Poverty in America is not poverty

The article of “ Poverty in America Isn’t Poverty” aims to claim that many Americans misunderstand the definition of poverty or even some of them may abuse using the word – poverty to gain others’ sympathesis. The speaker points out that those Americans living in “poverty” could have electrical appliances at home, for instance, computers, cell phones, TVs, dishwashers, air-condition and even the dryers. Having those abundant electrical appliances at home, should those people still be clarified as living in poverty? Should the US government still give the financial aid to those people, who claimed in “poverty”?

From the global poverty statistics, it shows that nearly three billion people in the world are defined as poor; most of them can be found in Africa. This group of people earn less than $1 usd per day. They suffer from chronically hungry, diseases with lack of health care, and poor living standard without rudimentary shelter.

Compared with the people mentioned above, the poverty in America is not real poverty as measured around the world. For me, I consider that it is essential for us to learn how to treasure all the things we had but not blaming or counting what we do not have. Living in the USA, such a modern and developed country, we can be defined as “rich” and “fortunate”.

Michelle Bachmann's comments on 9/11 and the Muslim Brotherhood

The article, originally published on September 11, 2013 by PolitiFact, addresses the ambiguous public address Michelle Bachmann gave while visiting Egypt that previous week. The televised press conference also included Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas and Steve King of Iowa.

The researcher, as titled by the source, PolitFact, spends little time addressing the recent coup in Egypt that the Representatives addressed during the press conference, highlights one short statement made by Michelle Bachmann, and spends the majority of the article providing information, as well as some historical context, relevant to Bachmann's mentioned statement. The researcher uses the information and context she provides to hint that Bachmann once again performed poorly in the public arena.

The researcher's claim, that Bachmann comes off as an uneducated public speaker, is never explicitly stated, but hinted at when she questions Bachmann's speech:

 "Was Bachmann blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for the 9/11 attacks? Or, was she making a more general statement that both Egypt and the United States should fight extremists?"

This claim is also hinted at when she writes "Bachmann's comments struck us as open to interpretation." This comment made by the researcher also shows her to be a biased writer, offering her opinion on the matter. However, because PolitiFact does not call itself a news source, the writer's inclusion of her opinion is not unethical. The rest of the article is spent explaining the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida and 9/11, and offers a short commentary about the differences between them and why some might associate the two together.

Although the implicit claim I mentioned previously is present in the article, I think the researcher's main goal was to offer insight on the subject and used Bachmann's statement as a starting point. With this claim and then information or evidence offered, the researcher was successful in further educating me, the audience.




http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/11/michele-bachmanns-comments-911-and-muslim-brotherh/