8.Should laws regarding minimum wage (or the forty-hour work week) be revised?

Yes the laws regarding minimum wage should be updated. The minimum wage is not updated. It is not updated nearly enough. It becomes a political issue whenever an increase is attempted, pitting free market purists against those fighting for a living wage. I believe the minimum wage should be indexed either with inflation or with the poverty rate. That way it removes it from the political realm and keeps the effective rate the same while adjusting to meet the current environment. I believe the forty-hour work week used should remain the same.

Where and how, if at all, should sex education be conducted?

I think Sex Education should be taught at three different places: the home, the school, and the religious institution.

First and foremost parents should teach their children at home about the birds and the bees. Parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children and the best way to know they are educated properly about sex is to teach them yourself and at a young age.

The school, however, also serves a role. Parent's can teach their kids the basics and what they expect form them. The school can have professionals with sex ed training teach kids on the details and health risks. Sometimes parents are not comfortible going into detail and kids may be embarassed to have to talk with their parents. The school can step in and play a role.

I think it may also be important for religious institutions to also have a role. They can teach what their particular religious institution expects and the moral implications.

All three of these institutions must be involved in the process.

Should parents and other interested citizens censor textbooks and other literature for children in schools?

Short answer, NO!

I think we tread dangerous waters when we begin censoring anything. Textbooks and books in general are speech and freedom of speech is protected in our Country.

If we censor, who does the censoring? Who determines what is "o.k."? It is a recipe for silencing opposition, imposing particular religious beliefs, and limiting expression. Many great works have at one time been censored including: The Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange, The Color Purple, The Grapes of Wrath, and others. These are considered by many people as some of the greatest works ever written. We shouldn't be afraid of ideas even if we disagree with them or how they are expressed.

For textbooks the only goal should be that they are factually accurate as determined by the experts in the subject discussed. Whether or not these facts support or work against your personal beliefs. The content should not be determined by those with ulterior motives.

Right now textbooks are being re-written with more of a conservative political slant to appease the state of Texas who is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. They are downplaying the civil rights movement and playing Reagon's time as President. This is a dangerous thing because these textbooks are used by many states but because of the clout that Texas has, they are being skewed towards a political bent.

We must be ever vigilant of efforts to ban or censor books. What are we afraid of? The more educated we are and the more exposed we are to viewpoints different than our own, the more knowledgable we will be.

Should newspaper reporters be required to reveal their sources?

We are guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this country but are these rights absolute? Perhaps not but I think we should error on the side of protecting them.

There is a reason that reporters should not be required to reveal their sources. The reason is that the press plays a necessary role in our society to reveal wrongs, corruption, and society problems. Many sources will not provide the information needed if they feel they may be revealed and suffer reprisal. Sources may fear losing their job, suffering physical harm, and in some cases even death. Therefore, protecting them is sometimes necessary to get the story.

There is another side of the story though. What if a story is written quoting a source that says they know where a terrorist bomb that is set to cause great destruction is being built and about to be placed. Of course, in this scenario it is in society's interest for law inforcement to be able to talk to this person. Another less dramatic situation might be where someone is liabled, they should have the right to defend against that liable and hold the person accountible.

The bottom line is reporters should under most cases not be required to reveal their sources. When it is in society's interest that they are required to reveal them it should be done in the most protective way possible. For example, only to law enforcement, only with court order, and only to the fewest people necessary.