In this video, a woman recounts her experience going through security at a U.S. airport with her children. She decided to opt-out of the full body scan because of fears about radiation and the images that would be produced. Instead, the male security officer groped her body, including her genitals and breasts. After he was finished with her, he wanted to move on to her daughters. Please check out this video. Should this be happening in the United States?

My only solution is to boycott the airlines. If the government is going to continue this sort of intrusive search, then consumers should find an alternate means of transportation.

The terrorist who attempted the latest attack was allowed to fly, despite being on a terrorist watch list, and he had displayed some questionable behavior. There was more than enough reason to be suspicious, but “the system” failed. The only things that saved the 300 passengers on that plane were a poorly trained terrorist and a brave passenger.

You could argue that standard procedures could have prevented the plane from coming so close to almost certain destruction, and you would probably be right. The problem is that we can’t be focused on merely doing enough. We need to do everything in our power to assure that passengers are safe, and terrorists are unable to carry out their plans. One of the best ways is to install body scanners at airports.

The scanners can give a detailed image of a passenger and check for weapons or explosives. You would think that this idea would receive unanimous support, but of course, the American Civil Liberites Union and some members of Congress are opposed. They seem to feel the scanners are an invasion of privacy. I feel thse people are buffoons.

Americans need to be protected. If passengers don’t want to have their privacy violated by having a temporary picture taken of them, then they can find another means of transportation. The United States cannot afford to risk the lives of its citizens in order to appease those who have no clue about the dangers lurking from abroad.

Auto insurance is based on risk. The riskier a driver is, the more they pay. Insurance companies look at a myriad of demographic factors such as age, marital status, and place of residence. They also consider credit reports, driving history, and the type of car you drive. If they are going to consider all these facts, then why not take the amount of miles driven into account? Again, fewer miles would mean fewer accidents and fewer claims.

Fortunately, it looks like California might be moving to a pay-by-the-mile auto insurance structure. Basically, it would involve buying a certain amount of insured miles, and if those run out, buying more. For example, you might buy 10,000 miles for a year, but if you think you are going to go over, you can buy another 1,000 miles.

The program has the potential to save consumers a lot of money, especially if they drive sparingly. It could enable many people to purchase cars they wouldn’t other wise be able to afford because of the lower rates, and it might even encourage some people to use public transportation more often.