Fiscal cliff

During winter break all I heard about was the fiscal cliff. It seemed so frightening to me, even though I only had a vague understanding if what it actually was. Now that legislation was passed at the absolute last minute, I feel an overwhelming sense of frustration and fatigue. I'm frustrated because our political leaders can't figure out away to cooperate with one another and work together. It's all about their political party and they just can't seem to work together for the good of the people. They can't seem to get it  into their tiny little heads that just because they put this Band-Aid over the problem it's going to go away. It's not going to go away, it's just going to make the problem worse in the future. I'm tired because this kind of thing has been a problem for such a long time now, yet no politician seems to want to listen. It's time for them to get their head in the game and use the skills they learned in kindergarten.

A Pyramid Scheme???

I recently read an article about Bill Ackman's accusations toward Herbalife. Ackman claimed that Herbalife was a pyramid scheme, while Herbalife replied that it used "multilevel marketing" strategies. After a personal experience with the company itself, I can understand Ackman's claim. It certainly seems to act like a pyramid scheme, with an added ridiculous up-charge on it's products whose equivalents could be found in other stores at a much lower cost. 
I personally find stories like this upsetting. It's ridiculous that people try to get away with things like this, and end up taking advantage of good people in the process. The only real money to be made in companies like this are in the top positions, which screws everyone else at the bottom over. The people at the top become yet another addition to the 1%, and refuse to  share the wealth with the other people in their company who may be struggling in economic times such as these.
It frustrates me that so many people depend on people like these to facilitate the trickle-down policy of wealth distribution, as well as facilitate the investments needed to increase the rate of expansion in the economy. It's been proven that strategies such as this don't work because people get greedy! The people that act like misers with their money are the reason that such social services are in place, and why the government needs to keep spending.

Anyway, enough about my opinions. What do you think? (If you want to read the article click here)

Traffic Cameras

As I drive anywhere, I often come across an intersection with a sign saying"Red Light Photo Enforced". Whenever I see this sign, my heart instantly pounds. As someone who has never gotten a ticket (yet), I fear that one day an intersection like that will be the end of my squeaky clean record.
In an effort to cut down on accidents and traffic violations, these cameras were installed by townships everywhere. If one breaks a traffic law, a blinding flash goes off from an unknown location, lighting up the intersection so that a picture can be snapped of the culprit. Not only is this flash distracting for the driver that somehow broke the law, but it is distracting for all other drivers near the intersection.
Supposedly, the tickets and fines that are sent out as a result of these cameras add to the revenue of the particular cities they are located in, thus helping the local economy. If that is true, how many tickets are really sent out (after being reviewed) just because it helps the city's revenue? Isn't that just as bad as forcing officers to have a quota of tickets that they have to write? And, how much can a few tickets help a struggling local economy? I personally believe that these cameras should be gotten rid of, and replaced with actual human officers who can asses each situation individually, thus eliminating one step of the process already in place.
What do you think? Should these cameras be gotten rid of? Do you think they actually help communities in any way economically?

Black Friday Hooplah

            Black Friday. In my mind it only strikes an image of greed and consumerism. It's not something to be celebrated but toned down. I believe that people get too caught up in all of the hype and forget the name of the day that precedes Black Friday: Thanksgiving. I think that all black Friday shoppers should take a step back and be thankful for what they have already. If people did that more often, I think that workers and consumers alike would cease to be trampled to death over a few good deals. I know that since the economy is bad, shopping for deals is even more important now. However, I don't think that justifies trampling someone else just to get that $500 TV.   

            It's interesting to see how materialistic our society is. Black Friday just exemplifies the fact that we, as Americans, value "stuff" over anything else. Since Black Friday is supposed to be the beginning of the Christmas shopping season, it's informally the beginning of the Christmas season itself. It's saddening to see that supposedly, this materialism is the meaning of the  holiday season. I thought that the holiday season was supposed to be about helping others, giving without receiving, family, and loved ones. 

            Whatever happened to the "Christmas Spirit"? Does being full of said spirit really mean going out and frantically shoving others out of your way in order to get the best deals on things? Frank Capra's movie so accurately states You Can't Take It With You, so why do we obsess over these material goods? I wish I could challenge everyone to give their time instead of gifts. In this hustle and bustle way of life, it's so easy to not want to waste time on something, but spending time with someone or volunteering your time could be a good way to make someone else (and maybe even yourself) a little happier. 

Through watching the more recent political debates, I have recently begun to come into contact with some ideas of reform that I approve of.

One of these is a higher tax rate for the wealthy. Something like this has already begun in France, where they just raised the tax rate for the wealthy to an astounding 75%. (click here for article) If we had a higher tax on the wealthy, that could bring in much more money to the government, thus allowing them to create and maintain social welfare programs as well as create new ones. Hasn't it been proven as of late that the trickle-down-effect doesn't work? The sad thing is that people who are extremely rich aren't always philanthropic, but are also greedy and mainly concerned with sustaining their wealth, even if it means firing a few good employees to keep their pockets overflowing. Couldn't more good come from giving the money from the rich to the government so that they can act like a surrogate Robin Hood than allowing the rich to keep it all for themselves?

Another of these is the German government's way of campaigning. They allow only a certain amount of money to each candidate, and they only allow them to campaign for a few months. If this was allowed and applied to the American government, the "average Joe" could effectively run for President and actually change the country for the better. Couldn't that help our country too, by eliminating political machines? Wouldn't it also allow candidates to say what they truly believed instead of forcing themselves to believe a political party's beliefs? That would allow each person to be judged through their own merits and ideas instead of a political party agenda. Wouldn't that make for a better country?

All one hears about with political elections is Democrat-this or Republican-that. Why does one never hear about Independent-this or Green Party-that? The other parties (otherwise known as third parties) never get major media attention, which is really unfortunate because they never get elected without it. I believe that the other parties' candidates could make a difference, too. What's to say that someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family or hasn't made their millions in big-business can't make a positive difference for their country?

             Maybe this is just me, but I thought the whole idea of this American government was so that the every-man could run for government positions. The last time I checked, it cost millions to billions of dollars to run a campaign in America. Maybe it doesn't apply to more local elections, but even then it still costs enough money to put middle-class and lower-class Americans into debt for good. Why can't people just run as individuals with their own set of beliefs? Why can't we, as Americans, just judge them on their own?

             On the politics note, too, what is up with everyone criticizing President Obama? Don't people realize that the reason "nothing is being done about the economy and our other problems" is mostly Congress' fault, too? They're the major law-making entity. They revise the bills and THEN send them to the President, who can then sign them into law, or veto them. The President can suggest as many bills as he sees fit and can emphasize all he wants that certain bills need to be passed, but it's Congress that ultimately decides. So, when it seems that nothing is being done about anything, blame Congress, not the President.

I also believe that there are some majorly crazy people out there when it comes to politics. These people are ones who would, as my mom would say, “vote for their party even if the party symbol was running.” I don’t really understand their logic for doing so. I think it’s great to be really supportive of something, but sometimes the people running in a particular party don’t seem to have the best interests of everyone in the country at heart. If this were true about a particular party’s candidate, why would said “crazy people” continue to vote for them? Can’t they think somewhat rationally about their vote?

Are students given the full benefit of their rights?

K-9 sponsored drug searches, pat downs, and bag checks are just some of the ways that students are interrogated about, and  searched for illegal substances. If found with illegal substances in their possession  they are charged, and disciplined. This part of the process usually conjures up images of students fleeing down the hallways (in order to escape capture and punishment), and administrative adults sprinting after them. However, according to an article on the Chicago Tribune's website, more students confess to their wrongs and show the administrators where the substances are. They believe that they will get a less harsh punishment by confessing, so they do so, but without parents or attorneys present. Most students would also believe that they are allowed their full rights in these situations, but they actually are lacking those very things.

Students in these cases are not read Miranda, and often have no search and seizure rights. Most also don't even think to ask for a parent or lawyer to be present, as they would in any other type of interrogation situation.  Granted, most of these searches and interrogations are caused by suspicion, but that does not make any student who is subjected to this kind of situation have any more rights. They are deprived of bits of their freedom, which is a disgrace! 

 Is it really acceptable for school administrators to have the same power as a police officer? Or is it a necessary evil that is only there to keep questionable students in line? If a student confesses, should this grant them a more lenient punishment, or should it be the same so that they would never do it again? What do you think?