Current event blog 4

As of Sunday, Devin Patrick Kelly attacked a church killing at least 26 people. My two sources, Fox News and CNN talk about the newly released information on the case. According to both sources, Kelly was an Airman of the Air Force but was court marshaled for domestic abuse as he beat his wife, but the Air Force failed to mention this in their report and thus he was allowed to purchase firearms.

In my first source, Fox, there is a short article which only mentions the abuse charges on Kelly. After that, the article mentions that an amendment by Congress in 1996 prohibited someone charged with domestic abuse to buy a firearm. After this, the article goes on to mention that the Air Force is currently investigating the case as they trace through all of their criminal record files attempting to find what went wrong.

In my second source, CNN, the article goes into much further detail about the situation. This includes a background of Kelly, a review of the article, the charges Kelly pled guilty to, and what the air force plans to do considering the investigation. It goes on to mention that Kelly was also confined to prison for 12 months after he pled guilty to his charges of battery of a child and domestic abuse. This should’ve also of prevented Kelly from purchasing any kind of firearms, but somehow he was still able to purchase one. The article also mentions that Kelly did attempt before to earn a firearms license but was denied his first time, but somehow he was successful in his second attempt to buy said license. The ATF has done a detailed investigation about the situation but they are still continuing this investigation and have yet to release much documentation on the situation.

The articles differ greatly in their amount of detail. The article by Fox does not go into much detail about the situation, neither does it mention his 12-month confinement or the ATF investigation. The CNN article provides an entire section that it just for the background of Kelly whereas the Fox article uses about two sentences to give you a small about of background on the shooter. In my opinion, there isn’t much information to point a blame at someone just yet. Either way, this is a fine example of why we need stricter gun regulation in America with more thorough background checks, making sure that all information on a persons criminal record is made open to a database if need be.

Iraqi forces seize oil fields and the key city of Kirkuk from the Kurdish

As of recent, Iraq has sent forces into Kurdistan controlled areas since Monday in the wake of the independence referendum which the central government of Iraq has declared unofficial. One of these most important sites is the city of Kirkuk which is rich in oil fields and has been under Kurd control for two years, according to Kurdistani forces. This has put the US in a serious dilemma as both Iraq and Kurdistan are both key allies in the region for the fight against ISIS.

In both of my articles, one by BBC and the other by CNN they discuss the recent change of control in the city as well as what it means for the US and the overall stability of the region. In the article by the BBC, the writer, who is unnamed in the article, starts off by stating that the Iraqi government has taken control of two of the largest oil fields around Kirkuk. The author then goes on to talk about what the Iraqi government in Baghdad is saying about the situation, stating; “Mr. Abadi said in a statement on Monday that the operation in Kirkuk was necessary to”protect the unity of the country, which was in danger of partition” because of the referendum”.

In the article by CNN the authors, Angela Dewan, Hamdl Alkashall, and Sarah Slrgany start off by stating that Iraqi forces have taken direct control of the city of Kirkuk which has driven hundreds of families from the oil-rich territory. They then go on to discuss the dilemma that the US is facing because of the fact both of these important regional allies are locked in infighting instead of focusing on ISIS. The US, though, has chosen to not support either side near Kirkuk. The Kurdish regional government has also asked for a peace conference in Baghdad, which Baghdad has refused to comment on.

Both of these articles are very similar but differ in small ways. For example, in the article by BBC they do not make much of a statement about the situation for the US, nor do they talk about families having to flee their homes away from Iraqi forces. Where on the other hand, the CNN article has a whole section dedicated to the discussion of the US’s situation as well as states that Kurdish families had to flee their homes.

In my opinion, the region is technically out of the officially recognized Kurdish controlled are, therefore it is Iraqi land, but it shouldn’t have ended in bloodshed. Kurdistan and Iraq should’ve sat down and talked peacefully, it could’ve avoided the loss of 16 Kurdistani fighters.

Trump and the NFL

As of recent, President Donald Trump has made comments about how players in the NFL are “disrespecting the flag and this nation” by taking a knee during the national anthem. In response, many team owners have come to the defense of the players saying they have a right to voice their political opinions. The two articles I’m using are different in multiple ways, those articles are by Fox News and The Washington Post. In Fox New’s article, the writer gives the information on Trump’s recent tweets. They continue to talk about what President Trump said in his recent rally in Alabama. They give examples of team owners that have come forward to help defend the players as well as talk about the other recent story where President Trump is colliding with the NBA. He also stated the white house also declared Sunday as Gold Star Mothers day just a little bit after the events on Twitter and at Alabama occurred. In my other article by The Washington Post, the writers talk about how President Trump has called for the owners of the teams to suspend or fire players that take a knee during the national anthem. The article portrays the actions of these coaches, owners. and players as heroicly defiant.

The Articles differ in what it appears they’re trying to portray. In Fox’s article, it portrays the situation that if the players were to take a knee it would be a disrespect to Gold Star Mothers day, whereas The Washington Post portrays the coaches, owners, and players, as dramatic protesters of free speech. In my opinion, free speech is an important value of any democracy and thus an important value of America, but using your platform such as being a professional football player to voice your political position has got out of hand. People do not watch Football for the politics, football should be a form of escape from the crazy world of politics to where no matter what you believe, you can come together for the support of your team. The way the media has portrayed this kills the message that the players are trying to voice. It’s turned into a back and forth argument where President Trump and the coaches, owners, and players will fire back. In my final opinion, I find that kneeling during the national anthem to voice their platform is extremely disgraceful. People have fought and died for our country and standing during the national anthem is just simply to respect those that have fallen and given the greatest sacrifice for their country, our country.

Russia and North Korea

As of recently Russia and China are now fighting against the sanctions that are placed on North Korea. In the recent NBC article, F. Brinley Bruton and Alan Kaytukov write about Putin’s warning of a ‘global catastrophe’. The article states that Putin believes that the North Koreans “would rather eat grass” than abandon its nuclear program. It also goes on to say that Putin believes that more sanctions on North Korea are ‘useless’. In another article by the Washington Examiner written by Pete Kasperowicz, it talks about how the US is in disagreement with China and Russia on the solution for the problem at the UN. The article states that on Monday that the US disagreed with China and Russia on how they should lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula. It’s said that Russia and China will no longer support any more sanctions on North Korea and they’ve said in join with North Korea the US should stop its military exercises in the area.

Both articles seem to shed different views on what President Vladimir Putin and Russia are attempting to do. In one article it states that Putin thinks that sanctions are not tough enough and that they will not work and are useless. On the other hand, at the UN Russia seems to defend North Korea from sanctions and says the US should stop doing military exercises in the area altogether. In the article by NBC is also seems to try to frame the possible outcome of stricter sanctions as destroying the global economy stating that they have had experts view the situation but not provided any names of such experts. On the other hand, in the Washington Examiners article, it does not provide the idea that if this global economic sanction was passed that it would have a global impact on the economies of many countries. In my opinion, Washington Examiner gives a more realistic view on what’s going one whereas NBC’s article seems to aim to scare the audience more thinking we are in an extremely dire situation. Both news sources are reliable but I personally believe that Washington Examiner gives you more of the news and that’s it while NBC tries to influence your view of the situation rather than just give you the facts and that’s all. By using things such as using a ‘experts’ opinion on the situation it makes me believe they just wish to influence your beliefs.