used.
Weisberg, Jacob. The Not-So-Special Relationship: Why Democrats are down on Israel. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2010.p19. Print.
This article assesses the recent quarrels between Israeli and U.S. officials, mainly due to Israeli refusal to halt settlements in the West Bank. Weisberg attempts to lump various groups and individuals into categories based on traditional viewpoints of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The article will provide some insight into the up- to- date nature of Israeli- U.S. relationship.
Zakaria, Fareed. Israel’s Biggest Danger. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2009.p41. Print.
This article is an exploration into recent elections in Israel, and generally tells us an idea of current voter psyche in Israel. It is also useful to investigate what’s driving Israeli internal politics. It will prove useful to my paper in the capacity that assessing the public political workings of either Palestinians or in this case, Israelis; and provide insight into the inner workings of the political situation, which may not only aid understanding of the conflict, but also provide possible breakthroughs in solutions.
Zakaria, Fareed. BIBI’S BLUSTER: The Israeli Prime Minister says his Nation’s security is his top priority. Too bad he is undermining it. Harlan, Iowa: Newsweek Publishers, 2010.p33. Print.
In this article Zakaria is describing the Icy relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments, and essentially, how this is undermining future Israeli security, since the U.S. underwrites Israel’s security. This article is a great resource for the most recent events in U.S.- Israeli- Palestinian affairs, particularly, the supposed deterioration of relations between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations.
Cohen, Roger, Stuart Eizenstat, and Rashid Khalidi. The U.S. should step back from its special relationship with Israel. New York, New York: Intelligence Squared US, 2010. Debate.
This debate is a great example of the divide between the issues this essay hopes to address. It provides the viewpoint of the establishment, and the viewpoint of those who are suggesting changes to the status quo. This debate and its effects on those who witnessed it, are great examples of the absurdity behind Israel’s stance, and how quickly public opinion gravitates toward logic, once the issues are spelled out without the outside influence of terrorism and individual religious beliefs.
Imperial Ambitions by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian
and The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are books I am trying to locate and will include as sources for the paper.
3.24.2010
Takin' It to the Streets
Between six and seven thirty, on Saturday morning March Twentieth the sun crept over the Maryland mountain tops shooting rays across my strained face. All aboard in uncomfortable slumber save myself, foot pressing the gas, driving ever more intently to take part in my very first public political demonstration.
The anti-war rally on March 20, 2010 in Washington, D.C. was a success. Thousands gathered in Lafayette square in front the White House to inform President Obama that the vigor against President Bush's absurd policies will not go away simply at the behest of an inauguration. Likewise, President Obama is in no way absolved of the human cost and social burdens these wars are taxing. Speakers from various religious and ethnic delegations spoke, along with representatives from various organizations such as Veterans for Peace. Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader among others also addressed the crowd, before we circled a few downtown blocks dropping off symbolic caskets to the offices of Halliburton, and various lobbying firms on K street.
Ending up at the White House where the peaceful crowd saw no conflict, the groups pounded drums held up signs, and chanted their grievances to the White House's front door. Equipped with an acoustic weapon vehicle, the police had little to do, yet still managed to arrest eight for "failing to clear the sidewalks in front of the White House."(local Fox News, Fairfax, Virginia March 20)
The sunburn really felt more like a badge of honor, to stand up and shout, and demonstrate against harmful and illegal government policies. The various groups involved was a beautiful example of the solidarity of humanity against tyranny, and in favor of true democracy, I'm just proud I was a part of it.
The anti-war rally on March 20, 2010 in Washington, D.C. was a success. Thousands gathered in Lafayette square in front the White House to inform President Obama that the vigor against President Bush's absurd policies will not go away simply at the behest of an inauguration. Likewise, President Obama is in no way absolved of the human cost and social burdens these wars are taxing. Speakers from various religious and ethnic delegations spoke, along with representatives from various organizations such as Veterans for Peace. Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader among others also addressed the crowd, before we circled a few downtown blocks dropping off symbolic caskets to the offices of Halliburton, and various lobbying firms on K street.
Ending up at the White House where the peaceful crowd saw no conflict, the groups pounded drums held up signs, and chanted their grievances to the White House's front door. Equipped with an acoustic weapon vehicle, the police had little to do, yet still managed to arrest eight for "failing to clear the sidewalks in front of the White House."(local Fox News, Fairfax, Virginia March 20)
The sunburn really felt more like a badge of honor, to stand up and shout, and demonstrate against harmful and illegal government policies. The various groups involved was a beautiful example of the solidarity of humanity against tyranny, and in favor of true democracy, I'm just proud I was a part of it.
2.09.2010
U.S. and Israeli aggression
A little over a year ago, the Israeli military launched an offensive against Palestinians living in the Gaza strip. To the casual observer, this operation might appear to have been an independently supplied and launched military campaign, yet the facts tell a different story. According to Project Censored, "The devastating Israeli firepower, unleashed largely on Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the three-week attack starting December 27, 2008 was fueled by US-supplied weapons paid for with US tax dollars." Among the U.S. supplied weapons utilized by the Israelis were white phosphorus munitions which were used on densely populated areas, even when no intelligence suggested that Palestinian militants were in the area targeted. This led to many unnecessary burns and deaths of Palestinian civilians. The Israeli's claimed their actions were in self defense, due to small rocket and mortar fire they claim were fired at southern Israel from Gaza. Of course the United States supports Israel unequivocally, and this statement from Project Censored tells the story, "The UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross, and voices of protest from around the world demanded a ceasefire. Yet, with shocking lack of regard, both houses of US Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s “self defense.” Many feel our support for Israel is justified; from a Christian faith standpoint, the State of Israel is viewed as God's promised land, and it's people as God's chosen ones. Of course anytime an individual or institution claims the authority of God to justify their actions the situation becomes very dangerous, very quickly. Secondly, those who will not cite divine design as the purpose for supporting atrocities, may want to point out the holocaust as a reason to support Israel's actions.
Yet, this seems to be hypocritical at best. How does one justify a horrific genocide against the Jewish people, by supporting the multiple acts of quasi-genocidal violence the Jewish people's home nation has undertaken since it's re-conception in 1948. Some stats on our support for Israeli aggression comes again from the excellent staff at Project Censored, "The US supports Israel financially, with upwards of $3 billion annually. This money is given with little to no oversight, but even if it is not used to directly fund Israel’s illegal settlements and occupation, it allows Israel to free up other funds and divert them for that purpose. The US supports Israel militarily. In its assault on Gaza, for instance, Israel employed US-made F-16 jets and Apache helicopter gunships. U.S-made bombs were dropped on Gaza during twenty-two days of violence, resulting in over 1,300 Palestinian deaths, nearly a third of whom were children, among other civilian victims. This use of high tech weaponry certainly seems drastic for a response to small arms fire. This information is merely a glimpse into the kind of "democracy" and "freedom" the United States supports abroad, I certainly hope more folks will come out an declare their disdain for these acts.
Yet, this seems to be hypocritical at best. How does one justify a horrific genocide against the Jewish people, by supporting the multiple acts of quasi-genocidal violence the Jewish people's home nation has undertaken since it's re-conception in 1948. Some stats on our support for Israeli aggression comes again from the excellent staff at Project Censored, "The US supports Israel financially, with upwards of $3 billion annually. This money is given with little to no oversight, but even if it is not used to directly fund Israel’s illegal settlements and occupation, it allows Israel to free up other funds and divert them for that purpose. The US supports Israel militarily. In its assault on Gaza, for instance, Israel employed US-made F-16 jets and Apache helicopter gunships. U.S-made bombs were dropped on Gaza during twenty-two days of violence, resulting in over 1,300 Palestinian deaths, nearly a third of whom were children, among other civilian victims. This use of high tech weaponry certainly seems drastic for a response to small arms fire. This information is merely a glimpse into the kind of "democracy" and "freedom" the United States supports abroad, I certainly hope more folks will come out an declare their disdain for these acts.
1.29.2010
Campainful finance future
Recently the Supreme Court decided that campain finance would continue to be open to individuals, groups, organizations, and corporations, all of which would compete for significance to their congressional and presidential representatives on a level playing field. Obviously since most the general public can't afford to donate terribly generious sums, corporations and private groups and organizations which can typically raise capital much faster than individuals will have the advantage. For the Supreme Court this is no departure from past. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States gives details of the Court's actions throughout the late 19th century in interpreting the 14th amendment, which of course defined citizenship and was meant to protect recently freed slaves. Zinn points out that almost immediatly the court began to interpret the amendment as a protection for corporations. The decision of MUNN VS. ILLINOIS ruled that corporations had the same rights as individuals. This made it difficult for a state to regulate the charges companies dealt out, since these charges were that company's "property". Zinn also points out that between 1890 and 1910 the Supreme Court heard 307 cases involving the 14th amendment, only nineteen dealt with blacks, the other two hundred eighty eight delt with corporations. So things really haven't changed much. This month's decision is dishearting yet not surprising. So we won't be seeing any changes this election year, from the record setting fundraising totals of 2008. Already the candidates running for congress this fall have raised 459.62 million dollars thus far, according to opensecrets.org; of this the candidates have already spent 219.72 million and it's only January. With a little over nine months until this November the prospects seems bleek that campain finance will be altered in favor of democracy this election cycle, but we must persist, we must continue to push congress to intervene and continue to push the Court's stance for our future's sake.
1.28.2010
A national treasure
A crusader for bottom up democracy has passed away. Howard Zinn 1922-2010. Howard spent his life dedicated to the advancement, and education of the common person from teaching at Spelman college, a black women's college in Georgia to his hallmark book; A People's History of the United States. Howard outlines how any remnant of democracy in the United States has been earned by the common workers, and social and political dissidents. The elite only have their keep because of the sweat and labor of the common people. The elite have easy access to political office because the elite control the sphere of legitimate debate via the mainstream media conglomerates. As sad as I am to hear the news that Howard has passed on, I know that Howard left in his wake sturdy foundations to build future pursuits for true democracy and freedom. Any achievement for democracy this year or in the future will owe some of it's past or origins to the work of Howard Zinn, and others like him
1.26.2010
Observations of J. Rosen webpiece
J. Rosen's Audience Atomization Overcome: why the internet weakens the authority of the press explains real media democracy. This title seems to represent the desires of people not to atomized but to have a forum where their legitamate concerns can be debated. Blogs, social networking and alternative media domanins allow this to happen. The diagram Rosen provides breaks down three realms of "consensus". The inner core is the Sphere of Consensus, this sphere encompasses anything that is thought to be generally agreed upon by most in society, also called conventional wisdom. Rosen explains that before the internet in the age of big media, the press dominated this conventional wisdom and the second sphere of legitamate debate. This sphere lies just outside the sphere of consensus, protecting it from what Noam Chomsky might call the "rascal multitude". The sphere of legitamate debate consists of publicly debated issues inwhich the solution, or in most cases the means by which to reach a solution held in common are subject to debate. For instance, Newsweek might ask the tough questions like; How's Barack Obama going to save capitalism? But a more interesting question might be; Is Capitalism, in it's present form, working? Yet in contemporary American culture this question is considered "off limits", Rosen has a sphere for these debates as well. He calls it the sphere of devience. This sphere encompasses any belief or theory that falls outside the guidelines considered "legitamate" by those who control the realms of debate. This often leads to disenfranchisement causing many folks in this sphere to abandon the debate altogether. However, if we care about the future we have a responsibility to understand how the media system works. The audience for this piece would be anyone who's longed for more serious changes, risked themselves for democratic principals, who're disenfranchised by the system and want it to change. Rosen claims the mainstream media strives to silence debate from outside of the sphere of legitamate debate. Rosen asserts that the freedom of information sharing and democratic nature of the internet have all but eliminated the mainstream media's control over the sphere of legitamate debate, and I agree. The web has allowed folks to social network and force flexability, even if only a little, from the mainstream. Though these new technologies are a wonderful tool, I can't help but notice they are desensitizing the public to being connected and even monitored nearly round the clock. We must be mindful and fight for our minds, because it's always surprising how quickly the future becomes the present.
1.19.2010
War in 2010
We move into a new decade, still plagued by the tendencies of our past. According to Newsweek, the Obama administration has carried out over fifty predator strikes against enemy targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This high volume of drone strikes has already exceeded the amount undertaken in the entire eight years of the Bush administration. While committee hearings and congressional panels debate how to more effectively combat terrorism, few if any on capitol hill have considered changes in our foreign and economic policies as solutions. At the beginning of the "war on terror" many commentators were amazed at the anger these terrorist had towards the United States, but rather than address the real reasons like neo-imperialism most wanted to shout really loud about how middle easterners hate democracy or envy our freedom. Imagine if our ancestors here in the United States had spent the last couple thousand years fighting off invaders to their home country who looted their resources, and who returned periodically with supreme funding and better war instruments to do it all again. Imagine if the United States had been occupied during the civil war, by the French or English, which nearly happened, to step in a divide us up amongst them or force us to become a client state to the one who emerged victorious. Given the lack of resources, and destruction of infrastructure and knowledge how do we expect these cultures to rise to the "advances" we entertain in today's western culture? Folks here in the USA take for granted that we the people should decide our own laws and political destinies, as outlined in the declaration of Independence and Constitution. Yet for the better part of the last two hundred years the United States has been meddling in the laws and political destinies of many peoples and nations around the globe. Our support for and involvement in countless coups and large scale violence all to influence a nation's economics in our favor has gained us quite a reputation with our peers around the world. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, California, and Hawaii are just a few examples of the results from U.S. "expansionism", which is a nice way to say imperialism. All of these undertakings were motivated by financial profit, as are most foreign and war policies. Early 20th century Major Marine General Smeadly Butler once said that war was a racket, and that motivations for war were mostly due to corporate and finance interests. Butler was so popular with the military personnel that he was included in a plot by some of the nation's wealthy and powerful to take power in a coup against then President Franklin Roosevelt; Butler blew the whistle on the operation stopping it in it's tracks. You may not find many sources to prove this, but it is on congressional record. One can only hope that in our own time, we may find even just a few leaders like Gen. Smeadly Butler, who will realize that our lust for profit and global predominance will not only continue to earn us enemies around various ravaged parts of the world, but also inevitably lead to internal undoing much the same way the Roman empire did centuries ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)