In the article "Probe Launched Over Claim That Elite Capitol Police Unit Blocked From Navy Yard" by Fox News the author claims from credible sources within the Capitol police department that an elite tactical unit responded to the scene of the deadly shooting at the Washington Naval Yard was turned away by supervisors. This would be highly controversial due to the fact that police responding to an incident could have saved lives and instead were ordered to stand down by a supervisor. This is bound fuel the fire of the conspiracy theorists as well as those with differing views than the current administration. The elite unit arrived on the scenes minutes after the calls of an active shooter were received. There may be many reasons why the team was turned away jurisdictional issues, due to the fact that military bases are Federal property but then the Capitol police defend Federal property. Fox news and its contributors to this article provide no reason for why the team may have been turned away. In my opinion the news should report the facts even if you have to wait to break a story and get ratings. This article raises some serious questions though regardless if all the facts are not know, why was this elite team turned away if they could have saved lives?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/18/probe-launched-over-claim-that-elite-capitol-police-unit-blocked-from-navy-yard/

Hunters trade shots over deer breeding, killing methods

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/15/hunters-trade-shots-over-deer-breeding-killing-methods/

 

I read an article about deer breeding and killing methods. The author states the more and bigger the antlers, the more valued the deer is in hunting circles. According to the article, there are two ways to hunt deer and sell their antlers. The hunters who utilize the old-fashion way stalk the deer through the woods and hunt them for their big antlers. The other method, however, utilizes a modernized approach by genetically cloning deer with enlarged antlers. The people who utilize the older method criticizes deer breeding groups that breeding deer for bigger antlers is an immoral behavior. People who hunt wild deer also said that the deer has to have a fair chance to escape. It means there is a code of ethics. However, according to other deer breeding groups, both killing deer in the wild and killing them in an enclosed space are the same. Laura Caroll, who owns the deer breeding company, also said, "They have the right to do that because it isn't to hunt. They just want the head to mount on their wall." In my opinion, the critics are claiming that one method of killing deer is not same from another way of killing deer, but the result is same. Both are killing deer and have the purpose of selling their big antlers.

Hunters trade shots over deer breeding, killing methods

The article that I read is ‘Hunters trade shots over deer breeding, killing methods’ on Fox News deals with one of a social phenomenon about killing methods of deer. They point out a phenomenon which people judge the value of bucks as prize based on the scale that involves measurements between antlers. The article’s main argument seems like which killing methods is better; killing deer in the wild or killing deer by breeding. I think the article seems take the opposite stance about killing deer by breeding. The quotation of Brian Murphy “deer are release into three to five acres before they are shot down and he think that people who kill deer by this way follow “a code of ethics that is beyond reproach,”” shows the article’s opinion obviously. Overall, the article shows their opinion by suggest peoples’ saying which criticize about trade shots of deer breeding, so they seems to have opposite side about trading shots of deer breeding. In my opinion, they criticize the new killing method which kills raised deer by expressing this is unethical behavior.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/15/hunters-trade-shots-over-deer-breeding-killing-methods/

Theater Owners Brace for New Rules on Accommodating Blind and Deaf

The article “Theater Owners Brace for New Rules on Accommodating Blind, Deaf” showed that some movie-house owners called for closed-captioning and audio narration technology to be installed in theaters so that Americans with disabilities could enjoy their films. The proposal started three years ago and is now under the White House’s review. The Obama administration will release the final report and make it public in the coming weeks.

Disability advocates argued that the proposal should be a good way of offering blind or deaf people the same quality of experience as other movie-goers. However, small and independent movie-house owners were against the proposal by saying that they cannot afford the additional cost of the digital upgrade and the technology shift. At the same time, the White House did not respond to the disposition of the proposal and did not respond when it will be finally agreed or how many theaters should make changes. Other related organizations, such as the Justice Department and the National Association of the Blind, also declined to comment on the proposal until the report is made public. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/17/theater-owners-await-new-wh-regs-on-accommodating-blind-deaf/

Health care in Syria is 'hell on earth,' doctors say

This article is talking about the how bad the condition of health care in Syria is, according to a joint letter of 55 medical professionals, and asking for help to rebuild Syrian medical networks to save lives. In the joint letter, the doctors described Syria as “hell on earth”, the injuries not being taken care of and suffering from cancer, diabetes and heart disease, even sexual violence, due to the “deliberate and systematic attacks” on the medical facilities and staff. Over half of the hospitals had been destroyed or damaged in attacks, and a large number of doctors were in the jail or forced to flee abroad, only 36 remaining in Aleppo. And because the government refused aid personnel to enter, the rebel groups blocked medical supply convoys, and the inflexibility and bureaucracy in the international aid system, things went even worse. The signatories are urging the Syrian government and rebel groups to get rid of the restrictions, and asked other governments to stop the attacks on medical facilities and personnel. Also they called on UN and other donors to increase the support and supply to Syrian medical networks.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/17/health-care-in-syria-is-hell-on-earth-doctors-report-says/

EXCLUSIVE: Navy Yard gunman earned glowing evaluations during time as reservist

The article I read is about the tragedy happened yesterday - Aaron Alexis who was a Navy reservist killed 12 people at a military facility in Washington.

This article wrote by Justin Fishel from Fox News claims that Aaron Alexis earned glowing evaluations during his service time, which can be an important reason driving him to this murder.

According to Fox News, during 2007 to 2011, Aaron Alexis was described as an “eager trainee” who had “unlimited potential” and “get it done attitude”. However, he also had more than one arrest records which are in sharp contrast to these rave reviews. In Navy’s final evaluation of Aaron Alexis, he was evaluated as “a valuable asset to any civilian organization”. He was also reported as a “talented technician” and a “must promote” man. But these do not mean he was a perfect reservist in fact. According to his arrested records, he was arrested in 2004 because of shooting out tires of a car but he was not prosecuted and in 2010 he shot his neighbor but prosecutors “declined to pursue the case”. Both of these incidents have no effect on his evaluations. In 2008, he would be arrested for disorderly conduct, but he was still praised as a “proven technician” in his next review. In 2009, he got his first negative review and was arrested. But very soon, Alexis appealed and reinstated his rank. The last review from the U.S. Navy served as a reference was actually very irresponsible for employers because in that evaluation, Alexis was still described as a man “who possesses the potential to achieve great things”.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/17/exclusive-navy-yards-gunman-earned-glowing-evaluations-during-time-as-reservist/

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/