Editorial Critique II

On March 11, the Washington Post published the editorial titled The GOP’s uncivil debate was full of ignorant stereotyping, written by the Editorial Board. This editorial focuses on the Republicans' last debate before the Florida and Ohio primaries and states that the debate should not be seen as being civil, as some headlines put it.

The Editorial Board believes that simply because the Republican candidates did not exchange "petty insults or discuss body parts," the debate was a civil one. All this lack of nonsense was made up for with, what the Board believes to be, ignorant stereotyping, which they provide evidence for with candidate Donald Trump's statement that there is "tremendous hate" among the world's Muslims and that "we better solve the problem before it’s too late."

Along with seeing the Republican debate as being uncivil, the Editorial Board also believes that the stereotyping going on in those debates should not be seen as normal simply because the debating candidates are not making childish remarks. The Board believes that no aspect of ignorant stereotyping should be seen as normal, but because this last debate was tamer in comparison to previous ones, some view the content as being more rational.

In the end, this editorial seems to be aimed at Republicans, especially their leaders, and is meant to get them to understand that no matter how the discussions are presented, uncivilized behavior can still be present and action should be taken to deter not enforce that behavior. Overall I think that the Editorial Board made a decent argument pointing out our misinterpretation of the debate and opened the eyes of the public for future debates.

Editorial Critique

In her opinion article, titled If guns had been harder for my son to buy, Columbine might not have happened, that was published in the Washington Post on February 26 of this year, Sue Klebold, mother of Columbine High School shooter Dylan Klebold, states her views on how school massacres, like the one her son took part of, could be prevented in the future. Klebold takes ideas from both gun rights advocates and gun control advocates to form her own opinion. Ultimately, she ends up stating that weak mental health and easy access to guns are the causes of mass shootings and therefore, those are the issues that legislation should tackle.

Overall, Klebold's argument appears to be aimed at those taking part in the debate on whether gun control should be implemented or not in the Untied States, as a way to deter further mass shootings, like Columbine. She acknowledges that people are a main reason as to why mass shootings occur, with there being many that are mentally unstable, which is a gun rights advocate's viewpoint, while also acknowledging that the access to guns is not restricted enough, which is a gun regulation advocate's viewpoint. By tying both sides of the argument into her own, Klebold tries to make it clear that neither side is more right than the other, and that both have valid points that can be merged together to make a reasonable solution.

The fact that Klebold has had a close relationship with someone who would turn out to be a mass shooter adds some credibility to her argument and her potential solution to the mass shooting problem. Because she saw in retrospect how her son's unstable mentality correlated with his decision to shoot up his school, Klebold is qualified to say that mental instability has the potential to become a dangerous thing when put in contact with guns and therefore her suggestion of increased background checks should not be taken lightly.

In the end, I feel that Sue Klebold's opinion article holds a lot of ground as to what could be done to solve the gun problem in the Untied States. Her suggested solutions seem reasonable and her credibility is present, although she could have provided a wider range of evidence seeing as most of her evidence just comes from the Columbine incident. Judging from all of this, I see Klebold's argument as being valid.

Why Read This?

One would think that the decision to whether or not to vote for someone in a political race would be based on what policies they plan to put in place. Well in the case of Republican candidate Donald Trump, it only takes a slur towards another candidate to serve as the deciding factor for Republican voters.

In an article published in The New York Times, written by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, we are informed that after, presidential candidate, Trump's use of a mocking slur towards U.S. senator and fellow Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, the Republican vote for Trump may see a split. For some, Trump's vulgarity is respected because it displays his resistance against political correctness while others believe that if a candidate is as openly vulgar as Trump then he also lacks the decency to take office as President of the United States.

I found this article worthy of reading because I think that it is interesting to see how much is taken into account by the voting population when deciding on who to vote for as the next potential president. Sure, you may agree with their policies but if their personality does not suit your fancy then it's on to the next candidate. I feel that it also goes to show why politicians filter themselves so much, even go as far as to lie a little bit, in order to say what the audience wants to hear rather than to say what their honest opinions and ideas are.

Hello