Up With Extremism Thomas Friedman Analysis

The new Republican candidate Trump has opened the door for many people to show discrimination against groups of minorities. Sullivan states, “The racial aspect of this is also unmissable. When the enemy within is Mexican or Muslim, and your ranks are extremely white, you set up a rubric for a racial conflict. And what’s truly terrifying about Trump is that he does not seem to shrink from such a prospect; he relishes it.” (Sullivan 10) In other words, Sullivan believes that Donald Trump is not promoting equality. Rather than being the people’s voice he is actually advocating racial discrimination against targeted minority groups. He even seems to finds enjoyment towards the race bashing of the targeted individuals. As an individual of the target group I feel as if this is a prime example of how weak our democracy is. We are raised to feel that we are all equal due to the Constitution, which was formed by our founding

Tannen observes how aggression and quarrelsomeness are often considered the standard in American style discourse, with examples in the press such as the “Mommy Wars” and the “Mammography Wars” (Tannen, para. 3). Our culture is prone to handle intellectual discussion and divergent viewpoints like a championship prize boxing match or major sporting event. The rule is to choose a side or else; those who wish to meditate on both sides are labeled as weak minded, cowardly or without character. Unfortunately, in Stableford’s article, our current president also falls victim to the American predilection for binary thinking, choosing a “side” and unleashing a rash and excessive response in his menacing “NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” tweet against UC Berkeley (Stableford, para.

Prompt: Write an essay that defends or challenges or qualifies Gladwell’s assertion that “if you work hard enough and assert yourself, and you use your mind and imagination, you can shape the world to your desires” (Gladwell 151).

“This is a moral and civic duty;” “what sort of twisted mind;” “Obamacare has signed up people with dire medical conditions;” “The sum of human suffering diminished;” Are all examples of harsh diction. This tactic brings urgency to the matter, and further proves its significance.

My knee jerk reaction to Pat Buchanan’s article was irritation. He seems to cherish an almost imaginary America—since when was this nation united in culture? From its very beginnings, the US has seen thousands of diverse cultures; from just the top of my head there were the Puritans, the Native Americans, the unique slave culture that developed on large plantations, the Italians in big cities, the Japanese on the West Coast, and the culture I’m assuming Buchanan wishes could unite America: the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

This article is mainly about effective use of the incivility for politicians to get their point across. I hate to say this, but Donald Trump is a good example of this. He may be looked at as a racist; however, he is telling America upfront what his plans are once he becomes president and belittling his opponent. If you want to be president of the United States of America, and are running against some of the toughest people in the world, you must be determined, but also stand tall and be strong. We are seeing a lot of this during the 2016 Presidential Debate. The final case study I analyzed was “Fighting Words” (page 557). Clearly, this type of article is different from the first three. It focuses more on realization that people are human beings and that they should be treated as such. When people call others offensive names, it tends to turn the point of the conversation into conflict and the opposing side into the enemy. With all the wars that have occurred in the past, we have seen many of America’s enemies rejoice in our downfall, whether it be economically or socially, and vice versa. However, citizens, officials of the government, and especially the media, fail to recognize that we are all the same. We all breathe same air, bleed the same way, and live on the planet Earth

According to the author Reza Aslan it was always a mistake for the U.S. to use the phrase “War on Terror” in the fight against certain extremist groups. Also Aslan feels that the war has been posited from the start as a war of ideology. Aslan feels it is a mistake to use the phrase “war on terror” because it does not coincide with the reason for fighting the war. In the essay Aslan states that the phase has always been problematic because the war was never meant to be a war against terrorism. If it was then it would have included the Muslims over the world that are supposedly the real terrorist. Aslan also agree with the Bush administration that the war on terror was targeted at a particular brand of terrorism. He also feel as though the

The ideology that put Donald Trump in the White House is one of victimhood as much as one of resentment. As a candidate for the presidency, Donald Trump did more than attack presumed outsiders like Muslims and Hispanic immigrants; he also quenched a thirst for a large group of Americans indignant about what they have suffered at the hands of others. But these supporters weren’t victims of any real oppression or exclusion—they saw themselves as victims of political correctness, living in a world where a liberal media suppressed truth in the name of supposed fairness. So why has a form of language stemmed from good intentions had such ruinous consequences?

In an article published by U.S. News & World Report entitled “Give Him the Benefit of the Doubt” (20 January, 2017), Michael C. Barnes encourages Americans to be deferential and hopeful with the approaching presidency of Donald Trump, arguing that his opponents should “protest the new president's actions if necessary, but [not] his presidency.” Barnes advocates this behavior by condemning those who are “[reinforcing] gridlock and [impeding] progress on important issues” through their boycotting and degrading of Trump’s inauguration; by demonstrating Trump’s commitment to serve the public, as well as gain its approval, even if it is through unconventional means, such as tweeting; and by reiterating that Trump has “unique talents” and “deal-making

Radical Islamists are activists whose main goal is to form an international group of Islamic believers. They are determined to form this group in whatever way they can, even using violence and having mass killings. The United States of America allows them to be radical because of their needs such as, oil. They take teachings from the Qur’an and radicalize them into violence and harsh beliefs, however, the majority of Muslims do not believe in most all of the ways of radical Islamists.

These extremist are cowards, their ideology and beliefs are inferior to ours, their will to destroy the American way of life will ultimately be their downfall. This isn't a war of attrition, but a war for survival and rest assure America will win this war! Long after these extremist, their barbaric ideology, and their asinine causes have been discarded from history; America will still be here shining brighter than

Capturing the Friedman’s is directed by Andrew Jarecki. The film focuses on the 1980’s investigation and conviction of Arnold Friedman and his son Jesse Friedman on charges of child molestation. This film could certainly be put into the category of accidental excellence as Andrew Jarecki was initially interested in creating a documentary on New York City clowns and it was only through his interviews with David Friedman (the most successful of Manhattan clowns) that he stumbled upon a goldmine of a back-story. The result is a fascinating and revealing documentary about suburban family dysfunction.

In an effort to further understand extreme Right parties, scholars have broken into two dominant camps: the demand-side/externalist camp and the electoral- behavior internalist camp. The externalist camp views the extreme Right as the product of a series of external factors- they analyze the economic, social, cultural environments that preceded the rise of the far right (Blee, 2007). This camp adopts a macro-level approach when studying the extreme right and as such look at immigration, anti-establishment sentiment, social breakdown, the ‘losers’ of modernization, and the reaction to the ‘new’ politics of feminists and ecologists (Goodwin, 2006). Although he admits that externalism points scholars in the right direction, Goodwin says this

The topic of hate and extremism is very hard to explain, seeing as it is very controversial. To break it down hate in this context is hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice, and extremism is the holding of extreme political or religious views or fanaticism. Together it's hostile actions motivated by extreme political or religious views. According to the southern poverty law center, there are now 954 active hate/extremist groups in the U.S. 66 of those are currently operating in Texas. Extremist groups can be domestic (i.e Klu Klux Klan, Skinheads, etc) or foreign (i.e ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.). The only country affected by hate and extremism in America is America. The specific groups involved are quite obviously these hate-extremist

Although countries use extreme measures to protect their people's liberties, it takes away other individuals rights. At the 1964 Republican Convention, Barry Goldwater made the following remark: “Extremism is the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It is not ideal to use extremism at any means for defense because it involves violence and danger towards its citizens. Extremism takes away personal liberties by hurting innocent people and restricting them from certain individuals.