Shutdown myths find home on social media

The shutdown is kept going on for a week. The claims are starting to get harder in social media. There are two statements floating around the Twitter. First, The Obama administration stop the Amber Alert program because of the government shutdown. Second is the Obama administration shut down the ocean. This claim is based on closures at the national parks. Officials have restricted access to Florida Bay, because that's part of a national park. These two claims are both false. Nowadays, many people use twitter and facebook. The false truth is able to spread in a twinkling. The government shutdown is a big problem. However, regulation of false truth in social media is urgently needed.

You're gonna like this guy, he's a goodfella.

In the movie "Goodfellas" the main character played by Ray Liotta claims that "murderers come with smiles, they come as your friends." This claim is based on two grounds. The first is this narration comes as one of the characters named Tommy is preparing for a ceremony in which he becomes a full-fledged member of the crime family. He is greeted by his friends who welcome him with open arms and act like they are proud of his accomplishments. The second ground comes when those same people who pretended to be his best friends shoot him in the back of the head. The warrant here is that when people come to congratulate you with open arms, they are your friends, and this friendship ceases when they shoot you in the back of the head. Thus, the claim that murderers come as friend is shown through one of the main characters deeply trusting a fellow crime family member only to be murdered.

How Tens of Thousands of Americans Got Cheated Out of Their Mineral Rights

        Mother Jones magazine political writer Thomas Stackpole published this article on October 9, 2013. His analysis is an explicit Logos argument based on legal evidence and research data from sales documents. Documentation is culled from a Reuters.com report from the same day. Based upon the widely respected credibility of the Reuters name in news research,  Stackpole makes the central claim to his homeowner audience that many Americans have purchased houses without realizing that the builder or developer has retained the sole rights to mineral deposits that could be located beneath the property. According to the author the warrant of the argument is that the shady practice is widespread and is increasingly occurring from coast to coast unbeknownst to the general public. The scenario has become especially worrisome of late because invasive ‘fracking’ has been employed as a means to extract oil residue from previously unusable shale. Although the article maintains that many states known for their abundant oil reserves also commonly sell only the surface rights to homes, the improved technology that allows for maximizing oil from rock has made a larger segment of the country fair game for oil companies in pursuit of bigger profits. Royalties from this type of drilling paid out “more than twenty billion nationally in 2012.” The magnitude of those potential profits has led to self-serving behavior by some corporations who are not always forthcoming with their home buying clientele. D.R. Horton commonly understood per Reuters to be the largest builder in the United States; is one of the companies cited for this business practice. Although 700 homeowners in North Carolina previously bilked of their mineral rights by Horton, were able to win them back in court; many others are unaware and or out of luck. A sheep farmer in West Virginia lost his appeal for damages or an injunction when his farm was all but destroyed by the local energy company seeking access to reserves. However, more startling than the loss of profit to the homeowner is the potentially far-reaching cumulative impact of such deals. For instance, in some cases banks like Wells Fargo may not extend mortgages to homes encumbered by such restrictions. Additionally many insurance companies do not cover damage to property caused by mineral extraction, which could leave the owner of the subject property in double jeopardy, suffering diminished value and no protection for their loss. Stackpole’s presentation is logical and linear although he offers little in the form of implied rebuttal beyond offering that some states are already codifying the practice.  He concludes his fact-based argument with a policy-based conclusion in the form of the caveat “buyer beware.”     

Mormon leader: Same-sex marriage laws cannot 'make moral what God has declared immoral'

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/06/mormon-leader-same-sex-marriage-laws-cannot-make-moral-what-god-has-declared/

The article addresses that the Mormon leader asserted same-sex marriage is immoral. Even though the negative stance against homosexuality would be misunderstood or prompt accusations of bigotry, the Mormon leader emphasized to the members that the most important priority is to serve God for them, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' policies are based on God's decrees. According to a perspective of "Latter day saints," it must not be allowed to condone gay's behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit same-sex marriage. The Mormon church teaches the members that attraction of homosexuality is not a sin, but responding to the attraction is a sin. According to the Mormon website, "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them." Therefore, the church embraces their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but their behaviors should not be accepted in the Mormon's belief. In my opinion, I completely disagree with the Mormons because they overlook that being gay is a personal expression and people have their own ability to choose how they live their own life which should not be dictated by other religion, so there is the possibility that God wanted it that way. Their negative stereotype against homosexuality leads to other social dislocation. They are a religion, but they have no rights to infringe on others' rights.

Joe Soucheray: This Catholic Town is Weary of Sordidness. Throw the Bums Out.

The article I have chosen to analyze this week is an opinion piece written by Joe Soucheray, and was published by the St. Paul Pioneer press. I think Soucheray could have been more detail oriented and implored more argumentative devices to create a stronger argument. Soucheray relied too heavily on what he assumes to be shared knowledge within the Pioneer Press' readership. 

His claim is that we, Catholic residents of St. Paul are tired of the immoral acts of priests being covered up by the Church, and we should "throw the bums out." He supports his claim with a lack of factual or hard data. Instead he refers to an incident that occurred with Priest John Shelley. Although names are given of the parties involved, there is little mention of the dates or other details about the incident. This information would be helpful to the casual reader of the Pioneer Press. Soucheray seems to assume that readers of his opinion would have already read the article posted earlier in the day about the priest sexual misconduct task force members who were named today. The assumption is not a far stretch, but me being a casual reader, had to dig to find the article he barely mentions as data. All of his assumptions can be grouped together to be called the qualifiers of the argument - they limit the strength of his argument by relying too heavily on the assumed knowledge of the reader. 

In conclusion, after reading this piece, I think Soucheray needs to spend more time constructing his arguments to make them stronger and to complete the ultimate goal of argumentation - to persuade his audience.

http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_24269241/joe-soucheray-this-catholic-town-is-weary-sordidness?source-hottopics

Has Boeing lost the battle for Japan?

The author put forward a claim that Boeing may have lost the battle in the aircraft competition with Airbus of European planemaker, specifically.  The grounds for the claim are that the belated entry of Airbus to the market which had been monopolised by Boeing and the own trouble of Boeing in its 787 Dreamliner. The warrant connects grounds and claim is that Japan Airlines (JAL) had ordered 31 Airbuses and placed an option for a further 25 jets. To back the warrant, the author provided the historical information that JAL was one of the two launch customers for the Dreamliner and was loyal to Boeing. The reason why JAL turned back on Boeing is the delays and technical issues besetting the jet, such as the battery fires. The real problem for that is the electrification of fight controls, which may deter some airlines. Boeing is hoping to make up the bad influence of Japanese decision with the new version of 777, but it is hard to restore the reputation.  

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/10/airbus-wins-big-order

Oliver Killed Himself in Front of Family

I read the article, “Oliver Killed Himself in Front of Family” on Fox News website. Paul Oliver, who was a defensive back in NFL, committed suicide in front of his two young sons and wife. According to the Oliver’s wife, he was depressed over the end of his career because he hadn’t played since 2011. In addition, they had marital problems. They got into an argument on the day of the suicide. During the argument, Oliver went to the stairs to get a gun, and said, “I’m going to do it in front of you.” At that time, Oliver’s wife did not call the police because Oliver had talked about ending his life before but had never done it. However on that day, he fired a shot into the ceiling, and then shot himself in the head. The article makes a statement that several suicide cases by football players have pushed the issue of football-related brain injuries. The article claims that Oliver’s case is one of the examples of the issue of football-related brain injuries. It point out that suicides or crimes by retired football players have become a pattern nowadays, and society ignores this phenomenon. It argues that it is a serious problem that cannot be overlooked. I completely agree with the article’s opinion. Retiring may makes peoples’ lives meaningless. Most athletes retire faster than the general public. Therefore, I think that we should give them continuous concerns. The article also point out the problematics of Oliver’s suicide. The article claims that Oliver made a wrong decision even though he suffered from football-related brain injuries such as depression. They support their claim by emphasizing that he committed suicide in front of his family. I believe that people don’t have a right to commit suicide as people don’t have a right to kill somebody. Even though he had a difficult time, he gave deep hurt to his children and his wife. For whatever reason, Oliver left his family with indelible scars by killing himself.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/10/03/oliver-killed-himself-in-front-family/?intcmp=obnetwork