Gun Control Laws in the Election

Published on October 18th 2012, The Issue That Goes Ignored is an editorial written by the New York Times. The issue that the editorial is assuming is ignored is the lack of gun control laws in the United States. The issue was brought up at the debate and very nicely skated around, the canidates saying that they would like to discuss the issue at a later time. Obama who said at the beginning of his presidency that he would renew the law that expired in 2004, has yet to hold up to that responisbilty. The author's intended audience being the general public (or public interested in politics) wanted to stir up emotions and views on the national gun control laws. The New York Times is one of the public information sights that has not succumbed to the infotainment industry and is definitely a trusted source of information. The author provides much evidence to about the control laws, saying that they are being loosened instead of stengthened. Though the author provides great facts about the nation's security, I do not agree with the author's views or standpoint. I feel that it is a person's individual preference to carry a gun or not. We live in a world where whether or not you have a gun license, a gun is easily accessible. There are certain rules and laws that govern who can own or buy a gun but it is still possible for people who do not qualify with those laws to get a gun. So instead of having laws where no guns are allowed, we should spend time and money enforcing the laws that are already in place to keep people who shouldn't have guns without them. I do agree that the topic should be talked about, but wasting our time in the presidential debate about guns is not necessary, nor relevant to who is 'fit' to be the president of our nation.

Mr. Romney's Goverment Handout

On October 1st 2012, The New York Times published the editorial titled Mr. Romney's Government Handout. The editorial page editor who wrote/approved this writing was Andrew Rosenthal. Rosenthal has worked for The New York Times since 1987, becoming editorial page editor in 2007. The content of the article is meant to hit home on for the general public. The Times has a reputation of being liberal, and Rosenthal is definitely holding up to that standard.

Rosenthal is arguing that Mitt Romney is not handing out things for the general public but using his powers to try to change the laws of taxes to benefit himself and the other wealthy elites. His argument is supported by showing the audience that Romney himself is using every possible loophole or flaw in the code to escape the amount of money that he has to pay on taxes. The evidence in the editorial is solid. Romney has used many different tactics explained in the editorial to get around paying the taxes that he should be paying.

Maybe Rosenthal doesn't like Romney or maybe he just needs to keep his audience entertained. Either way he has gotten the general publics' attention as well as mine. The article has altered my outlook at who I am going to vote for for the presidency. The editorial definitely makes me rethink my beliefs. I definitely don't want a money hungry person as president. (Even though, what else is there?) I would like someone who is going to do right by this country and help it, rather than hurt it.

The political significance of this article is huge. I believe if the majority of the working middle and lower class people in this country read this, then Romney wouldn't stand a chance or any other Republican. Politics can be a cruel and devious world. As much as the public would like, we will never be fully informed. This article lets the audience know that if Romney wins, so will the rich elite people. And the poor will be left paying just as much taxes as the rich. The effect of this editorial will probably not be large on the presidential election. There are so many different views and opinions, articles and editorials, names and critiques thrown around that, sadly, this article didn't scratch the surface.