The This I Believe essay "Are You with Us? Are You with Us?" (written by an author only known as Roya) emphasizes the belief that any American, and possibly any world citizen, can belong to many worlds and be both part of "us" and "them." The title of this essay comes from many of those in the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11. The attack on terrorism was presented as "you are either with us or you're against us." You're either "us" or "them." Roya is in a difficult position, being an Iranian American. He claims that due to many Americans' ignorance of world cultures, he can only be viewed as Iranian, or part of "them." In fact, he stresses the point that until a major catastrophe occurs, or America engages an area of the world in military conflict, most Americans have little to no knowledge of that part of the world. He provides Kabul, Baghdad, and Darfur as examples of this (which many of us now know of only through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the major humanitarian conflict in the Sudan).
I have had personal experience with many of the points that Roya makes. I remember watching the events of 9/11, and sadly becoming one of those people that became consumed by the disaster. And, yet, when Bush made his proclamation of "us and them," I died a little bit inside. I knew where this idea was going. If you don't agree with the actions of the U.S. government, then you support terrorism. And while I abhor what occurred on 9/11, I don't believe our war in Afghanistan has been handled properly and I don't believe it supported a war on Iraq at all. So the "us and them" issue affects all American citizens, not just those who may be viewed as "them" based on their ethnicity.
I also taught 7th grade for many years, and the teaching of Islam is part of the social studies curriculum. Before the 2001-2002 school year, virtually none of my students had any knowledge about Islam or the Muslim areas of the world at all. From September 11, 2001 on, all my students "knew" about Islam was that it "was related to terrorism." I'm not sure which situation was worse: total ignorance or prejudice based on ignorance.
Iran seems to be becoming "the new threat" to our democracy, at least as it is presented by our government and the media. But I agree with Roya: Does it make me "unpatriotic to try to understand and allow room for knowledge and tolerance so that I can effectively take part in spreading freedom and democracy?"
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
ENG 95 Media Response
There has been a lot of coverage in many of the media outlets concerning the proposed bailout of Wall Street. For an analysis, I looked at an article on DemoncracyNow.org (which admittedly is known as having a "liberal" perspective). To access the article click here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/24/bush_admin_faces_congressional_skeptics_on
This article follows the transcript of the 9/24/08 Democracy Now broadcast. Amy Goodman acts as the anchor and in this segment she introduces the varying opinions on the bailout as expressed by the senators who will be voting on the measure. One of the criticisms of the proposal is that it is undetailed and lacks oversight. Henry Paulson addresses this concern by stating that the measure was not intended to be all-encompassing, but a first draft to get the conversation in motion. Ben Bernanke also supports the bailout by stating that without it, the economy will dive into a recession. Sen. Chris Dodd criticizes the plan by stating that the $700 billion bailout will only aid those who actually created the Wall Street mess, not the average taxpayers who severely need aid now. Sen. Richard Shelby even questions why it is the government's responsibility to bailout the Wall Street "fat cats." Sen. Jim Bunning agrees by calling the bailout an act of socialism, as opposed to the free market that guides our democracy. Lastly, Sen. Sherrod Brown is concerned that those that are inflicting economic pain on the American public will continue to do so if they are bailed out of the current crisis.
This segment does attempt to bring balanced reporting on this issue. Goodman broadcasts speech excerpts from those who both oppose and support the bailout. Additionally, both sides are given approximately equal amounts of "air time." It is also commendable that the article allows for the key players to "speak for themselves." Goodman does not summarize their statements, which could allow for her own bias to creep in. Instead, she shows their actual words, unedited.
However, there are some issues with this news article also. First, Goodman does not provide enough background here into the $700 billion bailout proposal itself. The audience does not receive details on the actual proposal, so it can only use the key players' words to form an opinion. What are the details of the plan? Why is the bailout out such a high dollar amount? How is the crisis it aims to solve related to the recent governmental bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Secondly, Goodman closes the article/segment by stating that Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is "reminding Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke of the price Main Street is paying for both Wall Street’s excesses and now the bailout." Her use of the word "reminding" implies that Brown is calling their attention to a fact, not just a viewpoint. "Excesses" also has a negative connotation in that it implies that the money spent (and lost) was due to greed and in their control. In these key ways, the article shows its perspective--that the bailout is a bad idea.
This article follows the transcript of the 9/24/08 Democracy Now broadcast. Amy Goodman acts as the anchor and in this segment she introduces the varying opinions on the bailout as expressed by the senators who will be voting on the measure. One of the criticisms of the proposal is that it is undetailed and lacks oversight. Henry Paulson addresses this concern by stating that the measure was not intended to be all-encompassing, but a first draft to get the conversation in motion. Ben Bernanke also supports the bailout by stating that without it, the economy will dive into a recession. Sen. Chris Dodd criticizes the plan by stating that the $700 billion bailout will only aid those who actually created the Wall Street mess, not the average taxpayers who severely need aid now. Sen. Richard Shelby even questions why it is the government's responsibility to bailout the Wall Street "fat cats." Sen. Jim Bunning agrees by calling the bailout an act of socialism, as opposed to the free market that guides our democracy. Lastly, Sen. Sherrod Brown is concerned that those that are inflicting economic pain on the American public will continue to do so if they are bailed out of the current crisis.
This segment does attempt to bring balanced reporting on this issue. Goodman broadcasts speech excerpts from those who both oppose and support the bailout. Additionally, both sides are given approximately equal amounts of "air time." It is also commendable that the article allows for the key players to "speak for themselves." Goodman does not summarize their statements, which could allow for her own bias to creep in. Instead, she shows their actual words, unedited.
However, there are some issues with this news article also. First, Goodman does not provide enough background here into the $700 billion bailout proposal itself. The audience does not receive details on the actual proposal, so it can only use the key players' words to form an opinion. What are the details of the plan? Why is the bailout out such a high dollar amount? How is the crisis it aims to solve related to the recent governmental bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Secondly, Goodman closes the article/segment by stating that Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is "reminding Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke of the price Main Street is paying for both Wall Street’s excesses and now the bailout." Her use of the word "reminding" implies that Brown is calling their attention to a fact, not just a viewpoint. "Excesses" also has a negative connotation in that it implies that the money spent (and lost) was due to greed and in their control. In these key ways, the article shows its perspective--that the bailout is a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
