Editorial

The Washington Post was recently visited by multi billionaire Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, whose wife, Melinda Gates, is actually on the board of directions for the Post. Gates is interested in improving high school teaching and increasing high school graduates, by funding through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has spent about $4 billion. Statistics show that only 71% of kids graduate from high school within four years, but only 58% of Hispanics and 55% of African Americans do so. Since there is an increasing number of children born in poverty, whom are not given substancial education, the Gates' focus is on giving every child a chance in a proper environment with qualified teachers. A big problem is there are many teachers who are low-level-qualified for teaching, and there could be better suited people for the job. Why put a childs education in the hands of a teacher who isn't qualified for his/her best? I can say, if I wanted to be a teacher more than anything, but didn't think I was 100% upmost educated, then I wouldn't take on the job yet. Another comment I have on this topic, is I understand the poverty rates are going up, but it's also not entirely fair to only focus on those people. I think every single child should have equal education regardless, and even in areas that have higher graduate rates than other areas should be benefitted also. I think Bill Gates indefinitely has enough money to give, and he should just donate a fixed amount of money to every school, or even county, in every state. That'd be nice =]

Editorial

An editorial from the Washington Post discusses the "oxymoronic" effect of food safety which has been practiced by the government insufficiently since back in 2006. Over the last few years, there have been contamination and salmonella breakouts in foods such as peanuts, peppers, tomatoes, and spinach. Although the government has said it will be taken care of, nothing has been done until now when President Obama created a Food Safety Working Group - "to upgrade our food safety laws for the 21st century." Most of the time, companies are warned when a federal inspection will be conducted, only sometimes they are scheduled randomly. At those random inspections, companies fail to rid of unsanitary conditions such as rat droppings, and dead rodents or bugs. With Obama's new group, there will be an increased number of federal inspectors and frequent random visits in nearly 150,000 food facilities across the country. When companies don't clean up after themselves and take care of their work places properly, it's a huge hazard to everyone. There need to be laws regarding what happens to companies/factories with contaminated food, and all that food should be recalled with consequences. Congress is certain to work as sufficiently as they can to confirm the candidates for the positions of the Food Safety Working Group and begin progress of cleaning up the food factories in the United States.

Editorial

The editorial I read about is written by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post and is entitled "A Daring Test Case for Marriage." The article is about the ever-so-controversial topic of gay marriage and which laws are defined as "unconstitutional." Barack Obama as President urged the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Recently a lawsuit was filed in Boston, Massachusetts by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) against the DOMA, challenging its constitutionality and arguing that Congress has traditionally deferred to states in regulating marriage. Marcus states that the lawsuit is at once restrained and daring, and its claims are inevitable, obvious, and potentially revolutionary. It presents a major legal debacle for the Obama administration. For the most part, gay rights groups have avoided federal courts in recent years, but this time it seemed almost unavoidable. The resolution of this case is unknown as to which the degree of guarentees of due process and equal pretection extended to gay rights. I think they are taking a great risk going to the government about their rights, but its good that they feel confident enough to defend themselves. The decision of the courts will be life changeing, either good or bad, for those of the GLAD, but I truly doubt it's success. By all means, members of the GLAD should have the freedom to do whatever they want within their personal lives, and the government should have nothing to do with it, but I wish them luck.

Editorial

The editorial I chose from the Washington Post is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?" and is written by Harold Meyerson. The article is about how President Barack Obama and the government is turning the United States into a socialist economy. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation -Wikipedia. The reason Amercans believe we may be turning into socialists is because of some of the ridiculous programs and ideas in President Obama's Stimulus Plan. Why are Americans wanting to avoid socialism? Because we want to yield against such progressive reforms such as free universal education, minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Even through all the accusations, when polling the political landscape, there was a surprise absence of advocates of socialism. But conservatives once criticized President Roosevelt of being a socialist and now they are accusing President Obama. Although it may seem our government is leading towards socialism, I really don't think we will become such.