The Islam-Judaism Clash of Civilizations Essay -- Palestinians Israeli

On the streets of Jerusalem, in the rubble of Ramallah, in synagogues, in mosques, in the hearts and minds of millions in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the remainder of Israel, Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a clash of civilizations. In his masterful work, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel L. Huntington outlines a theory which approaches international politics on the scale of civilizations. However, he circumvents discussion about Israel. Huntington cautiously describes Israel as a â€Å"non-Western† (Huntington 90) country, but identifies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as one along a fault line between civilizations (267). Though he chooses to avoid the issue, Huntington’s theory provides a groundwork for analyzing the conflict in Israel in terms of a clash of civilizations between Judaism and Islam. This is a dangerous and provocative idea. But if we dare examine its implications and explore its insights, we risk a more complete understanding of the c onflict which has plagued relations between Palestinians and Israelis in particular, Muslim countries and Israel in general, for over fifty years. Let us begin with a discussion about Judaism’s status as a civilization. This is a highly contentious claim which Huntington himself questions: With the creation of Israel, Jews have all the objective accoutrements of a civilization: religion, language, customs, literature, institutions, and a territorial and political home. But what about subjective identification? Jews living in other cultures have distributed themselves along a continuum stretching from total identification with Judaism and Israel to nominal Judaism and full identification with the civilization within which they reside, the latter, however, occurr... ...ited States. Yet the rational actor model fails. Islam transcends strategic, economic, and political rationalism. So the next time you catch yourself saying that the barbarity, longevity and popularity of the conflict against Israel defies reason, hold your tongue. Islam has traditionally kept its distance from Enlightenment ideas. Works Cited Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2000. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1997. Kaplan, Mordecai M. Judaism as a Civilization. New York: Schocken Books, 1934. Stoessinger, John George. Why Nations Go to War, 8th Edition. San Diego, CA: Thomson Wadsworth 2001. The Avalon Project: Hamas Covenant 1988. Yale. Web. 19 Mar. 2015 .

Genetically Modified Food and Crops Essay

Abstract Since the 1980’s scientists have been altering crops, including some of the food we eat (Fairly & Gaskins, 2000). Genetically modified food has always been a concern for many people. I find the concerns to be unwarranted because there has never been a negative health report due to the fact of consuming GM foods. Biotechnology gives us the best means for solving the world’s food shortage now and in the future. Genetically modified crop plants are now grown on nearly 150 million acres in the United States alone, helping farmers to increase yields, reduce pesticide spraying, and save topsoil (Conko & Miller, 2011). What are we actually eating? Looking at ingredients on the back of a product was almost considered out of the ordinary ten to fifteen years ago. But now it is one of the most important factors in the decision on whether or not a consumer will buy the product. In all the research I conducted there was never a proven harmful effect from genetic engineering. However, the benefits are scientifically proven which gives genetically modified crops the advantage over traditional farming. The proposed ideas and research by scientist show that a lot more can be done with GM food other than eating it. Globalization of GM crops is becoming apparent as well as GM crop commercialization. _Keywords: GM Food, GM Crops, Genetically engineered crops, Biotechnology, GM organisms. _ â€Å"Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called â€Å"biotechnology† and it allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another† (World Health Organization, 2002). For more than twenty years of scientific, humanitarian, and financial success genetic engineering has been applied to agriculture. This has been accomplished without injury to a single person or damage to the ecosystem. However, activists are still fighting the use of genetically modified crops (Conko & Miller 2011). Millions of people around the world suffer from malnutrition and with the steep projected increase of our world’s population in the next fifty years a change needs to be made. Genetically modified crops increase yield, nutrition and uses fewer pesticides all without proven negative effects. GM crops and all its benefits make it the gateway for the world’s agriculture success. Genetically modified crops are becoming the building blocks for agriculture advancements. Scientists are continually working to create more benefits for consumers as well as farmers. The main concern of GM foods is negative health risks however, they are actually more beneficial. GM foods have longer shelf life, contain higher nutritional value and are safer to eat. For example, â€Å"GM corn has lower fungal toxin content then non-GM corn, and farmers typically produce GM crops using fewer pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers† (Tyson, 2001). By drastically reducing the use of chemicals on the plants it provides a major improvement for the consumer’s safety and nourishment. Because scientists slightly tweak the DNA of the plants with other genes it is possible that food allergens may end up in GM products. Steve Taylor, a scientists at the University of Nebraska states that, â€Å"the food-allergy threat is small because food engineers now avoid using genes from nuts and other common food allergens. The benefits of genetic engineering justify the risk† (Fairley & Gaskins 2000). Products from biotechnology are no less safe than traditionally bred crops. According to Dr. Prakash, â€Å"genetically improved products are subjected to intensive testing, while conventional varieties have never been subjected to any such regulation for food safety or environmental impact† (Prakash, 2000). Every GM food that is currently available on the international market has already passed risk assessments and is not likely to pose a risk for the consumers. No effects have been shown and GM foods will continue to be regulated in more and more countries (World Health Organization, 2002). GM crops are never expected to present a health risk and therefore should reassure government officials worldwide in the use of this technology. Another concern of GM technology is the effect it has on the environment. The environmental risks of biotechnology are also unidentified just like the health trepidations. No scientific evidence proves that GM crops are harmful to the environment. â€Å"U. S. officials pointed out that scientists in Europe had been unable to find any evidence of added risk to human health or the environment from any GM crop variety developed to date. † In fact, none of the studies by Europe found any scientific evidence of added harm to humans or the environment (Paarlberg, 2003). GM engineering will actually help the environment rather than harm it. In the U. S. alone farmers annually administer more than nine hundred seventy million tons of insect and plant killers. Now GM crops have the ability of containing their own insect and plant killing gene which means the farmers can use fewer chemicals (Tyson, 2001). To ensure that the environment is remaining safe, risk assessments are conducted for the GM product as well as the area in which the crop will grow (World Health Organization, 2002). Furthermore, the United Nations Environment Program has used funding for developing countries to implement biosafety regulations for GM crops. The UNEP wants these regulations implemented before any crop is planted no matter the cost or delay (Paarlberg, 2003). Since 2011, The U. S. Department of Agriculture has approved seventy four different GM crops. In each case the crops data was reviewed for several years and each â€Å"concluded that they will have no significant environmental impact† (Conko & Miller 2011). These precautionary measures toward genetically modified crops allow the government to regulate farming actions and safeguard the environment. The initial reason GM organisms were created was to improve crop production. â€Å"The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides† (Tyson, 2001). Producers are getting a lot more for a lot less which translates to products with lower prices. The improved production of crops and technology accounts for the lowered costs and have â€Å"forced tremendous competition in the herbicide and insecticide markets† (Prakash, 2000). This also helps traditional farmers because it now allows them to buy these products at a cheaper cost. In fifty years the world population could exceed eleven billion people unfortunately, the current food supply is not expanding at the same rate. Because of this, GM crops need to expand and gain popularity over traditional farming. Global GM crop farming in 1999 covered about one hundred million acres (Tyson, 2001). Now, genetically modified crop plants are grown on nearly one hundred fifty million acres in the United States alone (Conko & Miller 2011). These statistics show that GM crop farming is rapidly expanding and the benefits are obvious. Biotechnology and its productivity give us the best chance to safely solve the food needs of today and the future. Poor farmers in tropical countries face problems such as crop pests, drought and low soil fertility (Paarlberg, 2003). These are the people who annually struggle to produce enough food for their families. Bugs, drought and disease destroy many acres of farmland every year. Fortunately scientists are creating GM crops with built in resistance to insects and diseases. GM Crops are also being developed that can grow in deserts or near salt water which allows more area for farming (Fairley & Gaskins, 2011). Because GM crops are now being built in with these resistances farmers won’t experience huge financial setbacks caused by pests killing their plants. Since the majority of malnutrition people in the world live in developing countries this opens up the opportunity for them to increase crop yield and provide enough food for everyone. Also, in developing countries people often have to survive off a single staple that own its own doesn’t supply sufficient amounts of nutrients. Food scientist hope to solve this problem by creating crops equipped with vitamins and minerals. According to Tyson, â€Å"one of the most promising is â€Å"golden rice,† which can stimulate our bodies to generate vitamin A. In the developing world, vitamin-A deficiency kills two million children each year† (Tyson, 2001). A development through GM foods may be able to save two million people which would be a life changing breakthrough. Scientists are also trying to perfect â€Å"eatable vaccines. † They are genetically adding vaccines to tomatoes and bananas, since traditional vaccines are expensive to manufacture and require specialized storage. â€Å"Eatable vaccines,† will be easier to transport, store, and administer in third world countries (Tyson, 2001). Biotechnology holds unlimited potential for areas of the world where poverty and poor agricultural conditions make farming challenging. The U. S. needs to ensure the people of these countries that GM food is safe and will be nothing but beneficial to their people. Genetic engineering is a crucial factor in agricultural productivity and if it continues to safely expand it could help meet the problematic food challenges that have already started. Genetic engineering holds great possibilities that could change the world. Simply peeling back a banana infused with antibiotics could be the next breakthrough science has to offer. Biotechnology continues to show safety is not an issue. GM farmers are now administering fewer chemicals on their crops. This reduces the amount of air pollution and water contamination in the environment. Genetic modifications were being made since farming started. Farmers always crossed bred the most successful plants year to year and without any concerns from the public. Today, scientist have a better understanding of how genetic modifications work making it safer for the consumers. However, government regulations are still implemented just for precautionary purposes. The United States is fortunate enough to grow numerous varieties of crops and also have the ability to choose the method of how they are grown. Unfortunately, not every country has these advantages. Genetically modified products allow these developing nations to grow crops at a more productive rate. Commercialization of genetically modified agriculture needs to be strictly monitored to make sure regulations are followed. Over industrialization of farming today is negatively viewed therefore making it essential that a golden mean is set for genetically modified products. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fairley, P. , & Gaskins, P. (2000). Food Fight!. _Scholastic Choices_, _15_(8), 16. CONKO, G. , & MILLER, H. I. (2011). The Rush to Condemn Genetically Modified Crops. _Policy Review_, (165), 69-82. World Health Orginization.(2002). Retrieved from website: http://www. who. int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index. html Tyson, P. T. (2001, April 12). _Harvest of fear_. Retrieved from http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ Prakash, C. (2000). Genetically engineered crops can feed the world!. Retrieved from http://www. 21stcenturysciencetech. com/articles/biotech. html Paarlberg, R. L. (2003). Reinvigorating genetically modified crops. _Issues in Science and Technology, 19_(3), 86-92. Retrieved from http://ezproxy. sju. edu/login? url=http://search. proquest. com/docview/195920735? accountid=14071.

Money Is the Root of All Evil Essay

How many times have you heard that? I have heard it more times than I can count. It is a popular thing to say, but it is definitely not true and I will try to make it clear. Without getting into a theological debate about evil or its roots, I will say that â€Å"Money is the root of all evil† is a misquote of a biblical source, in Timothy 6:10. English translations vary, but they all say something along the lines of â€Å"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.† Do you notice the difference? It is about the love of money, not money itself, being the root of all kinds of evil, not all evil. A few small words can make a difference. If any major religions truly pointed to money as the root of all evil, a lot of people would be trying to be as poor as possible. Money would be treated like a communicable disease. (†Please don’t pay me so much!†) Some people of faith do give away most of their income or take a vow of poverty so that they are b etter able to serve others and do good works, but most of those will describe their lifestyles as a special calling or a gift, something beyond what God requires of most believers. Even if you’re not a believer, think about the logic of saying that money is the root of evil. If money were the root of all evil, only people who had money would do evil things, and the people with the most money would be the most evil of all. Though some people without money like to think that is true, it is not. Poor people can cheat and steal, assault and kill as well as rich people and people in between. Looking at it from another angle, the lack of money also causes people to do some pretty horrible things, but so do lack of power or sex, hatred, the desire for revenge and jealousy. Money is rarely on the mind of a man who drops a drug into a woman’s drink so he can take her home practically unconscious. I’ve sometimes heard â€Å"Money is the root of all evil† used as an excuse for not saving, as if to say, â€Å"I’m a better person if I’m poor.† But intentionally spending all your money as soon as you get it does not make you a better person (unless, maybe, you’re giving it all away). It makes you irresponsible. On the other hand, making good use of your resources by saving for your future does not make you evil; it makes you more able to help others (or avoid needing the help of others) when the need arises.

Neorealism vs. Neoliberalism

Mayixuan Li Ms. Reilly International Relations: Conflict and Cooperation in Global Politics October 22 2012 Neorealism, a concept of international relations that emerged in 1979 by Kenneth Waltz, is a theory which forces on demonstrating how the world works instead what the world ought to be. Neorealism thinkers claim that international structure is established by its ordering principle, which is anarchy, and by the distribution of power, measured by a number of great powers, which have the largest impact on what happens in world politics.Since there is no central agency that plays a role as â€Å"night watchman† (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 5) to guarantee the security of states, the anarchic international system pushes great powers to maximize their relative powers in order to attain the minimum goal of their own survival. The trepidation of security is primary factor influencing great powers’ behavior, and in turn makes great powers quickly recognize that the best way to s urvive without protection is to perpetually expand actual military capability until reach the ultimate aim – hegemony.Great powers can never be certain about other states’ intentions, which makes them fear each other, and view each other as potential enemies who always have the capability and motive to attack them. To guarantee their own survival, great powers adopt the logic of self – help acting according to their self – interest, and always look for opportunities to alter the balance of power by acquiring additional power for themselves and by thwarting their rivals to increase powers. The self – help system gives rise of security dilemma that reflects basic logic of offensive realism.No matter a states becomes strong or weak, both strength and weakness in national security can be provocative to other great powers. Mearsheimer states: â€Å" The essence of the dilemma is that the measures a state takes to increase its own security usually decre ase the security of other states. † (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 13) Neorealism offers a considerably broader definition of power, and view power as two types: actual power and latent power. Waltz states that power includes the following components: â€Å" size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and ompetence. † (Waltz, 1979, p. 131) Actual power mainly points out military capability, such as army, air and naval forces, which directly gives great powers the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other. Latent power comprises size of population and territory, national wealth, and political stability. Rational great powers do not contend with current distribution of power, and always care about relative power rather than absolute power. They not only look for opportunities to take advantages of one another, but also work to ensure that other states do not take advantage of them.Before great powers take offensive actions, they consider carefully about the balance of power, about the costs and risks, and about both how much power they could increase and how much power their rivals could obtain. Nevertheless, great powers can never be sure how much power is enough to secure their survival in the ruthless international system. They not only strive to be the strongest, but also to be the only power – hegemony in the world. Mearsheimer defines:â€Å" A hegemon is a state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system. † (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 0) In international relation history, no state has ever achieved global hegemony because of the stopping power of water. The best condition great power could obtain is to become regional hegemony, which dominates distinct geographical areas. Once a great power becomes regional hegemony, it does not want any peers to contend with it. Moreover, neorealism considers three possible systems – unipolar system, bipolar system, and multipolar system. Among all three systems, multipolar system is the most dangerous system, and is more war – prone than is bipolar system.Neorealism occasionally advocates fostering human rights. Great powers might pursue non-security goals as long as the requisite behavior does not violate the paramount goal – pursuit of relative power. Indeed, these non – security goals sometimes complements relative powers, such as economic capability or national wealth is the foundation and resource of military power. Furthermore, great powers seek to prevent war and keep peace, however, they are not driven by a will to build an independent world, but largely by narrow calculations about relative power.Cooperation among nations is difficult to achieve and always difficult to sustain since great powers always consider relative gains by themselves comparing to relative gains by another great power. Neorealism certainly asserts no amount of cooperat ion can eliminate the dominating logic of security competition. Neorealism locates causation in the anarchic international system, which forces great powers to act aggressively toward each other in the survive competition.Great powers compete to maximize their relative power not because they have a will to fight with each other but because this is the only optimal way to ensure their survival in the dangerous world. Neorealism concludes that the view of long lasting peace is not likely to be achieved by great power become global hegemony, so the world is condemned to perpetual great power competition. There are three great debates referring to a series of disagreements between international relations scholars. The second great debate was a dispute between neorealism and neoliberalism.Neoliberalism, a response to neorealism, views international system more optimistically, and argues the fact that the world has become more interdependent in economics and in communications as well as i n human aspirations. Neoliberals agree with neorealism that the anarchic nature of international system is an inevitable circumstance that states have to confront. Nevertheless, there is a general tendency of interdependence among actors across national boundaries to cooperate with each other in modern international system, which gives rise of the idea of complex interdependence.While neorealism views that cooperation between states can rarely happen, neoliberalism holds a greater belief in cooperation according to the prisoner’s dilemma. A tale of two prisoners who are questioned after committing an alleged crime. Neither prisoner knows that is being said by the other, but if they both cooperate and confess to the crime, their time in prison will be shortened, where if neither confesses the sentence length will be even shorter.However, if one confesses and the other does not, then the one who confessed will be set free and the one who did not will receive a lengthy jail term (Mingst 2004, p. 63). Neoliberalists use this to explain why states could wish to cooperate with each other, and even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can still emerge through the building of norms, regimes and institutions. The importance of such cooperation is that actors have to play the game in an indefinite number of interactions, which abundantly conforms to the real international system.Moreover, neoliberalism recognizes not only sovereign states as important and rational actors, but also other actors are both principal and logical. Neoliberals always focus on absolute gains instead relative gains in such cooperation relationship. Multiple channels, summarized as interstate, trans – governmental, and transnational relation, provides more freedom to connect societies by both informal ties between nongovernmental elites and formal ties between governmental foreign offices. Through these channels political change occurs, in turns, states b ecome more interdependent.Since there are various cooperative issues in different areas among states, trans – governmental politics will make goals of states difficult to define. Neoliberalism also acknowledges more contributions made by international organizations, which helped to activate potential coalitions and strive to obtain opinion by every state. Furthermore, all non – security issues can no longer be subordinated to military security, which gives opportunities to a multitude of different agendas coming to the forefront.The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred, and there is no hierarchy among issues. Military capability does not dominate the agenda anymore, and gradually becomes a less effective instrument to achieve other objectives such as economic and social goals. Nevertheless, the existence of mutual dependence does postulate another type of power. Sensitivity and vulnerability are two essential dimensions of states.When a costly impos ed situation from outside happens, the amount of sensitivity shows how quickly this imposed situation could affect one country from various aspects, and the vulnerability can be defined as an actor’s liability to suffer costs imposed by external events even after politics have been altered. Vulnerability is particularly important of interdependence structure. Even in the world of interdependence, there is no evenly balanced mutual dependence. Neoliberalism asserts two types of dependence, asymmetries in dependence, and symmetries in dependence, the latter hardly emerge.States can be less dependent or more dependent because of their level of sensibility and vulnerability. Less dependent actors can often use the interdependent relationship as a source of power in bargaining over an issue and perhaps to affect other issue. Power not only can be thought of as military capability, but also can be viewed as the ability of an actor to get others to do something they otherwise would not do. Neoliberalism claims that states act according to their self – interest to cooperate with each other, and to make the world more interdependence through different gendas. The use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails, so therefore the world could become more peaceful and prosperous. Bibliography Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. United States: 2011. Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics. United States: McGraw-Hill: 1979. Mingst, K. A. Essentials of International Relations. New York: W. W. Norton: 2004. Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. United States. Keohane, Robert O. Power and Interdependence. United States: 2000.

Discussion Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 20

Discussion - Essay Example icle, â€Å"Effective Communication-That is just what I mean† by Santosh Sachdeva, the author has emphasized on the importance of effective communication. The author has also highlighted the significance of accurate body language and tone while communicating with the other person. Body language, voice and words play are the most essential elements of an effective communication. A person can misunderstand or misinterpret the meaning of the entire message; if any element of an effective communication is absent from the message. The author further adds that feed back or the response signifies that the message has been understood by the receiver. However, we cannot ignore the issues that generally emerge during any communication either it is done verbally or nonverbally. People often ignore what other person is saying. They focus more on their response rather paying attention to the words of other person. People make errors in communication either they are bounded by their ego or they feel superiority complex over the other one which damages the effectiveness. Perception is another issue which causes damage to effective communication. People often ignore the message of a person who is low in status or less privileged. On the other hand, people pay more attention to the words and meanings of the person who is more sound and stable than the other groups. Sometimes people ignore the message conveyed to them in state of stress. People believe what they see, they acquire from their surroundings and what is being fed in their minds rather they communicate and talk with other groups to justify the authenticity of the information. To avoid issues in communication, it is very important to listen actively to the words of the speaker and to give a proper feedback to the person in order to assure him that you have understood the message and the

Organizational Systems Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Organizational Systems Theory - Essay Example If environment is Placid, Predictable, Homogeneous, Stable and Resource Munificent then structural form is Mechanistic, Bureaucratic, Centralized and Clear Goals. But if environment is Turbulent, Uncertain, Complex, Unstable and Resource Scarce then structural form is Organic, Informal, Networked; Ambiguous Goals. Since organizations differ in the type of tasks they perform and environments they face, the appropriate organizational structure in each case is a function of four factors which are Organization’s size, technology, environment and strategy. The resulting structures can be formal, differentiated, vertical, horizontal, central and complex. [4] In the book Handbook of Media Management And Economics by Alan B. Albarran, Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted, Michael O. Wirth, it is explained that the primary approach in organizational studies to the study of issues of organizational structure has been Structural Contingency theory. This theory describes the relationship between the organizational structures and performance outcomes. Grounded in assumptions of economic rationality this theory argues that organizations will adopt structures that maximize efficiency and optimize financial performance according to the specific contingencies that exists within the organizations’ marketing environments. Consequently there is no single organizational structure that will be equally effective for all companies. According to them Structural Contingency theory first emerged in organizational studies during the 1950s and generated a great deal of attention. This book states that under this theory, organizational structures are considered to include authority, reporting, decision and communication relationships and organizational rules, among other elements. The primary contingency factors that influence organizational structures include organizational scale and task uncertainty. Small organizations and those facing low levels of

Co-Evolution of Innovation Policy and Industrial Structure in Sweden Term Paper

Co-Evolution of Innovation Policy and Industrial Structure in Sweden - Term Paper Example   As interaction in the society gives rise to the development of institutions, manifold arbitrary behaviors ushers in those institutions which come in practice and thus become stereotyped norms of those institutions followed through time. So institutions become dire indicators of several outcomes of the many domains of the society. It is a general notion that the key indicators that promote economic development are the levels of investment, education, culture, governmental policies, income etc. But if rather viewing in a more magnified way, the social scientists of the modern world have claimed that it is the primary role of social institutions whereby the lieu of interaction between independent agents play a dominant role in accumulating valuable resources and fetching profits for the society. This notion of the institution acting as the primordial driving force of economic development is resonated in different arrangements of the society like property rights, microfinance, busine ss associations, the advice of developmental agencies in proposing minimal state intervention implying pro market paradigm etc. Institutional variations are a huge domain of study and focus in the modern industrialized world as it has been the real fact that the so-called differences between developed and developing nations have emerged. Many countries have emerged as superpowers and many countries are still stuck in a vicious circle of poverty and the main reason for this can be attributed to the diverse institutional innovation policies adopted and successfully implemented in the former case and lack of implementation of institutional innovation policies in the latter case. However, there are many instances of developing countries coming from the periphery and emerging as a nucleus of growth potential.