After the shooting in San Bernardino, David Brooks took a close look at the ideals and ways that radical movements (such as ISIS) convince people to zealously follow these movements. Rather than looking at the subject that many peoples’ minds immediately flew to, the guns used, Brooks looked deeper into it. Rather than HOW the radicals committed these crimes, Brooks analyzes WHY they would commit the crimes, with the help of “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer.
He begins by describing the climate where these movements begin, often in “states of decay or disintegration”, as Hoffer put it. The leaders of these movements begin to tap into peoples’ flaws and frustrations to convince them to follow the same movement, and this isn’t a tactic only used by ISIS. IT’s the same manipulation that’s been used by missionaries and fascists since they’ve existed. The people of these movements often feel unfulfilled; as if their own ambitions have not or will never be reached, and the leaders of the radical groups convince them that their movement will allow them to succeed, that the radical ideology is the only ambition they need. Many radicals also believe that their movement will bring forth a new perfect world, as long as they fanatically destroy the current present. I quite strongly agree with these theories, and Brooks has put it into much better words than I could have. Humans, by nature, are self-conscious and more often than not, weak willed. That’s why people are constantly trying to improve themselves and make themselves and the world around them better. And the leaders of these movements – Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Bin Laden, and current leaders – they can deeply tap into these feelings of insecurity, and they can twist them and cause these people to give their entire identities up for the greater “good” of a movement. This is why we’ve seen people hijack planes to plow them into buildings and radicals setting off explosive vests in crowded areas, they’ve been twisted into thinking that the world will be better if they do this work and make this statement, and that’s what makes fighting radical groups so difficult. It’s easy to destroy militants and leaders, but it’s much more difficult to destroy an idea. - Dylan G. Award-winning economist, Paul Krugman, in his latest article, “It’s All Benghazi”, challenges the public to acknowledge “political fakery” (politicians using events to further their own agenda) as what it is, a pure act of hoodwink. Krugman’s purpose is to get the reader to stop pretending “political fakery” doesn’t exist. He incorporates a casual tone when discussing his idea and switches to a serious and logical tone when discussing his evidence in order to appeal to the mindset of young adults in America.
|
With the 2016 Presidential election approaching, it isn’t a surprise that many of the topics in today’s news focus on this major event. Over the past couple of months, there have been several presidential debates, each one a new opportunity for the candidates to present their views to the public. Several topics such as foreign affairs, immigration, the public education system, gun control, and environmental issues have been discussed. However, there is one topic that creates more than just a discussion topic in the debate room. |
In the recent article by David Brooks “Pope Francis, Prince of the Personal” he discusses Pope Francis’ ideological views that he has shared with the world since becoming Pope. He talks about how Pope Francis has repeatedly stated that in order to better understand poverty you must go and live with the poor. And he does not just mean for a day or two, he means for a few weeks at least. He talks about how different kinds of knowledge come from different areas of life.
Dean Obeidallah, a current Opinion Contributor, writes frequently for CNN. The main focus of his blogs is usually political and social news and updates. However, recently Obeidallah has started to focus on a specific candidate for the GOP nomination, Donald Trump. Obeidallah’s posts at the moment focus not only on Trump’s role in the election, but also on Trump’s involvement elsewhere.
As a writer, Dean Obeidallah clearly states his opinion and then proceeds to prove why it is correct. In one of his more recent posts titled “Stop treating Donald Trump like a Kardashian,” Obeidallah makes his own opinions on Trump’s direct role in both social media and inside the election clear. In Obeidallah’s words, “Donald Trump is intriguing, aggravating, nauseating, hilarious, and just about every other word we have used to describe reality show stars.” He puts emphasis on calling Trump a reality show star, rather than someone running in the presidential election. Throughout the post Obeidallah remarks how social media covers everything about Donald Trump - “from his incendiary comments to his hair to his tweets” - besides current news of Trump’s involvement in the election. He goes on to further explain the difference between Trump’s roles in social media and the roles of the other presidential candidates.
As a writer, Dean Obeidallah clearly states his opinion and then proceeds to prove why it is correct. In one of his more recent posts titled “Stop treating Donald Trump like a Kardashian,” Obeidallah makes his own opinions on Trump’s direct role in both social media and inside the election clear. In Obeidallah’s words, “Donald Trump is intriguing, aggravating, nauseating, hilarious, and just about every other word we have used to describe reality show stars.” He puts emphasis on calling Trump a reality show star, rather than someone running in the presidential election. Throughout the post Obeidallah remarks how social media covers everything about Donald Trump - “from his incendiary comments to his hair to his tweets” - besides current news of Trump’s involvement in the election. He goes on to further explain the difference between Trump’s roles in social media and the roles of the other presidential candidates.
The average person trying to be informed about the 2016 presidential election will probably notice a trend in the news stories being released. The media coverage is usually about a quote or action by Republican front-runner Donald Trump that sparked a debate or Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. However, there has also been recent news about current vice-president Joe Biden joining the presidential race. For some people, the word choice used in headlines such as "Will Another Democrat Make A Bid For The Presidency?" has been subject to criticism by Bernie Sanders enthusiasts who say that this "implies not only that there is currently no Democrat offering a serious challenge to Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination, but that if there was to be one, it would be Joe Biden.” In their opinion, Bernie Sanders IS indeed a threat to Hillary Clinton for the democratic primaries and that NPR should acknowledge him more often.
Eric Hananoki, from Media Matters, recently posted a blog talking about the Hillary Benghazi Scandal. Having the viewpoint of Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat in the Intelligence Committee, Hananoki explains why Rep. Schiff believes that the “media myths about the September 2012 attacks and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” are false, and are being spread by the Republicans to minimize Hillary’s chance of winning the 2016 Presidential Election. Hananoki wrote that Rep. Schiff claims that the emails that Hillary sent were not confidential when she first received them. This contradicts with what mainstream media (FOX, CNN, ABC, etc.) continue to say. To clarify that Hillary did nothing wrong, Schiff also states that after “16 months and more than $4 million, the committee has gained no additional insight into the attacks in Benghazi. It has nothing new to tell the families of those killed or the American people.”
Categories
Archives
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015