Omri Brinner
March 2009
It is fair to say that every research has many potential results and outcomes and it really depends on the person who does the research what direction the final product would take. Not only that one can analyze a certain document in a completely different way from another researcher, but the assumptions and investigation that will follow such a research will determine the agenda of the work.
In a research process there are two kinds of sources: Primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are extremely valuable and they can either be found in the form of documents that were written by people who experienced the researched events or by people’s actual testimony, that is if the research evolves around more modern issues (as in Andrew Rajala’s research topic). In my opinion, the most valuable primary source is people’s testimonies; event though some can forget, exaggerate, or even lie, it is worth hearing relevant opinions and in many cases they are more valid than scholarly works.
The advantages of researching in communities are the more personal and realistic aspects; “People who have lived in a community for a long time can tell you about the history of the community or about their perspective on the effects of past events.” Another reason why interviewing people can be more beneficial to a researcher than reading old scriptures lies in the communication process that develops between the two parties. In building a relationship and interacting with others who can help you and you can help them one can, and will, write a more personal, emotional, and passionate paper than someone who is completely alienated to the people and times he is researching.
Although I was not surprised by any particular paragraph in the chapter, I think it is a valuable source for this course and for future research projects I’ll encounter in my academic journey, and maybe in my life. Communicating with another person is a gift that should not be taken for granted, and if one can base part of his or her research on this kind of source then he or she should do so.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
East Vs. West
Omri Brinner
March 2009
The request of the Saudi Arabian representative from Western countries not to interfere in conflicted Arab regions with their political, economical, and militaries policies is a fair game in my opinion, but not a realistic one. The Saudi prince told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Arab world would rather have Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories under minimal foreign influence such as from the UN or the United States itself.
Prince Saud al-Faisal might have spoke for a large part of the Arab world when he said that there should be more unity and less dividends within the Arabs.
The interests of the Saudi prince may seem good in their nature but they should concern Western countries since they are playing to the hands of the terrorizing Iranian regime and its tools at the problematic areas. The unreal part of this request lies in the interests of the Western countries in those areas; democracy and modernization in Israel (Palestine in the eyes of the prince); Western supportive government in Iraq; and a liberal independent Lebanon. The risk that lies behind the Saudi request is as follows: In the three discussed regions there are several terror groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) that are being supported financially and physically by Iran, the same country that Prince Saud al-Faisal wishes to support by isolating its governmental bodies from Western supervision. This kind of act will increase the chances of Iranian biological warfare that may lead to an open war between the totalitarian regimes (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya and more) to the democratic nations.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_11826464
March 2009
The request of the Saudi Arabian representative from Western countries not to interfere in conflicted Arab regions with their political, economical, and militaries policies is a fair game in my opinion, but not a realistic one. The Saudi prince told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Arab world would rather have Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories under minimal foreign influence such as from the UN or the United States itself.
Prince Saud al-Faisal might have spoke for a large part of the Arab world when he said that there should be more unity and less dividends within the Arabs.
The interests of the Saudi prince may seem good in their nature but they should concern Western countries since they are playing to the hands of the terrorizing Iranian regime and its tools at the problematic areas. The unreal part of this request lies in the interests of the Western countries in those areas; democracy and modernization in Israel (Palestine in the eyes of the prince); Western supportive government in Iraq; and a liberal independent Lebanon. The risk that lies behind the Saudi request is as follows: In the three discussed regions there are several terror groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) that are being supported financially and physically by Iran, the same country that Prince Saud al-Faisal wishes to support by isolating its governmental bodies from Western supervision. This kind of act will increase the chances of Iranian biological warfare that may lead to an open war between the totalitarian regimes (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya and more) to the democratic nations.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_11826464
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)