This summer I have perused the many articles and excerpts from the late Charles Krauthammer, a moderate liberal turned independent conservative who wrote oftentimes in order to provide critical feedback towards individual government officials and to provide opinions on more universally relatable topics. His writing style is very direct, and he unequivocally demonstrates the ideals of that which he believes in. The sports-related article, “Why do they even play the game?” properly exhibits the sharp and established phraseology executed by the author.

This article focuses principally on the juvenile concept of winning and losing, in its most superficial form, sports. The author designs what he very originally calls the Krauthammer Conjecture, which is the rudimentary idea that in any given game of any given sport, the net amount of suffering is larger than the net amount of pleasure, meaning that the pleasure of winning is outweighed by the devastation of loss. This leads the author to question why these athletes decide to take part in the first place, all the while producing a multitude of examples of winners and losers of the past. Krauthammer then brings into focus the wealth and privilege that each of these people boasts by questioning how one can be so incandescent at a game when they hastily return home to fortunes; “I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate.” He concludes the column with the final postulation that winning isn’t everything, but instead it is the only thing.

Discussion Question: Do you think that the pleasure and glory of winning is outweighed by the devastation of losing? If so, why do people play these games at all?

Throughout the summer I have been reading articles written by John Hawkins. He is a author for a website called rightwingnews which gives you a hint at his political affiliation. He mostly talks about political issues through the lense of a hardcore conservative. His bias shines through in every article he writes as he rarely talks about and disprove opposing arguments choosing instead to ignore them. He is also very aggressive in his style hoping that the emotion in his articles will distract readers from the often lack of convincing evidence.

One of the most interesting articles of Hawkins that I read was titled “The 7 Aces in the Hole That Give Liberals the Advantage Over Conservatives.” In this article Hawkins explains what he believes are the seven biggest reasons that left leaning people seem to have an advantage over right leaning people in politics. He claims these reasons are an increased number of immigrants, alleged “indrotination” that happens in schools, american culture going away from christian standards, a declining marriage rate, an increase in corporations that appeal more to the left leaning market, media being more liberal, and social media. Though some or possibly all of these reasons do seem like valid advantages on the surface when he goes into explanations for a few of them his point gets rapidly worse. For example when he talks about schools he claims that teachers are pushing things like gay marriage or communism on the kids the teach. While this may be true in a few select cases the majority of teachers especially public school teachers are not doing this. However he also makes some good points that I agree with such as when he discusses the media. He talks about how the media networks have become increasingly politicized, discussing opinions as if they were facts and going far away from the center where they should be hovering around.

Discussion Question: Do you think that there are advantages that are held by either side in politics and if so what gives them that advantage?

Throughout the past few weeks, I have read various columns all written by William Raspberry. While reading each column I would pay attention to the small details that some might over look, I thought about the tone, the language used, and the specific details listed. Although Raspberry is a columnist he is also a professor at the University of Duke, having two professions that build off of each other allows him gain a different perspective on certain things. Raspberry might be full of knowledge and have colleagues with statistics at the press of a button but this isn’t what convinces the reader, what draws the reader in is how personal he is with the topic and the effect his tone and writing style has on each person that reads it. Out of the columns that I have read the one that stuck out to me most was titled “Our Rules vs. The Poor”.

William Raspberry was teaching his class at the time about the different rules various groups have, the only difference between these rules being the financial status of the people following them. He mentioned 2 scenarios, one scenario was about “looters” that smashed a store window during Hurricane Katrina for essentials, the other was about a teenager that robbed a convince store for some food. Raspberry wanted his students to decide which scenario was justifiable based on the events that occurred and things stolen. His goal wasn’t to restate the law or state that looting is important, “It was, rather, to observe that the rules — legislated and otherwise — that make our communities work don’t exist as moral abstractions. We uphold them because they work for us — at least until we find ourselves under water.” Raspberry uses tone to convey this message in a more meaningful way to his students. With the scenarios he gives he wants his students to see how the looters were still in the wrong but because of the money they might’ve had their punishment was half as bad as the homeless teenager, that was sent to jail just because he was seen as a nuisance to society. He makes his students see how there is more to society then just money and the latest and greatest gadget, how there are some people in the world that just want to be seen and acknowledged. “Our Rules vs. The Poor” was written to put a stop to the fine line between each “group”, to make society see each other as one and nothing less than that. Raspberry concludes the column by stating that his goal wasn’t to make society think the rules were wrong or unjust, it was rather to make society see it’s time for a change “rather than sit blithely while the growing gap between them and us produces a community destroying economic disequilibrium.”

Discussion Question: Why do you think society places the “poor” and “rich” into two different categories? In your opinion what truly separates them other than where they live or the clothes they may wear?

This summer I selected to research some of  Joel Achenbach’s columns, Joel writes about science and politics for The Washington Post. Right out of the gate, I could tell that Joel’s writing style is very straightforward and he doesn’t beat around the bush. He gets his opinion and the facts on the topic out but in a very respectful, informative manner. One thing that stood out to me the most about Joel’s writing is that they don’t have a lot of bias, if any. One column I read written by Joel talks about the submersible that went missing on it’s way to view the remains of the Titanic wreckage.

This column that I read from Joel is titled, “Titan submersible plunged into exotic, dangerous world on the way to Titanic” and it speaks about the submersible, Titan, that went missing. This submersible was on it’s way down to view the wreckage of the Titanic but lost connection with the ship up above only 1 hour and 45 minutes into its 2 and a half hour dive. Joel stated in his writing, “I think we all agree that going somewhere that has 400 times the pressure in the atmosphere is a dangerous thing to be doing” to express that these 5 people definitely knew this was a risky adventure. From Joel’s writing, I can infer that he thinks this was a dumb idea and he wouldn’t personally partake in this journey, “The very deep sea is a forbidding, almost alien environment, inhabited only by odd, eyeless creatures that have adapted to pressures that could instantly crush the most advanced Navy submarine.” 

Since this article was written on June 22, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding OceanGate, Titan, and the lost lives of the 5 victims. There have been many articles, not necessarily written by Joel, about this risky journey. One of these articles specifically speaks about how the families of the victims are going to sue OceanGate because they feel they are liable for the five deaths.

Discussion Question: If you personally had the option to take a trip down to the Titanic’s wreckage, would you go?  Do you believe it is justified for these families to be suing OceanGate? Even though these 5 victims signed a liability waiver prior to their trip?

During the summer, I have read 3 different columnists and their outlooks on current world issues. One of which included the works of Jon Dougherty who was a political based science major from Missouri. His writings contain a very informal style of writing with his casual style of speech within his articles, saying words like “eh,’ or “guy”. Along with his sarcasm and irony, his articles can make for a humorous take on real world issues when paired up with his provocative speech. Although it seems unprofessional, he makes up for his informalities with his citations and analogies which allows him to force his points onto the reader. Allowing for an easy to read but informative article.

The article that I read from Jon Dougherty was titled “Canadian gun laws: The dead know better”, and it talks about how Canada passing a law that bans citizens from legally possessing a firearm without a good reason. Jon Dougherty immediately expresses his opinions on the situation, calling Mayor Miller and Prime Minister Paul Martin idiots for passing this. The reason for them doing this was because American guns were “making its way up north” and the Mayor Miller had gone out and said “The system you have in place in the U.S. is causing violence to be exported to my city,” blaming the situation on us, rather than admitting they just don’t like guns. Jon Dougherty found out that the more believable reason was that the city is just soft on crime, and the people being convicted for gun charges are immediately released within the next hour. The issues that Jon Dougherty is concerned about is the potential increase in crime rate involving guns after the restrictions. Comparing this situation to a very similar one in Britain, saying that “British authorities saw a 35-percent increase in gun violence in 2002 alone.” Now every citizen up in the north must get their firearm legally registered if they already possess one. With the Prime Minister adding in that he would “Like to ban all handguns” He then closes out his article by stating that “Canada’s ‘no self-defense allowed’ policy is demonstrably unsound, impractical and not conducive to public safety.”

Discussion Questions: Do you believe that blaming another country for an increase in crime is a valid argument, or should there be other factors into blaming another country? Do you agree that “fewer guns in the hand of law-abiding citizens” wouldn’t lead to a increase in public safety?

Throughout the summer, I have read columns by Joel Achenbach, a columnist for the Washington Post who mainly discusses a wide range of science topics. Within his writing, he attempts to present unbiased facts on the topic at hand. He often presents an optimistic view of the newfound knowledge he delivers to his readers. This can be seen in his article: “See the sharpest image yet of a supermassive black hole.”. This column beautifully details his utilization of tone and the establishment of his personal writing style. 

Within this article, Achenbach describes a newfound discovery pieced together by astronomers this year. This photo was created by combining recent technologies, with the main image originating from the Event Horizon Telescope, “a consortium of telescopes across the planet”. However, the completed image could not have been generated without the help of PRIMO, a machine-learning algorithm, or, in simpler terms, an AI. This artificial intelligence assisted in filling in the gaps that the telescopes were unable to pick up. Utilizing a well-made, but limited, data set, this machinery helped expand our understanding of how black holes may look. Here is where the issue arises: PRIMO relies on computer models to complete this image. This means that this image is almost entirely reliant on our understanding of what black holes look like. Thus, it is difficult to say whether it is entirely accurate, with it requiring more verification when we eventually receive more data. This, nevertheless, could take many, many years. 

Discussion Question: In situations such as these where data is limited, should artificial intelligence be trusted to expand upon the knowledge we already hold? Do you believe that AI will be helpful in creating new scientific discoveries in the future, or should this job be left to us? 

Over the past few weeks, I have read several columns written by Mona Charen and have analyzed her inspirations for writing. She is an American columnist, journalist, and political commentator. Charen has written books that divulge controversial issues and uses her knowledge to change people’s opinions on difficult topics. She is a very well, educated person and is able to use her own research and include quotes from others to help support her ideas. Out of Charen’s many columns, the one that stuck out to me the most was called “Why Are We So Sad?”.

Mona Charen begins this column by stating, “The average life expectancy at birth in the United States has declined for a third straight year due to extremely high rates of death from drug overdose and suicide.” She then continues the column by discussing the hard topic of mental health conditions, specifically depression, and the effects it has on people, especially teenagers. Charen lists reasons of why people turn to these decisions like overwhelming amounts of guilt, sadness, stress, and most relevant, loneliness. She states, “We are not meant to be alone, and we don’t find emotional succor or physical satisfaction in relationships with screens.” She believes that one of the biggest things that causes loneliness for the parents and the children, is divorce. By bringing attention to these recurring issues, Charen hopes that more will be done to help the people all around the U.S. who struggle with this horrible feeling. She concludes her column by sharing her thoughts on how to change this problem by saying, “The road back to emotional health must include and emphasis on commitment to family.” Hopefully in the very near future, more can be done to save the lives of people who feel lonely and struggle with any mental health disorders.

Discussion Question: Do you think being lonely takes a toll on the average person’s mental health? And if so, do you believe we are doing enough to solve this issue?

This summer, I have read Nat Hentoff’s articles for his distinctive and influential writing style. His work is distinguished by an excellent blend of perceptive analysis and impassioned advocacy that brilliantly captures the core of his subjects with a high degree of sensitivity and nuance. Clarity and critical thinking are traits of Hentoff’s writing as he successfully navigates difficult subjects such as social justice. Hentoff creates a compelling variety of thought-provoking ideas and emotive storytelling with a unique ability to weave personal storylines with larger societal challenges. His work is a timeless tribute to the power of journalism because of his dedication to fostering debate and his unflinching loyalty to the principles of free expression. This can be seen Primarily in the article, “Free Speech is Going to the Dogs”.

The article delves into the landscape of hate speech laws within developed nations, drawing a sharp contrast between the United States’ robust First Amendment safeguards and Europe’s more stringent regulations. It cites specific instances, such as the trial of Maclean’s magazine in Canada and the legal charges against Brigitte Bardot in France for hate speech. A 2015 poll conducted by YouGov.com lends evidence, revealing substantial support for hate speech laws among Americans, particularly Democrats, who advocate criminalizing speech that stirs hatred based on characteristics like race, gender, and religion. Legal scholar Eugene Volokh’s perspective on the intricacies of carving exceptions into the First Amendment framework is cited. The article further illustrates the issue through a recent bizarre incident in Scotland, where a man was apprehended over a satirical video featuring a dog mimicking Nazi salutes. This case underscores the ongoing discourse over safeguarding free speech while addressing offensive expression.

Discussion Question: Which is more important, protecting free speech or curbing hate speech, and do you believe that the United States should maintain its distinct approach to free speech, as protected under the First Amendment?

Throughout the summer, I have been studying columns by Ellen Ratner. Ratner is an American female journalist and political commentator well-known from outlets like Fox News Channel and World Net Daily. Based on what I learned, she seems to be a passionate journalist. She provides insight and analysis on a wide range of issues related to politics and society. Ratner’s views aren’t heavily biased. However, she does provide commentary on the articles she writes and will go out of her way to research her pieces to deliver a story that is accurate and reliable.

There is one particular column I read from Ratner titled, “What happens after you give up drinking?”, and it discusses women in Alcoholics Anonymous who have dealt with alcohol addiction and are now sober. During her interviews with these people, she learns more about their sobriety experiences. This makes Ratner question what would happen if a sober individual drank again. As she speaks to each woman, she asks them what they have learned from being sober. In their response, they said they had acquired integrity and found that anything is possible. She mentions that one of the women she talked to had dropped out of school because of her alcohol addiction but returned and became a lawyer. However, sobriety has some difficulties. Ratner states, “They also said the hardest thing to learn was that they could not always get their way, and they had to get over selfishness.” So there were some problems faced. There was one story about how a woman kept relapsing because she was humiliated after being drunk and didn’t know what to do with her shame. Hearing all these narratives from people, Ratner declared that even though she isn’t an alcoholic, she found all their stories inspiring. After her interview, she wanted to know the women from Alcoholics Anonymous’ final words, and in their agreement, they decided to say, “The way to long-term sobriety was to think through the drink, and what would happen if they drank.”, which Ratner thinks is great advice.

Discussion Question: Do you believe that everyone can successfully overcome their addiction forever or will they fall back to that addiction? With the option you chose, please explain why you chose it.

 

Looking over all of the options for columnists this summer, I randomly selected Bill O’Reilly. The first thing I noticed about his writing style was that he is very straightforward and strong with his opinions, normally leaning toward the right. He is very confident, and does not care about any backlash he may receive from his blogs.  One of the columns I read about was O’Reilly tackling drug abuse in America. He addresses people who are addicted to drugs by making them feel as if they are ruining the United States Society, with their inability to control their addiction to drugs.

O’Reilly highlights a substantial amount of reasons as to why addiction is harmful to everyone. He talks about how their behavior is deadly to themselves, and millions of others around the world.  According to O’Reilly they fuel cartels, are responsible for child abuse and neglect, and single handedly destroy homes and communities.  Others consider them victims. They believe those who struggle with drug abuse are not at fault for their abuse, that they are mere victims to a massive epidemic. O’Reilly completely ignores a potential argument for the other side, except for a quick tangent about an “addictive personality,” just to shut it down quickly in the following sentence. O’Reilly is very effective with his writing because he chooses exactly what he wants to make his argument convincing and then he strongly words his writing to be upfront and clear on what side he takes.

Discussion Question:  Did you have any prior opinion on the subject of people who struggle from drug addiction in the country? If so, did O’Reilly change your opinion, or did he make your feelings on the subject stronger?