The recent outcry by the Obama's campaign over unauthorized access into his passport, (Obama Passport Scandal) brought to mind one thought...the candidate and party who's solution to all is "more government" is complaining because government was bad. Now they will cast it as the administration's fault,  and that a government run by their administration will (of course) be better and not have these types of problems.

The unfortunate part of all of this is the State Department employee who opened the files on Obama, McCain, and Clinton are probably not direct hires of the current administration, but are more likely life-long government bureaucrats, who pretty much stick in the government regardless of which party is currently in power.

This incident concerns a passport which is a federal government document, and even though it is a clear violation of privacy, it is information that the government has created on its citizens for the purpose of security.

Now let's expand the problem and look at making health-care a part of this same government bureaucracy. The intentions are good and are designed for the well being of all, to provide nothing less than the best health care in the world. The government will have all of our medical records on file, from the smallest wart removal to the cancer that is ravaging our bodies. The government will help us make decisions for what is best for our lives and administer care with the utmost compassion. It sounds great!

It will be the same compassionate system that helps the poor out in times of trouble. We all know they would have to be the most compassionate bureaucracy in the system, right next to the streamlined and efficient Social Security administration...

The reality is that bureaucracy (more government) is not the answer to our problems just as Obama and Clinton have experienced lately. More government means more potential for abuse, because there is no good government except for the one that is limited with checks and balances.

Just think what the next election cycle could look like: similar security breaches in a national health-care system could end up dropping bombs like "this candidate had to be treated for STD's three times" and "this one is going through hormone replacement therapy." It could be interesting and really dirty, not to mention highly illegal. Is this what you want?

How do you pick a presidential candidate in the primaries? I used to think it was a process of examining what your values were and then aligning them with the candidates. Unfortunately it is hard to determine exactly what a candidate's own value system is in this current process, where most issue positions are determined by a 15 second sound bite.

I guess the next step is to research the position papers of each candidate found on their websites, but honestly some of their past decisions don't exactly match up with their policy positions. It appears that local, state, and congressional politics allow a candidate to hold and govern by one value system, while the presidential requires a different set of values. What or who is the candidate?

The next step is the presidential primary debates, where candidates can express their "current" policy positions and explain how they have developed concerning real issues (flip flopping). Each candidate can clearly differentiate themselves from the other by attacking one another over personas instead of issues, which further muddies the water.

Maybe I am naive, but I always thought it was a simple process of matching one value system up against the other. I guess it is easier to be a stampede voter, rushing heedlessly to the candidate of the moment!

We're supposed to be educated college students. We can do better than that, can't we?