warrant-less wire tapping

While this topic appears that it could be debatable forever, I am pretty firm in my belief despite all the controversy. I think that under no circumstance should our government be allowed to wire tap in the absence of a warrant. Yes, it could lead to some conclusions or stop some sort of danger, but at the same time getting a warrant is not all that difficult and in no situation should it be avoided. Besides, if this were to not be an accepted principle, a new issue would arise as to when it is enough of an emergency to wire tap warrant-less and when a warrant is in fact necessary. Therefore, in saying that warrants are always and in every situation mandatory, a lot of confusion may be eliminated and both the government and the public will be on the same page.

"riders"

In my opinion the benefits of "riders" don't appear extremely obvious to me. Yes, i understand that these little "rules" and such tend to attach themselves to bills in order to have the opportunity to pass, however I'm not so sure they should be allowed this chance. It almost seems to me like if someone wants a "rider" passed, he or she should combine a bunch of them together to make their own bill rather than simply attaching them on to bills in order to be accepted. If a rider is not strong enough to stand alone and be accepted alone. maybe there is a reason for that. Now I'm not saying this is an extremely pressing manner especially since most riders that end up passing as a part of a bill just go unnoticed, however it is something to think about.

Filibusters

The idea of a filibuster sort of confuses me. I guess to an extent it is effective but it also causes to me to question whether what our members of Congress are doing is worthwhile or not. When i learned that in the history of our Congress one of the members filibustered for 15 hours by reading off recipes and other sorts or pointless material, I began to wonder if there is a "better" way to accomplish the same task. This method of extensive and chaotic distracting for as long as one can handle seems like a waste of time to me. I think our members of Congress should be able to discover a new method of "talking a bill to death," possibly without the talking aspect. Our country certainly has a lot of problems right about now and wasting time away on filibustering certain unpopular bills is not helping our country at all.

eminent domain

This particular power is rather interesting to me. It seems pretty unfair under any circumstance to be able to strip someone of their private property and put it to public use. Yes, it may be for a really good cause and could benefit the neighborhood or city as a whole for that matter, but that is not the point. Though eminent domain cannot be proven "legal" without providing due compensation it still does not seem like anyone truly gets the amount of money they really deserve. If the city government is taking away someone's home, the place they have lived their entire life, a small sum of money will for sure not make up for stripping them of their property and the life they have been able to build for themselves. This is just one of the many reasons I find it hard to accept the concept of eminent domain and simply take it for what it is, without question and slight disapproval.

whether or not congress is representative of the american population

 In my opinion, I do not view congress as entirely representative of the American people at this point in time. Yes, the individuals within Congress are for the most part the most qualified and great performers of their duties, but when it comes to reaching out to the American people and making themselves relatable that is not entirely the case. Yes, we can hope that no matter the comparison between the demographics and dynamics of Congress and the American public that these members will choose to reach out and do whatever they can to relate to the public, however it is up to the citizens to decide to listen. I'm not so sure that we have the best current balance in Congress for the American people to feel as though they are being fairly represented and if they have the desire to listen and want to speak up to such a different make up of people. A few particular examples I just learned about are that 17% of the American public is age 60 and older, while 40% of congress is, 13% of Americans are foreign born, while only 2% Congress is, and finally 51% of our population is women while only 17% Congress is female. These statistics really got me thinking about how the citizens of our country feel about this. Should they accept that this is the portion of our society that can afford to make it to Congress? Or should they be angry that the public is not being fairly represented?

"whore" comment about Meg Whitman

Personally, I think this is only as big of a deal as people choose to make it. The words did not come directly from the mouth of Jerry Brown and even though yes, it may have been his wife, that does not mean it should directly reflect the opinions and thoughts of Jerry Brown. Yes, Meg Whitman is his competition and therefore he most like may feel like calling her a "whore" from time to time, however that is not what has happened. He has no control over what his wife says nor was he to know that he was still leaving a voicemail. If the media chooses to make a huge deal about this incident that I think they are wasting their time because clearly there is going to be hostility between the two candidates and obviously there will be name calling going on. If the media were to only highlight this incident and pretend like nothing else goes on behind closed doors, then it will seem quite obvious to the public how biased the news source is being. So yes, calling Meg Whitman a "whore" was disrespectful and uncalled for, however it is not the end of the world and through sincere apology and a lack of media attention this should easily blow over.

Prop 19

I cannot say it really matters to me either way if prop 19 which calls for the Legalization of marijuana is passed or not. However, I do feel as though the passing of this proposition within California could lend itself to far less issues surrounding marijuana and abusing the use of it outside of medicinal purposes. I know that if it is approved that does not mean people under then age of 21 will stop buying, selling, and smoking the marijuana but the whole situation will be much more controlled and much more public, therefore there will be a lower chance that people will feel the need to be so sneaky about it. I think this proposition would benefit our state in the big picture. I mean when I look at European countries that do not have a drinking age, it appears there are far less incidents where alcohol is at fault because children grow up with alcohol in their families, and they grow accustomed to the idea.By the time they are 21 it isn't a huge deal to them, and they aren't as stupid about it as Americans are. I think that by legalizing marijuana even tho the age min is 21 I think it is a similar idea because as long as it is legal within at least a portion of our society it will become less and less of a big deal, not to mention how the taxing of marijuana could benefit out economy.