White House: NSA director to step down next year

In the article “White House: NSA director to step down next year” the white house confirmed that the Army Gen. Keith Alexander will step down from his position of the director of the NSA. The timing of this move has come into question, due to the recent revelations from the Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. The controversy behind these programs that the NSA is leading and Wikileaks exposed has nothing to do with the Generals decision to step down according to the White House. Gen. Alexander had informed the Secretary of Defense months ago before the Wikileaks controversy according to the article. This is a great example of ethos or credibility of the claims by the White House that the step down was planned previously, this seems like very interesting timing. By using logos or reasoning and reasonable person would assume that Gen. Alexander was fired and not simply stepping down. This would depend on what audience (kairos) you talk to some would agree with the White House that his retirement was planned for months. However, there are many out there including myself that this retirement announcement directly coincide with the current scrutiny that the NSA has been under due to revelations of a domestic spying program.  

 Article:

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/17/nsa-director-alexander-steps-down-in-2014/3002985/

The Psychology Behind Social Media

"The Psychology Behind Social Media" is a brilliant piece written by one of Psychology Today's online writers, Peggy Drexler, who is also a research psychologist. Drexler dives into an exploration of the ways in which social media is causing angst and anxiety in Internet users today at increasing rates. Drexler relies primarily on her logos, disclosing research that displays that "likes" or "follows" have now become synonymous with actual approval for people with social networking sites. If a friend doesn't "like" your status or "follow" you on Instagram, maybe she secretly doesn't like you, or thinks your pictures are horrible, or perhaps just thinks your life is too boring to pay any attention to at all! Drexler discusses the differences between avid social media users who are preoccupied with seeking approval through their accounts, and their less invested counterparts. Drexler also mentions that although the internet has certainly brought people closer in certain ways and can foster feelings of community and connection, it has also brought about new platforms for judgement and self-doubt. I agree with Drexler's examinations of the many juxtapositions that social media can provide us with in our daily lives. Her final argument declares that it is "unrealistic and dangerous" to presume that you know how others feel about you or perceive you based on their interactions with you or lack there of via social media. I think her piece is easily consumable for a wide variety of audiences. Drexel wrote in a way that would resonate with both your average bear and her more distinguished peers in the psychology field.


More here: The Psychology Behind Social Media

Mpls. Police to Wear Body Cameras in 2014

 According to this article, all Minneapolis police officers on patrol will be required to wear so called "body cameras" during all working hours. Ethically, I oppose this, because cops is a terrible show and this will only exacerbate the problem. However, in the context of a post-Zimmerman trial America, it is easy to see how this could be helpful, or even necessary. These cameras appeal to the common desire for more accountability in our police officers. However, factually speaking, they will cost money, upwards of 300 grand a year to maintain them. On the other hand, however, the article counters this point by pointing to the city's current eight million dollar yearly expenditure settling lawsuits related to police misconduct. The idea is that if all police wear these, that lawsuits of this nature will be able to be fought more effectively, or thrown out of court if they can be proven to be frivolous. In addition, knowing that they are always under scrutiny might cause police officers to conduct themselves more properly in the field.
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3193796.shtml

2 convicted killers mistakenly released from Florida prison

I read an article on foxnews.com which makes a fact claim that 2 convicted killers were released from prison because of the erroneous paperwork.

The author mainly uses ethos to enhance the credibility of the article. At the beginning of the article, the author states the fact claim first and gives the name of the prison and the reason. Then the author provides the 2 convicted killers' names "Charles Walker and Joseph Jenkins" by using Orlando Sentinel's words, which well-used ethos to convince the audience. After that, the author gives more background about those two convicted killers, one named "Walker" was serving a life sentence due to 1999 killing, and the other named “Jenkins” was serving a life sentence due to the 1998 murder of a father of six children according to the reports from the newspaper. Then the author quotes from Department of Corrections spokeswoman Jessica Car  and argues that those two crimes were released because officers didn’t notice the falsified documentation. At the end of the article, the author claims that  the Florida Department of Law Enforcement began to investigate this incident and uses the Florida Department of Corrections Secretary's words to suggest that people should not worry too much about this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/17/2-convicted-killers-mistakenly-released-from-florida-prison/

It's Like Fox Doesn't Want To Understand How The Debt Limit Works

     In the wake of congressional approval of a three month reprieve for government spending,  Ellie Sandmeyer, a researcher for the news blog MEDIAMATTER; wrote this article in response to today’s October 17, 2013 Fox & Friends News interview with Judicial Analyst and Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the piece Sandmeyer makes the factual claim that Napolitano is essentially clueless about the true mechanisms of national debt funding and calculation. She uses primarily argument by example, but also employs authoritative sources as part of her implied warrant that misleading the public on the facts is a disservice to the electorate.  In the four minute television discussion, Napolitano states that the elevation of the debt ceiling will give President Obama a “free pass,” to print money and to spend as much as he likes for the next 90 days. Citing the Government Accountability Office as an authoritative source, Sandmeyer argues that this is an erroneous assumption because the debt ceiling is only raised to allow the payment of previously accrued debts and not new ones as the judge asserts. Further, Congress always retains the right to authorize any such payments, she contends. Fox interviewer Steve Doocy adds the qualifier that this financial windstorm is inherently damaging to the financial well-being of the American taxpayers who may end up footing the bill for expenditures they don’t support. Fox simultaneously reinforces that observation and its potential for abuse by democrats, via the scrolling caveats featured along the bottom of the screen while the two men talk. Calling Fox’s misrepresentation of the expansive nature of how the government budget system works yet another “right-wing myth,” Sandmeyer qualifies her position with data from two additional authoritative sources: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the congruent rebuttal of PolitiFact, an online political fact checking site. Both of these strategically chosen resources underscore her admonition that funding for expenses is a retroactive process and that it is a misrepresentation of fact to claim that the current administration and the federal government have been unfairly and dangerously empowered by congress to spend at will.       

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/17/its-like-fox-doesnt-want-to-understand-how-the/196471

        

  

Have the People Spoken?

This is an article from ESPN.com written by Rick Reilly, a longtime columnist for ESPN. For a long time the NFL have been forced to consider changing the name of the Washington Redskins, because the word "Redskins" has negative connotations. Even President Obama recently weighed in on the state capitals football team name, saying he thought the name should be revised to be sensitive to those hurt by it. Rick's claim is that the people will always be offended, and it is usually a select few who actually are. Roger Goodell the commissioner of the NFL said that "even one person is offended on this issue, we need to listen" Reilly is claiming that we are worrying for people, that are not even worried about the issue. He ends the article by saying "Trust us. We know what's best. We'll take this away for your own good, and put up barriers that protect you from ever being harmed again. Kind of like a reservation". He is essentially using an argument based on reason, stating the illogical nature of the debate. His dad is even Native American, and his first hand accounts from him show no distaste for the name. This is a value claim, and Reilly is refuting the values are in the correct place, that the push to change the name is not benefiting those who apparently are effected by the name.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Manning Vs. Luck

Peyton vs. Andrew. The young superstar vs. the old legend who is still kickin' as if he were 25. So many questions surround whether or not it was a good decision for the Colts to dispose of Peyton and take Luck in the NFL draft. Over the past two years both quarterbacks have been very successful for their teams. The article claimed that the NFL world was trying to avoid "the inevitable questions and comparisons" that surround the two. OF course the media steamrolled right over that statement and drove the Colts owner into a statement that took a cheap shot at Peyton Manning. This of course will just add to the fuel of the fire when Peyton plays Indy this weekend. I believe the article was really trying to pull Andrew Luck out of Peyton Manning's shadow by providing clear cut evidence that Luck does have the opportunity to be as great as Peyton. The use of Logos or logical reasoning was certainly present in their argument. Statistics and records were just two examples of their supporting evidence they provided to try and remove Lucks image from behind Peyton. The Pathos Peyton uses when speaking about luck also supports the fact that he's not their to just replace the great Peyton Manning, he's there to be Andrew Luck, a new Superstar in the League. The praise appeals to our senses and brings out a emotional response fans can connect to because it shows that Peyton believes in Andew Luck.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9837934/andrew-luck-indianapolis-colts-peyton-manning-denver-broncos-ready-renew-ties

'Modeling nude is not a crime': Friend of teacher reportedly fired for Playboy pose cries foul

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/16/high-school-teacher-fired-for-playboy-past/

This article demonstrates the injustice that a Texas teacher was subjected to after the school discovered her past employment with playboy. This issue is more than just skin deep: since it digs into the parenting styles of the parents and how exposed they want their children to risqué pop culture, such as Playboy. The teacher was not involved with nude photos while she was employed by the school, she used it solely as a way to generate revenue for herself as a struggling student. However, one the school board caught wind of her past, they felt as though it was a threat to the innocence of the students as well as putting them in jeopardy for sexual harassment on her end. However, there were never any amoral acts that were reported on her end. The students are also complaining about the new teachers that have replaced her, since they are not learning as much without her around. Although her sketchy past is illegal for minors to see, should she be punished for it? I feel as though this is an example of mass media being a liability to peoples' private lives. Although she knew it would be available for people to access, she did not bring it up in class nor did she flaunt her sexuality to her students. She was there for what she was meant to do, teach. I feel as though she should not be punished for something in her past, since she has not brought it with her to the future.