Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.
--------
Question: A defining moment for the French right. France lost five of its most prominent political cartoonists yesterday . For decades, they had mocked the powerful, the sacred, the dictators, and all those who believed themselves above criticism . These cartoonists felt there was no better way to fight fundamentalism than through derision and laughter . The late Charb, Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief, was killed, evoking the words of Spanish republican icon Dolores Ibarruri, who was known to boast:"I'd rather die standing than live kneeling." It is this very impertinence, this freedom to rebel against ideologies, structures and hierarchies through art and literature, that has been targeted . France is known for its triad "liberty, equality, brotherhood" engraved at the helm of every school, on all official buildings . This motto attributed to French theologian and writer Francois Fenelon at the end of the 17th century was popularised during the French Revolution , when popular unrest toppled religious and authoritative powers . This philosophy was central to Charlie Hebdo's editorial line and promoted by Charb, known for his firm leftist stands, and for advocating for more justice and wealth redistribution . Yet ,  the likely beneficiaries of this heinous act will be the very opponents of this libertarian and humanist stance . A few hours after the events, extreme right leader Marine Le Pen immediately seized the opportunity to unleash her short-sighted Islamophobic attacks . While spontaneous gatherings and demonstrations took place across the country to show the country's grief and support for the victims , Le Pen dissuaded her supporters from participating . She later set conditions for taking part in the Republican march organised for next Sunday . This political move is unsurprising from Le Pen . Her political platform is built upon her populist claims of the threats stemming from Islam and more generally, from immigrants . She built her political success on the rise of communitarianism and the growing rifts and dissent in French society . A solidarity march gathering all religions and all sectors of the population in favour of freedom of the press does not play to her political hand . While the French Muslim authorities have called on every mosque in the country to strongly condemn this act of terrorism and encourage participation in the march , Le Pen would rather continue her own crusade alone and capitalise on growing French fears . She would rather call for"open war on Islam" than demonstrate with the 99.99 percent of French Muslims who respect the Republican law . Her traditional supporters, such as skinhead groups "Riposte Laique" and "Bloc identitaire", have called for a "civil war in the country against Islamisation" . But they have failed to mention that Ahmed Merabet, the brave policeman who tried to stop the terrorists and was shot dead in the street, was himself Muslim and defended French Republican values through a lifetime of service in the police force . While traditional parties call for national unity in a peaceful march , Le Pen's supporters blow on the ashes of societal discontent , encouraging retaliation against this act of terrorism . Mosques were reportedly shot at in Le Mans at midnight , a kebab restaurant was bombed in Villefranche . Barbary is answered by stupidity . Ironically, Le Pen will likely benefit from the fears and shock after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that has been one of her strongest opponents . Le Pen can hardly call for the protection of freedom of the press when her own party has regularly tried to limit it by selecting the newspapers and networks who could cover her meetings and ask her questions . Two years ago, her own father vehemently criticised Charlie Hebdo , calling the publication a rag after it ridiculed his political party . Marine Le Pen herself then officially asked for the resignation of any journalist that would show Charlie Hebdo's cover on national TV . Similarly ,  Nicolas Sarkozy is an awkward defender of Charlie Hebdo . First ,  his strategy to win back the presidency in 2017 is to stress on the inability of Francois Hollande to fill the shoes of president, constantly criticising his lack of authority and charisma . The current terrorist crisis is a defining moment for Hollande who might now well prove his capacity to unite a grieving society . More importantly, Sarkozy can hardly support Charlie Hebdo and freedom of the press when he himself personally demanded the resignation of one of its cartoonists in 2008 . At the time Sarkozy was furious that the magazine had published a cartoon mocking his son Jean Sarkozy , whose ambition dwarves the legendary one of his father . Charlie Hebdo described Jean Sarkozy's marriage to a very wealthy Jewish heiress as an attempt to secure his future after failing to finish his university degree . Nicolas Sarkozy managed to obtain the dismissal of the cartoonist Sine and put him on trial for anti-Semitism . Ironically, his colleagues were not so fortunate yesterday when faced with fundamentalists claiming Charlie Hebdo was an enemy of the Muslim prophet .

Answer: France lost five of its most prominent political cartoonists yesterday


Question: It's time to adopt an Alcoholics Anonymous approach to world peace. You see it everywhere this time of year: "Peace on Earth, Good Will to All People." Meanwhile, according to the British newspaper The Independent, only eleven countries on earth are free from violent conflict . There are more than twenty- five full-on wars happening right now and 169 violent militia and rebel conflicts . Peace on Earth -- when will it happen? It's time to adopt an Alcoholics Anonymous approach to world peace . According to scientists, for as long as there have been intoxicants, a portion of human beings has struggled with addiction . For millennia, various disciplines including medicine, psychiatry and religion attempted, unsuccessfully, to help people suffering from an addiction to booze . All of the approaches stemmed from the same common approach : Let's resolve your problems so you'll stop drinking . Alcoholics Anonymous reversed this . A.A  has succeeded because it was the first to say,"Stop drinking FIRST and then we'll work on your problems." Thanks to this subtle shift, countless jobs, marriages, and even lives have been saved . Heretofore, humanity's approach to peace has been like outdated approaches to alcoholism . Attempts at peace have centered on,"Let's resolve our differences so we can stop killing each other." This has only lead to the discovery of more differences and more killing . It's time we followed the example of recovery programs such as A.A  and resolve to, FIRST, stop killing each other and then we can work on our differences . War is used as a tool of international policy because people accept it . All we have to do is change our minds-- to cease to believe that war is an acceptable necessary evil and to begin to believe that no disagreement is worth killing each other's children . Countries have been trying to resolve their differences so that there will no longer be war . We need to declare peace first and then spend eternity working out our differences . The option of war is simply removed from the table . This is why I am declaring enduring world peace beginning September 21, 2056 . Seriously . September 21st is the United Nations World Day of Peace -- so there is already momentum there . We just need to turn those national celebrations into a countdown to world peace . 2056 is far enough in the future that it gives us time for enough people to make the requisite shift in belief such that peace will, indeed, reign on planet Earth . Who am I to make such a proclamation? I'm just a writer and an ordained minister and there are crazy preachers who, every decade or so, declare the end of the world is coming on this or that date . So why can't I say when world peace will begin? Incidentally, this is not a new idea . The Kellogg Briand Pact of 1927, sponsored by the United States and signed by 62 countries declared that war may not be used to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise." Every major religion shares a common belief in the sanctity of human life and yet war has endured . If enough people believe-- just believe , that as of September 21, 2056 war will end on planet earth-- it must happen! If eleven, only eleven out of 196 countries are at peace , it still means that right now, in at least eleven countries there is peace . We simply need to build on this over the next forty-two years . This year, when you say,"Peace on Earth," give peace a beginning date .

Answer: It's time to adopt an Alcoholics Anonymous approach to world peace


Question: It used to be rude not to answer the phone. Now you're rude if you do. Michael Gove is a difficult man to feel sorry for . It seems even his friends can't always manage it . David Cameron, for example - I think he's his friend . He'd definitely say he was Michael Gove's friend but then , politicians being what they are, the fact that he'd say it doesn't enormously increase the statistical chances of its being true . Anyway , they're certainly political allies - or at least were, before Gove made his ill-judged remark about the "preposterous" number of the prime minister's coterie who went to Eton , which ironically led Cameron to lose faith in about the only one who didn't, Gove himself . "That's what you get," the PM must have muttered to himself,"for trusting oiks." Since then Gove's slide down the greasy pole could hardly have been less dignified if he'd been wearing nipple tassels . Which, for all we know, he was . Like a former deputy headmaster who's been busted down to head prefect , Gove not only has to remain loyal to a government that has scorned him but, as chief whip, he must also enforce loyalty in others . But I didn't feel sorry for him until last week when I read that his mobile phone had gone off during a cabinet meeting . This is obviously bad form : for security reasons, you're not even supposed to bring phones into those gatherings . To make matters worse his ringtone is, according to someone who was there:"Jazz FM-style comedown music after a heavy night out" . I'm not entirely sure what that means , but it's clearly some sort of tune . I'm going to imagine it as the theme from Bod . So in the middle of some serious conversation about the Charlie Hebdo shootings or the economy or the NHS, while Vince Cable is expressing some "serious concerns" and everyone else is trying to make drooping eyelids look like they're concentrating hard , suddenly it's "Diddle-it-deduh-dede-duh-duh!" and Gove is jumping and wriggling like George Osborne's Tasered him again . Gove's seated twist having gone on "for quite a while", the PM intervened with what one witness described as "a public bollocking" . Even if Cameron could summon no compassion for his friend , I can . I sympathise with Michael Gove here, as a point of principle . I also sympathise with those people in West End theatres who are hit by a volley of rage and sarcasm from some knight of the stage when Nokia Tune has crashed in on his soliloquy . I sympathise whenever it happens at meetings, weddings, carol services or when someone's tearfully coming out . I sympathise because one day it will happen to me . However careful I am with my phone- and, as a slightly obsessive person, I'm pretty careful- there are times when I take it out, utterly convinced that it's been switched off for hours, and find five bars beaming back from my hand, as incriminating as a gory dagger . Most of the time, I check it every 30 seconds . But sometimes I just don't . My fastidious self-image deceives me into carelessness . At some point, I'm going to come a cropper . And when that shaming moment comes , as I fumble in my trousers by the heat of a hundred stares , I want to be surrounded by people who accept that this could happen to anyone, and might believe that this is an issue about which I'm at least averagely diligent . That's not how it'll be, though . Our attitudes to accidental phone rings are stuck in the 80s . Even though the mobile has long since ceased to be a cutting-edge gadget possessed only by the high-earning early-adopting few , when one goes off inappropriately, we still visualise a shameless yuppie in red braces, Aston Martin double-parked outside, closing deals - an offensive symbol of profligate and faddish modernity . This is hopelessly out of step with what these machines now mean to us . Research just published by a team at the University of Missouri shows that, when a sample of 40 people were temporarily deprived of their iPhones, their heart rate and blood pressure rose, and their ability to perform tasks suffered . Our mobiles, the paper suggests, are now "an extension of our physical selves, an umbilical cord, anchoring the information society's digital infrastructure to our very bodies" . We hate to be parted from them and we don't much like turning them off . Many will lament this , but it's not altogether bad . Our phones reassure us because they make us feel connected  - because if your mobile is turned on, in range and not ringing , it probably means that no work crisis has developed and no disaster has befallen a close friend or loved one . It's a constant everyone-in-your-life-is-more-or-less-OK monitor . Maybe we should learn to live without such reassurance , but it doesn't reflect entirely badly on us that we're comforted by it . People often criticise one another for talking or texting on their phones in preference to live interaction . "We met for a coffee but she spent the whole time on the phone!" "We were having lunch and his mobile rang- and he actually answered it!" Such critics forget that, in the heyday of the landline, a ringing telephone - the phone in the hall - was always answered . The notion of call screening is entirely modern . It never used to be rude to answer - it was rude not to . The onus of politeness, in those days, was on the caller . Except in an emergency, you didn't telephone someone at a mealtime, during their favourite television programme or after 10 o'clock . When you thought someone might not want to be disturbed, you didn't disturb them unless you had to . It's the passing of that etiquette, rather than the prevalence of mobile phones, that I think is a shame . Of course ,  in the age of the mobile, it's impossible to know whether the person you're calling will find it convenient to chat . You can't know if they're eating or in the cinema or reading the traffic news . So how about this : only call a mobile if you really need to . If you just want a chat, call a landline , and not during meals . So that , if "I Will Survive" starts blaring from your Android during an aunt's funeral , it's not you who's been rude . And the person who has isn't there . David Mitchell's new book, Thinking About It Only Makes It Worse, is published by Guardian Faber (? 18.99) . To order a copy for ? 11.99 go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846 .

Answer:
It's the passing of that etiquette, rather than the prevalence of mobile phones, that I think is a shame Our attitudes to accidental phone rings are stuck in the 80s