Thomas Friedman is one of the nation's most well-known columnist as he seeks to give his perspective on issues both domestically and internationally. Like Friedman's popular book The Lexus and the Olive Tree which depicts society's constant struggle between new innovations and old traditions, the world as depicted by Friedman is filled with struggles between differing factions. Friedman's main focus in his pieces is analyzes the issues and finding corresponding solutions, or at least better scenarios.
As a columnist, Thomas Friedman constantly asks the readers: "How can we make this situation better?" Friedman always looks for ways for people to achieve a desired effect in a situation. In regard to America's declining education, Friedman evaluates the correlation between academic achievement and the role of the parent in a student's academic career. Although Friedman acknowledges the importance of excellent teachers, he provides a different outlook in which parents can contribute to a stronger learning environment as well, allowing parents to take partial blame for the academic decline. In addition, in his analysis of the upcoming Egypt elections Friedman is quick to realize that the two strongest parties, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Nour Party hold strong religious conservatism. Friedman's solution to those to want more liberties and more freedom is for secular divisions to ban together in order to take control of Egypt's new government.
Thomas Friedman always notices impending danger in situations. Friedman adds extra emphasis on dissension between differing factions such as the situation in Egypt, Syria, and even Iraq. In these revolutions, Friedman is concerned with factions fighting amongst themselves rather than working together to promote peace and prosperity. He firmly believes that parties should ban together against adversity such as his call to action for the youths of Syria in order to thwart the human rights violations of the reigning regime. With Iraq, Friedman praises the ability for the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites to ban together in peace to form a new democratic government.
In his many articles, Friedman holds an objective but rather optimistic view of the world. Although Friedman is aware of the dangers and disasters of society, he always looks for solutions or alleviations to problems. Friedman analyzes situations and his statements always have reasoning behind them. With strong knowledge and firm support, Friedman often knows what to do in many situations. His credibility as a columnist is unbeatable.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monday Matters - Hola, Columnists! #4
US Forces finally out of Iraq
Thomas Friedman of New York Times analyzes the costs and benefits of the war on Iraq and speculates on Iraq's future. He states that the Iraqi war cost too much for it to be a success: in American lives, Iraqi lives, American dollars, and time. Later, Friedman analyzes how the war was mainly between the Al Qaeda and their ideology versus the Western/ American mentality. For the war's benefits, Friedman congratulates Iraq's first ever agreement between the state's Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd people. Friedman is anxious for the future of Iraq because if the different ethnic groups can coexist, it can become a strong democracy needed in the volatile Arab world.
Friedman views the war on Iraq extremely objectively. Throughout the column, Friedman analyzed the pros and cons of the war as well as speculated as to how Iraq can blossom into a full-fletched democratic state. He refers to a number of states undergoing the same issue as Iraq and really raises the question of unity among ethnic groups in Iraq. Friedman also includes Russia in his example of how Iraq could become in the future, a loosely-held democracy, with a brief mentioning of how Russia is finally turning towards a stronger democracy in the event of new thinking. Friedman wants to let the American people whether or not the Iraqi war was worth it and how Iraq can blossom and really make all the American lives and money worth it.
Thomas Friedman of New York Times analyzes the costs and benefits of the war on Iraq and speculates on Iraq's future. He states that the Iraqi war cost too much for it to be a success: in American lives, Iraqi lives, American dollars, and time. Later, Friedman analyzes how the war was mainly between the Al Qaeda and their ideology versus the Western/ American mentality. For the war's benefits, Friedman congratulates Iraq's first ever agreement between the state's Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd people. Friedman is anxious for the future of Iraq because if the different ethnic groups can coexist, it can become a strong democracy needed in the volatile Arab world.
Friedman views the war on Iraq extremely objectively. Throughout the column, Friedman analyzed the pros and cons of the war as well as speculated as to how Iraq can blossom into a full-fletched democratic state. He refers to a number of states undergoing the same issue as Iraq and really raises the question of unity among ethnic groups in Iraq. Friedman also includes Russia in his example of how Iraq could become in the future, a loosely-held democracy, with a brief mentioning of how Russia is finally turning towards a stronger democracy in the event of new thinking. Friedman wants to let the American people whether or not the Iraqi war was worth it and how Iraq can blossom and really make all the American lives and money worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)