When it comes to the importance of checking state and local politicians, I think it is extremely important to a certain extent. Any job should require some background check when the job is publicly related. Police officers for instance have an extensive background check if they have suspicion of a current or upcoming officer. Officers can contact a number of friends, relatives, bosses, etc.
of the officer to ask questions, in hopes of catching the individual of guard. I feel that this is somewhat necessary for someone that we are supposed to trust to protect and serve our communities. It seems that even though United States soldiers have probably the most patriotic job in the country, although they do not need such a background check because of the demand for soldiers. Besides the demand, I think that it doesn’t matter all that much for some jobs. A politician, is someone the state, or communities needs to trust for much larger issues than protecting and serving. Not only do they have the power to move mountains, locally and nationally, but they hold somewhat of a role model position.
These politicians are expected to be the best, most honorable, trust worthy citizens, eligible for such a job. The public sees this, sometimes too much through rhetorical situations, but sees it none the less. A politician is comparable to the president of the United States, professional athletes, and anyone that holds the title of a role model. I feel they should have a very extensive background check, but there is a place to draw the line. Neil Goldschmidt for example seemed to be the definition of a stereotypical politician, by that I mean holding all the positive qualities I previously stated. He did a tremendous amount of work for Portland and surrounding areas, and brought about much needed and appreciated commitment.
The Essay on Guns Background Check
The Right to Control Arms, Not Bear Them A child, two years of age, walks into her parents bedroom. After playing on the bed for a while, the childs attention is drawn to a shiny metallic object under the bed, a gun that is fully loaded. The child takes the gun and plays with it. Holding the barrel of the gun the child tries to examine it further. She looks into the barrel, of the gun, gripping it ...
When someone is to pry back into his life to determine if he was a good person, so to speak, back twenty years, I would say that there was no need for that. On the other hand if any suspicions happened to surface in the years of his employment, I would definitely feel they should be investigated. Not saying that any human being capable of committing any crime like that, shouldn’t be convicted to the fullest extent. Just that spending so much time and money on somebody, could be spent so much better somewhere else.
I think what people in these “lime lights” serve is superior to so many, it is not a service to the public to go and dig up things about the individuals. For children’s sake, and upcoming youth, I honestly think is doesn’t serve the public to publicize people with superior positions. The media can cause an uproar, terrorizing peoples images and views on certain figures, and positions. The person should be silently dealt with, convicted to the fullest extent. None of this, “if you got money” stuff, where people get off unjustly. I mean really convicted.
Its just not right for a child growing up, idolizing someone for all the good they have done, to see the moral opposite, over and over everywhere he / she looks. The rest of society feeds on this idiocy like vultures, and its sick. I can say that building in the last 10 or so years, there has been this fetish with what prominent figures in society are doing, and the more screwed up it is, the more attention it gets. I don’t know where the media is going to turn, in say, 5 years, when this stuff really starts getting out of hand. So background checks should have a limit. Obviously pertaining to the position to be upheld, but a background check none the less.
The media on the other hand, is a different story.
