Obama: Not to Offend

Fellow viewers,
I have found an editorial that was very interesting to me and I figured since I already have to critique an editorial, it might as well be something you all might think is interesting. In any case, the editorial that I chose to critique was posted around an hour before I started my post. It caught my attention because with everything going on in the elections I wanted to see how things were going with President Obama and Mitt Romney. I hadn't seen much of the last debate so I was interested in what I was missing. The title of this editorial was called "Obama Agenda Seeks Mostly Not to Offend." At first I thought that Obama offended Romney in some way or manner but I stood corrected.

In the beginning, it was stating that President Obama had not stated anything about a possible plan if he were to win the election. It also stated that his campaign figured that it would be better to "focus on tearing down Romney and denying Republican challenger avenues of attack." Later on he stated that he finally released his plan as a brochure called A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security. Saying that it was well presented and explained certain things, I thought he had a change of heart. However, he stated that it was largely besides the point. Some aspects of his brochure talked about how curbing benefits about social security and Medicare. However, the author stated not to expect anymore information until some time in November. Around the end of the editorial he stated that he needed to go beyond attacking Mitt Romney then said that as a proposal, it was designed mostly not to offend. However, the blame was not only Obama in the end. He stated that Romney needed a bit of work as well. That was about the jest of it.

Personally, as I read I thought that he wasn't providing enough information. For one, I did not understand why the editorial was named "Obama Agenda Seeks Mostly Not to Offend"and he did not explain what was the point he wanted Obama to talk about instead of those other topics. I also believe that he was jumping to conclusions in one part of the editorial where he stated not to expect anymore on the needs to curb benefits on social security and Medicare. Those topics did not really appeal to me but he was getting a little ahead of himself on things like that in his editorial. I would be more careful on those sorts of things in order to avoid conflict with other people.

You can find the link to this editorial here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/25/obama-second-term-agenda/1659187/

Mitt Romney's Version of Equal Rights

Fellow viewers,
I have been reading through editorials and found one that I have taken a liking to. The article came from the New York Times and was called "Mitt Romney's Version of Equal Rights." When I read the date of the article, I saw that it had been posted only one day after the most recent debate which took place on October 16, 2012; so something must have gone good or horribly wrong for Mr. Romney. In any case I began reading.
As I read, right from the beginning President Obama "attacked" Mitt Romney for criticizing the health care law that required employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. Mitt Romney responded that every woman in America has access to contraceptives. However, the editorial stated that he forgot something. The fact that while governor, Romney vetoed a bill allowing women who were raped access to a emergency contraceptive. It stated indirectly that he was contradicting himself. Later in the reading it stated that Mr. Romney's plan to end the federal funding of Planned Parenthood would stop many poor women from services such as family planning, cervical cancer screening and other services, thus, giving President Obama the perfect time to strike. He stated that this plan was "a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country." The remainder of this editorial included Mr. Romney making matters worse for himself to the point where the author says that his political consultants were yelling "Stop!"

This editorial clearly stated Mitt Romney's downfall in this debate but it does not talk about the good things that he stated leaning this author's prospective over to the Democratic side. Although I did not have the opportunity to watch the debate I believe that what the author wrote is a bit too one-sided. If you are going to talk about all of Mitt Romney's mistakes it would make your claim a little more creditable if you were to incorporate some of the positive aspects (if any) of what Mitt Romney discussed with President Obama. I also believe that they should have come to more clear solutions instead of adding maybes with some of the things that Mitt Romney talked about. For example, the author stated, "Perhaps Mr. Romney forgot that he vetoed a bill as Massachusetts governor in 2005 that would have given women who were raped access to emergency contraception, or that he supported an amendment this year that would have allowed any business to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, or that he has said he would support a state constitutional amendment that would declare that life begins at conception." Several of these ideas were found in this article.

Although the author could have been a little more detailed with Romney's ideas, I believe that he thoroughly dissected this particular issue in the debate and has caught a lot of contradictions. You can find the link to this article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/mr-romneys-version-of-equal-rights.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Counterfeit Air Bags on a National Level

Fellow readers,

I have found some very horrifying yet interesting information that many of you have probably already seen on the news. It seems that the Obama administration had discovered as many as tens of thousands of cars that have had their airbags replaced in the past three years could be counterfeit. An association called the National Association of Automobile Dealers have been testing this theory with crash dummies. Although the airbags have not failed in inflating properly, it is stated that in at least one of the cases, an airbag had fired shards of metal shrapnel on impact. This has been well-known as a problem in the past but due to recent events, concerns have escalated among some government officials. They advise that you to go to this website if your car's air bag(s) has been recently replaced: http://www.Safercar.gov.

This article to me was very much worth reading because if these accidents were so troublesome that government officials advised procedures to take, it is worth spreading the word. I wouldn't want my family, friends or classmates getting hurt due to faulty air bags. You can watch the news report of this incident at the following link:

Government to warn motorists tens of thousands may have counterfeit air bags