Saturday, April 30, 2011

Patriotic or Militant?

Here's a Tea Party commercial a high school boy from Alabama made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkmxG5Ta3N0&feature=related

It's about four minutes long, and it consists of still images of leaders, battles, and otherwise famous moments from the founding of our nation until today. The music in the background is similar to what you'd hear in a movie in the days leading up to war. It can signify the preparation of battle and the somberness of the time. This movie stirs a combination of patriotism and fear in the viewer; on the one hand, you're proud to be an American, to be part of the legacy. On the other, you fear the current Congress and Administration, since they both appear, according to the video, to be staunch opponents to what the so-called majority of the nation wants.

The Tea Party, or the 'Taxed Enough Already' Party has come out strongly against the Obama administration's domestic policy, but specifically, its economic policy. It doesn't seem to clearly state what changes need to take place in order to make our country better and stronger, except that we are taxed too much. Instead of this riling up and fear mongering, I'd rather see concrete suggestions for how we can change, how policies can be shifted to make the country a better place. I'm tired of all the complaining.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Itamar Massacre, according to the Times

In general, you can sense the tone of a New York Times article just by reading the title. However, in a recent article about the Itamar massacre, "2 Palestinian Teens Held in Killing of Israeli Family," it's hard to know exactly what angle the article takes. On the one hand, it calls the murderers "teens," connoting a naivete that would deem them innocent. However, at the same time, it refers to the Fogel family as "Israeli[s]," somehow legitimizing their existence, especially based on where they lived!

Fortunately or unfortunately, the reader has to venture into the body of the article in order to fully appreciate the intent of the article.

What do you think the author is trying to convey, and do you think pressure for fair and honest reporting after the initial response from the press impacted her word choice in the title and in the article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/world/middleeast/18palestinian.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Who would you side with??

Back in 2006, there was a case in London where a Muslim officer requested that he should not be assigned to protect the Israeli Embassy. This was at the height of the Israel-Lebanon War in the summer of 2006, and the officer claimed that he had Lebanese and Syrian family members who not only were at risk based on their geographic locations, but may also threaten him if he protected the embassy of an enemy. He as well as the London commissioner, claimed that this was not a request based on any belief system. Rather, it came as a result of an awkward situation, to say the least. Many people criticized the London police for permitting such exemption, with the arguments like, "What happens if a Greek officer doesn't want to guard the Turkish embassy, or an anti-hunting officer refuses to protect pro-hunt demonstrators?" The Israeli government didn't respond as strongly as some may have hoped. Fox News came out and claimed that based on this logic, a Muslim could be exempt from protecting Jews. Obviously the argument is a strong one, but is it rooted in anything concrete? 


What do you think?


Check out the article from Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/news/london-police-review-move-to-excuse-muslim-officer-at-israeli-embassy-1.200555