Note: blog will be updated as the questions come in.

Q: One of my breasts is larger than the other. Is this normal?

A: Not to worry! This is completely normal. While it is normal for a woman’s breasts to develop at different rates, it is also normal for them to never be completely 100% symmetrical (it’s usually only the woman herself who notices!). However, if you are seriously concerned about your development of your breasts, call up your doctor (better to be safe than sorry!).

Newt Gringrich responded with this provocative question after Mitt Romney stated his life’s passions: his family, his faith and his country. His statement might have been a plea to end Romney’s periodic mention of religion, which Gingrich sees as a façade, but I’d like to voice a similar phrase myself for a different reason.

All the presidential candidates have made claims about their religion and their loyalty to its principles. Great. We believe you’re faithful. But whether or not the talk is baloney, I want to see the pious conversation dropped as well.

I’d also like to remind everyone that here in America we have a separation of church and state. And though we are all expecting at least a handful of people from the Republican Party to speak, preach and propose legislation in the name of the lord, it doesn’t mean we should tolerate it. I am all for religious freedom, but I don’t believe that the law should be determined by anything but reason – if reason happens to fall in line with religion, all the better.

Furthermore, the conservative side should be least likely to impose religion-based laws. They should do the least to impose any restrictions on anyone! That’s the whole point of being conservative is having a smaller, more conservative government, which doesn’t get in the way of people’s lives. Gay marriage, for instance, shouldn’t be a federal issue at all. A national ban would be a restriction that empowers the federal government to affect people’s personal relationships; therefore, enacting one wouldn’t be very conservative. (So cool it, Mr. Santorum.)

I just recently registered to vote, and I can safely say that no one who raises the Bible in attempts to restrict a group of people’s civil liberties will ever get my vote. I’m sure many others feel the same. The possibility of someone else’s religion being the primary influence over the laws that rule my life is a scary thought.

Religion can be a set of values that influence a candidate’s moral compass, but it’s neither a foundation for legislation nor a means of justification in this secular country. Just because you expect religious debate and campaigning, doesn’t mean you have to tolerate it. Like Newt, all voters should recognize the pious baloney and ask it be dropped (at least “a little bit”).

True, Palin really is a hockey mom from a small Alaskan town whose greatest strength is her “Average Joe, working-class” vibe. But as she frequently cited incorrect information and lied to the American people, Palin’s intelligence was questioned repeatedly. Despite Palin’s many factual failures and embarrassing interviews, she has gained a devoted following.

To put it bluntly: what is the appeal of an ignorant politician? If Joe the Plumber doesn’t feel that he’s capable of running the country, why would he want someone similar to him to do so?

It is apparent that Palin’s popularity is not based on her logic or intelligence. Those who support her are caught up in the emotion of her patriotic, militant, mama-bear, libertarian rhetoric, and ignore the fact that she cites living near Russia as her foreign policy experience and couldn’t name a newspaper that she read when asked in an interview.

The appeal of the GOP candidates playing the “average” card is emotional, not rational. This may have been acceptable when voting for Palin in the Miss Wasilla Beauty Pageant, but is certainly not when selecting the next leader of this country.

As Tea Party candidates continually call out Obama on his “elitism,” someone out there is buying into the idea than an educated, intelligent, eloquent president is one who could never relate to them, or help them. This is, without a doubt, a false equation. What’s even more upsetting is that plans Obama has put forth are targeted at helping the average American, while the goal of the GOP’s legislation is to aid the big business men. Republicans cannot support their claims that it is more elitist to try to help the middle and working class, than to support the true elites of this country—those who end up on the Forbes list every year.

Some voters find it important that their leader align with the lowest common denominator of American intelligence, rather than be exemplary. Why then not advocate for a better education system and a political climate that supports facts? Instead, candidates are embracing the preposterous views of the far right and ignoring the truth in order to get a heated emotional response from constituents.

Granted, Republicans are not the only ones playing into the hands of the average Americans. Joe Biden, the current Vice President, consistently countered Palin’s average appeal with his own. Biden, however, proved that it is possible to run and represent the working class in a positive way.

Should we not expect than any person vying to represent America be able to accept a simple scientific fact? It does not come as a surprise that the current Republican candidates have virtually no platform addressing education. Maybe that’s for the best, since many already want to shove information with no factual basis into the curriculum, such as creationism.

Herman Cain, a candidate for the GOP nomination, put his name on the map early on in the race, when he made a speech stating that, if President, he would limit all bills to three pages. He argued that congressmen and citizens alike would not read legislation if it exceeded this limit—like many of Obama’s bills have.

Cain has since expanded his easy-to-understand platform with a 9-9-9 tax plan and a copy of the Chilean system for Social Security reform. The simplicity of Cain’s platform is well intentioned; many Americans cannot read or comprehend the hundreds of pages of legislation that Obama has proposed, and therefore cannot make educated decisions. But is it possible to establish plans that will affect around 300 million incredibly diverse people in only three written pages? Instead of asking the president to dumb-down his legislation, maybe we should instead focus on raising the education of the American people to a level at which they could understand how their country is run.

We live in a highly complex country, in a highly complex world, and it is hard to justify our claims of being the greatest country on Earth if our democratically elected leader is still living in their imaginary Tea-Party land, where the country is being invaded by Muslims, vaccines cause retardation, the United States was formed as a Christian theocracy and, to quote Michele Bachmann, “Not all cultures are equal.”

Hopefully there will be a day when appealing to the “average American” means accepting the facts of climate change, evolution, Obama’s citizenship, and where knowledge and hard-earned expertise are respected, not ridiculed.

In agreement, an appeals court in Alabama declared Obama Care unconstitutional, and the law is now on its way to the Supreme Court. All this hype about the healthcare bill has left many of us wondering: what exactly is Obama Care?

Obama Care refers to the healthcare reform law that was passed in September 2010. It is meant to provide coverage for the 30 million uninsured Americans who are not already covered by Medicare (for people age 65 and older) or Medicaid (for people who have limited income and also meet certain eligibility requirements). The 2,000-page bill holds a great deal of long-winded, confusing solutions to America’s healthcare problem (and goodness knows there’s a problem).

This reform aims to decrease the large, uninsured population in America and the rising premiums (the cost of an insurance policy) that insurance agencies are charging.

Reports have shown that even during the recession, private insurance agencies are earning record profits.

Considering these reports, it’s rather obvious that there is an unfairness about the system, but it may not be clear why having a large uninsured population is a burden on society.

For instance, take Phil. Phil is 22; he is a recent college graduate who moved back to Albany to live with his parents while he searches for a job. His parents’ insurance plan no longer covers him, but Phil doesn’t see a reason for paying a monthly bill to the insurance company while he is healthy and injury-free.

This way of life is fine and dandy as long as he remains healthy. But when Phil gets hit by a car, he is sent to the emergency room, treated, and finally sent home with a tremendous bill that he likely will never be rid of.

In a situation like this, it may seem that it just sucks to be Phil.

Oh, contraire; in reality, it also sucks to be the insured citizen that is paying for the healthcare that the hospital provides.

Hospitals charge insurance companies more because they assume that the indebted, uninsured person will never fully pay for the cost of his or her emergency care (those people usually don’t, which is why they remain forever in debt).

So, Phil’s unpaid debt gets added on to the premiums that the insurance agencies charge their customers to cover the cost of Phil’s “free” treatment. Absurdly, the responsible are being punished under the current system.

Obama’s healthcare reform offers a few unconventional solutions. First, it allows people under 26 to remain covered by their parent’s insurance plans, thus reducing the burden on the young, job-seeking population and increasing the amount of insured Americans. (Keep that in mind, future adults!)

In addition, the new healthcare system actually creates a “marketplace” where small businesses and uninsured American citizens can shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Furthermore, those who still can’t afford health care within the Obama’s insurance exchange will receive tax credits based on need.

This whole marketplace idea may come as a surprise, for the rhetoric surrounding the law focuses mostly on one thing: the law’s mandate that everyone must have health insurance (many members of the Republican Party argue that this order is unconstitutional).

The exchange is indeed logical; how could the government make such a mandate without providing a means with which to buy reasonable, affordable healthcare? Because the state is now involved in providing healthcare through insurance agencies, it has imposed new guidelines that apply to its clients.

Defending the law’s constitutionality, President Obama insists that the law does not affect anyone who is already insured.

But the law does enforce a great deal of new rules for insurance agencies to follow regarding clients that are receiving government coverage. Insurance agencies:

1) may not deny coverage for people with preexisting conditions

2) may not drop a person’s coverage when they become sick

3) may not put a cap on yearly or lifetime coverage

4) will be limited on how much a client can be charged for out of pocket fees

5) must cover check-ups, mammograms, colonoscopies and other forms of preventive care.

One can understand why the insurance agencies are so opposed to the state healthcare system – a cheaper and more trustworthy insurance plan will serve as worthy competition, something all Americans should surely welcome.

What would compel our Republican friends to suddenly support Cain’s campaign?

Cain can credit his growing popularity to his ability to fire up a crowd as well as the hype surrounding the “9-9-9” tax plan. One question must be asked to all the Republican voters out there: are these valid grounds upon which to elect a candidate?

Keep in mind that Obama is known for his captivating oratory skills and far-reaching blue-prints as well, yet it seems Republicans don’t think very highly of him.

I don’t want to spend my entire post comparing GOP candidates to President Obama (unlike a certain Tea-partier I know…), but there are some commonalities, aside from race, that are worth pointing out.

If you had any concerns about Obama’s lack of experience when he was running for president, then throw your support for Cain out the window! Cain’s history went overlooked early in his campaign because, at first, he was no one’s competition. All the better for Cain. As it turns out, he has worked as a rocket scientist, a manager (for Coca-Cola and Pillsbury), a talk-show host, a pizza mogul, and a member of board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. But after two separate campaigns, he has never held an elected office. Talk about inexperience.

As for Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that it’s too simple a solution for a complex problem. Even his Republican opponents have been publicly bashing the plan. Furthermore, the idea loses legitimacy every time Cain dismisses criticisms without much explanation; the only economic adviser Cain has named is an Ohio banker without a degree in economics. Trusting such a plan is, to me, a ridiculous idea.

Should we put our state in the hands of a politically inexperienced businessman whose advisers have no clout? Definitely not. Amid the whirlwind of debates over the economy, people must realize that the presidency involves much more that simply stabilizing the economic climate. Foreign policy, healthcare, employment, immigration, education and getting bills past are all matters that a president must be capable of handling. The position requires running a country not a corporation. Republicans, think hard before casting a ballot for Cain in the primaries.

Nominating Cain would not be on point.

Peer Help started about five years ago by mental health coordinator Shelly ball and counselor Tedra Tanner. Their job is to educate us so that we can educate you about important mental and physical health topics.

Thankfully, Ms. Ball and Ms. Tanner leave group dynamics such as leadership to us and our meetings are led for the most part by one of the students. Peer Helpers represent every class from freshmen to seniors and this year we are proud to have our first peer helper from MacGregor. We are a dedicated group, who meet every advisory of every week in order to make sure presentations are successful for not just you but for us as well.

Peer Help has two main presentations: Depression and suicide in the fall and birth control in the spring. We make these presentations only to the freshman IHS classes. Later in the spring we also go in to the senior and junior history classes and give a pre-prom presentation.

However, we do not limit our work to presentations only. We also like to take on projects that help spread our name and that help our goal of educating you. This blog is an example of one such project we decided to take on this year. Another project we took on last year was the poster campaign with different colored triangles. The posters were a representation of being body positive despite size and shape. Peer Help takes up these different projects because it is simply impossible to give a presentation on every single topic we feel that is important to address and that is relevant to our lives as teenagers.

So there it is — who we are and what we do. We’re freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. We are individuals who have come together to educate and to better the lives of our peers both inside and outside of the group.

Stay tuned for the next article when you’ll be introduced to the main purpose of this blog as well as the contributors of this blog for this school year.

I, Audrey Irvine-Broque, am the proud daughter of a radical Quaker pacifist, and a Bay Area Democrat. Despite my parents upholding their strong political views (my father has been arrested numerous times for civil protesting, including one landmark case, the Winooski 44 in Vermont), they are both hard-working, serious, professionals. Yes, I was that kid who went to every Anti-War protest on her father’s shoulders, and yes, I was the only one in my first grade mock election to vote for Ralph Nader…but do not envision my family as wearing tie-dye and living on a commune just yet (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Unlike Audrey, I, Alice Timken, have a household divided on the topic of political beliefs – my father is the typical East Bay Democrat (from Kansas…) and my mother is a (dun dun dunn…) Republican from South Korea. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I’d like to nip this one in the bud – my mother is progressive when it comes to social issues and does not support the wars that the U.S. has involved itself in recently. Believe it or not, not all Republicans are alike. Yet I will admit that my parents’ differing viewpoints have stirred a few heated dinner-table-debates at the Timken household.

Despite parental and societal influence, we are both still trying to discover and explore our own beliefs.  Each of our posts reflects the beliefs of its writer, and its writer only unless otherwise specified.

So, why are we doing this? When together, we spend much of our time discussing politics—both theory and current events—and believe that these views are worth sharing. Whether you agree or not, we hope to expand political awareness among the students of this school, and are always willing to (respectfully) debate our respective points. It is very easy for students to accept the common views around them and never take the chance to challenge their own beliefs. We would like to think that this blog could encourage students to think more critically about the political environment around them, and reassess their own ideology.
You may ask: what is “On Point”? On Point describes any person, policy, or action that meets our standards when it comes to political affairs – anything On Point must be, in either of our perspectives, rational, feasible, necessary, or for any other reason commendable. In our blogs we will do our best to communicate why or why not something satisfies our On Point requirements and, if not, what can be done to mitigate it. Hopefully you too will come up with your own solutions to today’s political flubs.

In conclusion, we hope that this material is both educational and stimulating. To end with a quote from John F. Kennedy, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

Being innately paranoid about firearms, I often ask myself about gun control in the United States. I hear countless stories of tragic, gun-induced deaths, each one raising questions in my mind. On October 30, 2010, a Berkeley High School freshman was fatally shot by a close friend. On November 25, 2010, two young women from South Carolina were shot and killed in Georgia. On November 30, 2010, a gunman opened fire in a Missouri apartment complex, fatally wounding three people before committing suicide.

Now, I’m not really one to contradict the law, but something about gun ownership rights in the U.S. just doesn’t hold up in my eyes. I’ve of course heard the argument that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution ensures the rights of all citizens to possess firearms. While the right to form state militias theoretically protects the safety of the people, is it really beneficial that anyone who is willing to take the time to fill out a small stack of paperwork be allowed to own a gun?

Maybe my concern is rooted in pacifism, in naiveté, or in my general fear of conflict, but I can’t help but question our priorities when I hear that a twelve-year-old has shot and killed his four-year-old brother. Then again, giving only the government the right to possess firearms may very well thrust a dangerous amount of power upon those in charge.

Perhaps the true problem, then, is an issue of social cohesion – can everyone who owns a gun be held accountable to utilize their weapons in a responsible way? And maybe greater social cohesion would rid fearful gun-owners of their perceived need to own firearms as a form of self-defense. Not to sound too much like a hippie, but doesn’t peace sound really good right about now?

What is the internet?

Why did humans evolve to be virtually hairless except for very long hair on their heads?

How can outer space be infinite? If it is not, what comes after it?

What is time, and why can we change it twice a year?

I’m eager to learn the answers to these questions, yet at the same time there’s something so thrilling about wondering, isn’t there?

You see, the old adage applies with cars – the bigger, the better. Because my Toyota Sienna is rather large, it is more spacious than other cars, in the event of a car crash, it will be the one dealing – not taking – the damage, and perhaps most importantly, it draws attention to me.

But the thing is, my car isn’t too big. It fits in lanes, and doesn’t leave massive puddles of black oil in its path.

Much like Baby Bear’s bowl of porridge, the Toyota Sienna is just right.

Ah, but we come to the true matter – the essence of driving a Toyota Sienna: that it’s a car built for soccer moms, or – as they say in England – football mummies. This is, indeed, true, but it’s certainly no drawback. Naturally, my car catches the eyes of these attractive, mature women – aged beautifully like fine wine.

So while you stare in amazement at “nice” Mustangs and Lamborghinis, just understand: they fail to attract women like the Sienna, and they thus pale in comparison to the Sienna.