With New Technology on the Rise, How Much Privacy Do We Actually Have?
With New Technology on the Rise, How Much Privacy Do We Actually Have?
In our new era of technology, we see the beneficial ways that it has impacted our constant growing society. From an outside perspective, most of us have become accustomed the state of unknowingness that these new advances actually hold for us. But do we really know how much privacy we actually have?
With new additions to social media constantly on the rise, one may question if our privacy is…
Throughout time, political polarization has been present in all forms of governments. It is not always a bad thing, as differing ideologies will lead to better, more complete solutions to conflicting problems. However, the issue comes into play when political polarization becomes such a large concern that it clouds the voter and politicians views of more important issues. For the past ten years,…
In his novel, 1984,author George Orwell, writes about a futuristic society where the government reigns absolute. In this society there are few, if any, ethical regulations when it comes to the government taking advantage of its citizens’ privacy. The telescreens, devices that directly connected the citizens to government surveillance, were so terrifying that “you had to live– did live, from the…
Everyone who was slightly (or completely) out of control in high school has experience with the Dean of Discipline - the one position at a school where the popularity rating among students is inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the discipline. When announcements come on, the list of students called to the Dean’s office is always met with a class-wide “ooh”, or sometimes a sigh of relief from those who have been spared for the day. And here at Judge Memorial, walking into school to face the 2012-2013 school year, the student body wasn’t only met with 200 new faces of freshman, but two new faces of discipline: Mr. Olive and Mr. Johnson.
Both men have a history in the halls of Judge Memorial - Mr. Johnson graduated from here in 1995 and Mr. Olive sent his two children here. Mr. Johnson - perhaps an undercover rebel - admitted to “not being perfect” in high school, saying “I see kids trying to get away with stuff I did in high school”. His experience with being on both sides of the Dean’s office helps him create a less authoritarian and more helpful approach to discipline. In fact, his favorite part of the job is when students can treat incidents as “water under the bridge” and still say “Hi” to him in the halls. He believes the trouble students might get into doesn’t have to define them; instead he offers, and encourages, the opportunity for any student to learn from their mistakes.
Mr. Olive’s job title is Community Resource Specialist and entails slightly different responsibilities than Mr. Johnson’s Dean position. Mr. Olive, with 25 years of experience as a police officer is much more focused on providing security to both Judge Memorial and Lourdes as Judge saw a need for this following national tragedies which resulted in the loss of lives in schools. Providing security does not just mean protection against outside threats; it also means dealing with problems within the school.
With certain incidents, Mr. Olive’s and Mr. Johnson's responsibilities overlap. Mr. Johnson mainly has to deal with issues like tardies, sluffs, academic dishonesty, etc. - things that violate our school policy but don’t break any laws. But on rare occasions, the Dean will come across issues that fall into both categories. In the instance that federal or state law has been broken, Mr. Olive gets involved and is obliged to file a report with the police. For example, in the recent investigation of the sale of illegal drugs at Judge, both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Olive were involved.
While many might avoid Mr. Olive and/or Mr. Johnson at all costs, there is no need for fear. Both are incredibly kind and have our best interests in mind. When asked what he liked least about his job, Mr. Olive responded that he dislikes the emotional stress of knowing tragedies can happen in any school. He is here to help keep us safe and he made it very apparent that he takes his job seriously. So if some of us have had bad experiences with the Deans, maybe it is time to give this dynamic duo a second chance.
The economy is by far the most important issue this election, but should it be?
The economy is somewhat like a begrudging, stubborn child. It does what it wants. But nonetheless, people, presidents in particular, have been trying to mold and control the economy for centuries, under the honest belief that they can actually make a difference. And perhaps they can, but not much.
Every president can tweak the budget and change tax rates - and every president has, but very few of them have had much of an impact. “Why?” you might ask. The answer is simple: the economy is bipolar - to some policies it responds, and to others it is very much indifferent. So begs the question, is the current presidential election being dictated by an issue the candidates don’t actually have that much sway over? Presidents are very much capable of affecting the direction of the economy for a time, but according to Stephen Dubner, rogue economist and acclaimed co-author of Freakonomics, “the president's ability to actually change the shape and direction and velocity of the macroeconomy is extremely limited.” (marketplace.org)
It is a common misconception that presidents dictate to what extent the American economy is regulated and to what extent it is allowed freedom to grow or shrink. In reality, that power lies in the hands of the Federal Reserve - a governmental entity which acts independent of the executive and legislative branches. The Federal Reserve has a mandate to keep the economy growing at a healthy level - not too fast nor too slow, and it does so via interest rates. Today’s average interest rate, 3.53%, is the lowest it has ever been, meaning money is quite cheap to borrow - which in theory should improve the housing market, fund new business opportunities, etc. (nytimes.com)
The executive’s hand in the economy is essentially limited to three factors: tax policy, spending policy (under which we would see the bank bailout, stimulus plan, etc.), and regulative policy - but still he needs Congress in order to make these proposals reality. This is where the presidential candidates come into play.
President Obama and Candidate Romney foremost differ on a fundamental economic level. It is Republican philosophy that the government should tax and regulate the economy as little as possible, while Democratic philosophy believes the government should play a bigger role in regulating money and redistributing wealth. Obama wants to continue Bush era tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year, while Romney wants to make the Bush era tax cuts permanent for all. Both men believe that the Corporate Tax Rate is too high, and while Obama proposes to lower it to 28%, Romney hopes to lower it to 25%. The candidates’ biggest economic divide lies in environmental policy: while 93% of democrats want stricter environmental regulations, only 47% of Republicans hope for the same (nytimes.com). Long term, both candidates want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, but it remains unseen just how they might do this, though Obama has made it clear that he intends to raise taxes for the wealthy, and Romney that he will not be cutting military spending. (npr.org)
America has reached an economic turning point. No longer can the American government continue to spend without repercussion. Our president simply cannot have it all. We need to increase revenue and decrease spending, which means whomever is elected come November will be forced to make unpopular decisions. It is likely that President Obama will raise taxes for the upper echelon of the American population, and that President Romney will simplify the tax structure - which, in reality, means the loss of a myriad of tax deductibles. Neither of these policies will result in immediate economic change nor turn the economy around, though. It must be remembered that a president’s economic success is in part dependent on the luck of the draw, and largely dependent on the global economy. While one president might pump millions of tax-payer dollars into the American infrastructure, a lackluster President ten years down the line might reap the benefits.
In the words of Stephen Dubner, the president’s role in the American economy is more like that of a “cheerleader” than a “CEO”, but never will the American people hear a presidential candidate say, “My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.” (marketplace.org)
It must be noted that regardless of who is elected come November, the global economy, and thus the American economy, is on the road to recovery. It is estimated that 12 million American jobs will be created over the course of the next four years whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is in the White House (time.com). Nonetheless, over the course of the next four years, our president, whomever that may be, cannot merely implement short term change, but install and make public a plan for the future. President Obama and Candidate Romney are at an impasse. No candidates before them have faced these very same issues, and the American people need direction. In order to make an informed decision come November, voters must be aware of the candidates plans for the long term.
Although frustrating and seemingly fruitless, a President’s duty is to lay a foundation for the future, not provide a quick fix. The economy is not limited to our little United States bubble, and as one man isn’t capable of changing the direction of the global economy, it is somewhat ridiculous that we expect one man to change the American economy in just four to eight years. In the words of Bloomberg’s Richard J. Carrol, “A president is a success economically if he can help steer the country onto a longer-term path of broadly shared economic growth, and if his policies lay a foundation for sustainable prosperity for the future.”
This election is monumental. Whomever is elected come November will lay the groundwork for our long-term economic recovery. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney will speed up the recovery nor turn the economy around, because a president simply doesn’t have that power. Voters must remember that it doesn’t matter who will implement the most short term change, because we don’t need that, but who will prepare our country for renewed economic growth.
