The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot

If anyone wants to read this article and tell me that I'm missing something, I would be pretty relieved. The article caught my eye because of its accusation against the FBI; after all, I have always thought the FBI was on my side. The article says that, "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out -- only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI." Wow. What's even more shocking is that the article never gave a shred of evidence to back up this claim. It treated it as though it was a well-known, proven fact. If this is a fact, feel free to fill me in, because it's news to me. If it isn't an established fact, whoever wrote this article could definitely learn a little from our english textbook. It has no appeal to logos whatsoever. Sure, it goes on to explain why the attacks on our country shouldn't be considered "terrorist attacks," because we are at war and it is perfectly normal to be attacked in times of war. Well, I have a few questions for you, Mr. Glenn Greenwald. Since we are engaged in a "war on terror," why wouldn't the attacks, if part of the war, be considered terrorist attacks? Even if they aren't terrorist attacks, what does it matter? Shouldn't we defend our country and the lives of its civilians? The article is literally written with the obvious assumption that all of its accusations against the FBI have been proven true. It talks about why they do what they do and criticizes them, but it never questions if the FBI is really creating its own terrorist attacks. To me, it sounds like total nonsense. Perhaps, however, the way the article is written might convince some people. If the author totally made this idea up and has no evidence, I'd say he did a pretty good job considering. The dialect sounds pretty educated, and the tone begins rather sarcastically, which I think could be effective in sounding true to readers, especially those who like to question authorities. Some logical evidence is used to support the idea that the "terrorist attacks" occurring are not actually "terrorist attacks." Perhaps the author's logical argument in this area will convince people that he must have logical reasons for his other ideas too. However, I will be the first to "beg the question" in this case. How do we know that the FBI is actually fabricating terrorist attacks?

Article: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/fbi/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/29/fbi_terror

The Fundamental Right

Living in Massachusetts and reading about history in school, sometimes I forget that problems like discrimination are still issues, even in my society today. After all, my textbooks themselves tell me that racism and intolerance are wron; doesn't this mean that that fact has been accepted by the world, or at least the country? Apparantly not. If people were simply acting intolerant towards one another, that would be one thing, but to think that there are still voting laws that discriminate is hard for me to believe. This isn't just private, individual intolerance; this is being condoned by the government!
Even if a state is completely free of any sort of discrimination, I don't see why it would mind having to allow Congress to inspect its laws first. If its laws are all fair, they have nothing to worry about. I think the author feels the same way I do. In an early sentence that sums up the article, the author says, "...legal challenges to the federal voting rights law are increasing even as they highlight the racial injustices that make it essential." The term racial injustice should make any intelligent reader grow concerned. The author causes the voting rights law essential, which makes his stance crystal clear; he does not think the law should be removed. He summarizes the reasons that people object to the law, making him appear to have analyzed both sides of the issue. He then explains why the law is justified, using fairly inarguable evidence from history. The Supreme Court Judge who decided that the law should continue believes that racist laws are still being created, and the law is still necessary. I think the article should be effective in convincing any reader that the judge made the right choice. Assuming that the reader is against discrimination, the facts presented are undeniable.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/opinion/the-fundamental-right.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

Facebook changes spark outrage, serve as warning

This article definitely caught my eye because I had noticed the Facebook changes only an hour or so earlier. When I logged on, I saw that someone's status was complaining about the changes, and I liked the status. The writer of this article, however, is suggesting that we should be reminded that Facebook must be controlling us if people really care that much. One of his friends, he says, is now refusing to use Facebook.
To be honest, I think the article is a bit of an overreaction. Unless I'm mistaken, most people who complain about Facebook are just a little annoyed, and their statuses don't really mean anything. After all, they're probably logged onto Facebook when they write their statuses, so it makes sense that that's what they'd write about. This article says, "When we give a single company — whether it's Facebook or Twitter or Google — so much control over how we communicate with others, we're giving up an awful lot." Personally, I think this is a bit silly. Almost everyone I know has a Facebook, and no one I know is completely controlled by it. I don't know who the article is targetting, but I doubt it's going to get through to many people. If it wants people to spend less time on it, it doesn't have a very strong argument, except that the Facebook changes are upsetting people, which hardly seems like an argument to me. However, the article does predict that its users aren't going anywhere, so perhaps the article is just a prediction, not really wanting people to change their habits.

See Article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/09/facebook_change.html

No Room For Tolerance

This article caught my attention because it made me wonder what sort of intolerance was happening, and where. It turns out that in this case, it is a religious issue. Islamic people are running into difficulty trying to construct a mosque in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The author makes his opinion clear from the start; he says that Mayor Bloomberg "rightly stood up for religious liberty" when he defended the construction of a mosque in Manhatten. The author's word choice clearly indicates that preventing people from building a mosque is prejudice. Since most Americans are raised to believe in equality, tolerance, etc., I think the author's strategy should be effective in convincing them that what's happening in Bridgewater is wrong. To make sure the audience is convinced that the issue is merely one of prejudice, he presents a variety of logical evidence. For example, people are fighting the mosque by arguing that it will create a traffic problem, even though all the evidence suggests that the effect on traffic will be minimal. Overall, I think this article is sensible and will probably convince most readers that the mosque in Bridgewater ought to be built.

See Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/no-room-for-tolerance.html?_r=1&ref=opinion