How Much is Too Much Security?

Security in airports has increased significantly in attempt to prevent terrorist attacks on airplanes. People generally don't object to this and do as they are told. However, recently airports have been using a scanner that allows the security people to basically see a person's naked body. Is this overboard? How much privacy and freedom are people willing to give up for protection from the government? Personally I see this issue both ways. If protecting your own as well as other people's lives means giving up some other freedoms, then I believe those freedoms are worth giving up. But then again, what is life worth if a person's freedoms and privacy are taken away? This issue has made me think quite a bit and I cannot decide which side I feel stronger about.

Expunging Education Exigency

Many see cutting back on funding advanced schooling as a way to help rid California of the debt we've gotten into. This will effect a lot of us high schoolers personally, as we are going to be departing our homes and venturing into college in less than a year. If college becomes more and more expensive, then less and less people will be able to afford it and therefore less people will become educated on a higher level. Though this may contribute to the current resolution of our debt, it could also possibly pose a problem for the future in that not many will be qualified for important jobs that require advanced schooling.

Eminent Domain...?

Alright, so how is it ok for the government to be able to take someone's property away? Even if they do give the previous landowners some money, there is no way to compensate them for their memories or sentimental attachment to the land (as exemplified in the movie "Barnyard".) I do see how this may benefit a lot of people at the sake of only a few, but regardless I don't think that this should be legal. If the government asked a person if they could buy their land from them while explaining the benefits it would have, but that person still refused, they probably have a solid reason behind it.

Democrublican

I read an article in the newspaper today, and I believe that the writer of it makes a valid point. He says that the Democratic and Republican parties have been more focused on their differences than their similarities, and this is leading to a lot of conflict. People are so caught up in defending their party against the other that they forget that beyond party lines we are all American. We all want what is best for our country, and just have different ideas of what that may be. Many Republicans fear what is going to come of the Democrat's win in the recent election. I don't believe that they need to though, because all in all what is more important than being a Democrat or a Republican is being an American citizen.

How Should Members of Congress Vote?

This is a tough question, and if you ask me I'd say it varies depending upon the situation. The members of Congress were elected by the majority of the people in their district. Therefore, majority of the people would agree with their elected official's opinions right? Wrong. Not a lot of people take into consideration the fact that approximately fifty percent of those eligible to vote actually vote, meaning a lot of people may actually disagree with the views of their representative. Then the argument may continue with "Well if they didn't even turn out to vote, then why should they be able to have a say in the matter?" This argument could go in circles. But when it comes down to it, a member of Congress's vote is ultimately up to them. In my opinion they should set aside their party affiliations and actually research a bill in depth before they take a side on it. If I were in Congress, I believe I would do just that. Congressmen are the ones who are most educated about a bill, and they hopefully have the best interest of their people in mind. They were elected to represent them after all.

Term Limits Shmerm Limits

I agree with the current policy on term limits. I don't believe that it's necessary for members of Congress to be limited to a certain number of terms. If the people think the incumbent is doing the best possible job, then why should they not be able to be elected again and again? I understand that this policy may not give many people a chance at office and changes might not be made, but why risk switching things up if everything is going well? If the majority of the population is unsatisfied with a member of Congress, then they can always choose to not re-elect them.

Ohh Politicians

I don't know about you, but it seems to me as if the majority of the Meg Whitman vs Jerry Brown debates are spent on tearing each other down instead of promoting their individual campaigns. Both candidates do this. They seem to take the question they are given, address it, and then turn it around so that they can somehow use it to their opponents disadvantage. It seems like they're each more educated on the other person's flaws than on their own policies that they're trying to promote. I mean I know that this always happens when two people are competing for office, but it just makes me feel like neither candidate is qualified when I know a lot of bad things about each of them but not very many good things about either.