First, let’s talk about the idea that rich people aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the richest 1 percent of Americans face an average tax rate of 29.5 percent and pay 28 percent of all federal taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 40 percent of American households have averaged a federal income tax rate below zero since 2000, according to The Atlantic.

The fact is that rich people pay a lot of taxes. Nonetheless, there persists a widespread belief that they still aren’t paying enough. Much of the confusion in this respect stems from Warren Buffett’s proclamation that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, who, for the record, earns somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 annually, according to Forbes.

It is true that the relatively few individuals in this country who earn income solely from long-term investments face a lower top rate than those who pay taxes on ordinary income streams. While individuals who pay taxes on ordinary income face a top marginal rate of 35 percent, those who pay taxes on long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent.

At first glance, this may strike you as being tremendously unfair. After all, why should super-rich investors like Buffett pay a lower tax rate than many middle-income Americans? The only thing is … they don’t. For one thing, the capital gains tax is a tax on the present discounted value of a company’s future profits. This makes it a double tax because it is being applied to profits that, when earned, will also be subjected to the corporate income tax.

Additionally, long-term capital gains are unique in that they are not indexed to inflation. This means that investors can and often do end up paying taxes on income increases that are purely nominal, which means that they do not represent an increase in actual purchasing power. As former Federal Reserve Board member Alan Blinder once noted, “most capital gains … simply represented the maintenance of principal in an inflationary world.”

It is also important to bear in mind that investors like Buffett aren’t paying a 15 percent rate on income they picked from the money trees in their backyards. You generally have to earn income before you can invest it, which means Buffett and investors like him are paying a 15 percent tax rate on investment yields to income on which they already paid the top marginal rate.

Now that I’ve addressed Obama’s fairness claim, I’d like to address his argument that the Buffett Rule will help to reduce the federal government’s fiscal deficit. This cockamamie argument is utterly laughable on its face and ultimately highlights the fact that this policy proposal is nothing more than a cheap political ploy.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, if implemented, the Buffett Rule would increase federal revenues by roughly $47 billion over the next decade. This may sound like a pretty big number, but in actuality it’s not even a drop in the bucket. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this amount would barely cover 0.5 percent of the president’s proposed budget over the same time period.

President Obama has proposed a $3.8 trillion budget for 2013 alone. This means Warren Buffett’s entire net worth of $44 billion wouldn’t even get us through the first five days of the fiscal year! The fact is, if the federal government is serious about getting its fiscal house in order, it will need to drastically cut spending and reform our entitlement programs, not simply raise taxes on the 0.02 percent of filers to whom the Buffett Rule would apply.

If anything, history suggests that lowering the capital gains rate would help the federal government reduce its fiscal deficit. As Wall Street Journal Editor Stephen Moore points out, after the capital gains tax rate was cut by 8 percent in 1981, real federal revenues from the tax increased by more than $7 billion over the following two years. When the rate was cut again in 1997, revenues from the tax rose by nearly $50 billion over three years.

One final point I would like to make is that a low tax rate on long-term capital gains is beneficial not only for rich Americans but for middle-class and poor Americans as well. A high capital gains tax rate penalizes investment and risk-taking, thereby inhibiting long-run growth and job creation. By contrast, a low capital gains tax rate encourages higher levels of investment and risk-taking, thereby spurring innovation, real wealth creation and job growth.

It is a matter of fact that increasing taxes on a scant number of millionaires will do nothing to resolve Washington’s fiscal woes or stimulate our economy. If anything, the Buffett Rule would likely reduce real federal revenues while inhibiting long-run investment and job creation. Clearly this policy proposal was never really about reducing the deficit or stimulating economic growth, nor was it about achieving a greater degree of economic “fairness.”

The purpose of the Buffett Rule has always been to feed into the illusory notion that taxing the wealthy will solve all of our economic problems. It has been to divert our attention away from out-of-control government spending by redirecting that attention towards the investment yields of the risk-takers and job-creators on whom the future growth of our economy depends.

President Obama might think he can win your vote by convincing you that wealthy investors aren’t paying their fair share or that the Buffett Rule will somehow spectacularly manage to get our economy back on track. I implore you not to fall for this ruse and to instead put the pressure back on both political parties to reduce spending, reduce taxes and reform our entitlement programs. Mulcting the rich is easy; implementing smart and substantive reforms is tough. But ultimately, the latter is what’s needed to get our economy going strong.

While many people may disagree with Macbeth’s rather pessimistic outlook on existence, that particular slice of literary genius has a fascinating corollary in our times — political discourse.  Regardless of where one’s views fall in the political spectrum, there is  one thing everyone can agree upon, namely, the fact that the “other side” just isn’t listening to them. Politicians’ treatment of this impasse in American politics has not typically been to propose a compromise on policy positions but instead to simply scream louder than their opponents.

Disagreements among politicians are natural and to be expected; divergence of opinions ought to lead to dialogue, dialogue to compromise and then compromise to legislation. To make this happen, both sides must eventually cede some of their prerogatives in the interest of reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome. In a rational world, it would be simple to see that this process would benefit both sides in that each would realize some, albeit not all, of their priorities. Of course, rationale is sadly absent from American politics.

Attempting to reconcile the present state of political discourse with the air of compromise that prevailed when our political system was founded in 1787 is a remarkable endeavor. Contemplating the  quantity of differening political interests among the Revolutionary generation, let alone among the Founders themselves, boggles the mind.

From Federalists to Anti-Federalists and slave owners to abolitionists, the American leaders of the late 18th century managed to construct an equitable series of compromises. Although there were no political parties to speak of at the founding of this nation, these examples of pragmatic negotiations  encapsulated the spirit of compromise  referred to these days as “bipartisanship.”

Today, it is considered a major political concession to even meet with the opposite political party. Some politicians today seem to feel that to give even an inch of political ground would be betray the Founders’ core principles.

A recent Gallup poll found that a whopping 12 percent of Americans approve of the performance of Congress. This statistic lies in the ballpark of dismal or downright murderous. News headlines frequently feature terms such as “gridlock,” “stalemate” and “standoff.” More and more voters are becoming disenchanted with politics, which is to say nothing of the alarming lack of basic knowledge about our political system. Can you name all of your state’s U.S. senators? The good news is that there are only two; the bad news is that you probably can’t.

What the average American does know, however, is that Congress is in a state of arrested development. But knowing the problem does not amount to knowing how to solve it.

It is unfair to lay the blame solely at the feet of democratically elected public servants. After all, someone had to vote them into office in the first place. Equally unfair is the narrative asserting that today’s Congress operates in an environment that is akin to the political atmosphere of bygone eras. It is at best a dubious assumption that the Founding Fathers envisioned the day when Super PACs would give multinational conglomerates their “rightful” voice in our political system.

The practices and habits that have kept our political system healthy and vibrant for so long have slowly faded away. Once upon a time, the works of Cicero, Plato and Socrates were considered academic essentials. Nowadays, learning the names of all 50 states is considered marginally important, and the difference between past and present participles downright superfluous.

The only question that remains is what, if anything, can be done to restore — the will to compromise. All over the world, the Founding Fathers’ contemporaries predicted the swift demise of the fledgling state in the New World. Never before had any democracy survived for long. Time and the ingenious nature of the Constitution proved the skeptics wrong and created the strongest nation the world has ever seen.

However, the very thing that made America unique is in danger of disappearing entirely under the weight of the “sound and fury” of idiots. In the words of legendary comic strip philosopher Pogo the Possum, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

I think a big part of the Mason Police Department’s culture revolves around the university’s outdated, strict policies of enforcement for minor crimes such as underage drinking and having a good time. Let’s get real: It’s college, and many engage in alcohol consumption during their undergraduate years. With the risk of being arrested, sent to jail and facing consequences like having to perform 100 hours of community service, it can really put a damper on the fun. Even though all of the residential areas on campus are “wet” areas, for Mason cops to bust a dorm party and arrest a few people is equivalent to a county officer doing a drug bust. Now, this is not to say that’s how every officer in the department behaves; plenty of reasonable cops see that underage drinking happens at college, and they’re not going to send people to jail for it. But many still see it as a serious violation. Instead of instilling fear into the student body, why not support the safety of the students and offer assistance if they see someone a little drunk instead of locking them away? Many schools have Safe Ride programs, which is something the incoming student body president and vice president are trying to bring here to Mason. Why is Mason so uptight about underage drinking? Why not look out for the safety of the students instead of forcing them to take unnecessary risks to avoid the police?

I emailed Maj. George Ginovsky, the assistant chief of the Mason Police Department, for comment on why he thinks students see the department in a negative light, even though crime is low and the campus seems safe; he did not respond in time for publication.

The number of officers that Mason has for such a small patrol area is absolutely astounding, with over 50 full-time officers employed. By comparison, the City of Fairfax department has around 65. I understand that on any given day there could be up to 20,000 people on campus and that’s hard to control, but is it really necessary to have this many officers on a campus police force?

Another overabundance of personnel occurs in a sub-organization of the Mason police, the cadets. What exactly do the cadets do for us besides direct traffic and make pedestrians wait at crosswalks for long periods while it’s raining? The cadets get paid between $10 and $11 an hour to direct traffic and have a brand new Ford Escape with ridiculous decals on the side of it. Though I know several cadets whom I would describe as reasonable, in general, the cadets take themselves way too seriously for what they actually do. This significant budget expenditure does nothing to help protect the general student population, and I would rather see that money go towards the officers that do protect us. For example, when I was in high school and the beginning of my college years, I was affiliated with a national program called the Nassau County Police Department Explorers in New York. It was a volunteer program where we performed duties similar to those of cadets, and we did not get paid.

Speaking with junior conflict analysis and resolution major Shane Smith, he said that the department has to “understand that they are a part of this university, and as a student I should feel like I can have a positive interaction with them rather than feeling belittled.” Smith also said that they basically have an “utter lack of public relations.” Even though the students perceive the department negatively, crime is still low and campus is still safe; that’s most important. Maybe their public perception issues can be fixed with a bit of good PR? What do you think, University Relations?

WGMU’s Storm A. Paglia contributed to this article.

Therefore it is not a question of if but when China — which currently is the second biggest economy in the world — will be the world’s biggest economy. Whenever it happens, that era will catalyze new challenges and problems for the propagation of human rights and freedoms. By looking at the China of today, it is imagine a future China that will, like the United States, become a place where oppressed and unprivileged people from around the world seek refuge, asylum and freedom. I cannot imagine “pilgrims” on a modern-day Mayflower ship settling somewhere in China in search of liberty. And I doubt people will ever endanger their lives by scaling the Great Wall of China unless the current socio-political paradigms are changed.

It is true that China abandoned its command economy in favor of free-market principles. But this transition only created deregulation of prices, property rights and trading, not deregulation of individual freedoms, ideas and liberty. One economic step forward has been a leap backwards for human rights. As a result, Freedom House, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization which monitors freedoms around the world, rates China as a “Not-Free” state with a 6.5 freedom rating. Such a low rating is manifested in the religious and political suppression of Uyghurs and Tibetans, who are marginalized and treated as sub-class citizens.

Additionally, the persecution of Chinese dissidents such as Liu Xiaobo and Ai Weiwei epitomizes not only on the arduous human rights abuses, suppression of dissent, and Internet censorship of today’s China, but also paints an unfortunate picture of what could happen in the future when China becomes a superpower. If China can so openly and effectively suppress the views of its own, imagine its reactions to the opposing views of a dissident from a different ethnicity or color living there.

The reason for the lack of freedom is because China had prioritized modernization before democratization and thereby instilled cultural and institutional resistance to change. In order to create political legitimacy and international popular appeal, China and its Communist government need to allow more democratization instead of only pursuing modernization. Corruption, abuse of power, injustices and censorship needs to be reduced. Deregulation of the political system will spearhead the much-needed reforms and changes in the Chinese societal and political atmosphere.

But it will be hard to achieve those reforms because the Chinese elite do not want to completely succumb to democratic elements for fears of losing the Communist Party. The Chinese elite will resist any political changes to the status quo because it will inflict losses upon the elite. The Communist Party and elites of China believe that democracies are prone to conflicts due to social, ethnic and class struggles. They favor authoritarian practices to suppress any potential triggering mechanisms for change.

Nevertheless, China does have the ability to become a prosperous and freer nation. There are two methods, one external and one internal, to achieving that goal. The external method is for the outside world, particularly the West and China’s other trading partners around the world, to exponentially enhance their support for democratization in China through active cooperative dynamics. That includes using all kinds of legal, political and economic aid and sanctions to help the oppressed Uyghurs and other minorities as well as increase civil freedoms. However, if the external method fails, then there arises a need for a “Chinese Spring,” much like the popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes in the Arab world, to develop a bottom-up movement. There is hope that as the Chinese educated middle class grows, the probability of a “Chinese Spring” also becomes greater.

However, there is one difference between Mason and other big-name regional schools that can no longer be ignored. Having done the rounds of the nearby universities when deciding where to apply, and after visiting friends at their respective schools over the past four years, it is clear to me that the emergency call box system here at Mason is lacking.

There are currently no mandates that require universities to install security systems such as blue lights and call boxes on their campuses. Despite this, most area schools and all of the out-of-state universities I have visited in the past seem to have made such systems a priority.

For instance, the University of Virginia has installed and maintains a security system that comprises over 400 blue lights and call boxes. They also provide an easily accessible map of the lights’ locations on their website.

The University of Maryland utilizes a public emergency response telephone system with 319 lights and phones and also offers a printable map.

Even NOVA, with a campus less than a third the size of Mason, seems to devote more energy to their call box system. The call boxes at NOVA are numerous, and the school commits a section of its website to discussing their existence.

Searching for any information about call boxes on Mason’s site is frustrating as there is no section specifically dedicated to the lights and call boxes on campus. Additionally, when I went to inquire as to the existence of a map showing the locations of call boxes and blue lights on campus, I was told that no such map exist.

The bulk of my information on Mason’s emergency call box system was derived from the transcript of a 2001 Board of Visitors meeting during which chief of police, Mike Lynch, brought up the topic. After the installation of around 50 units on the Fairfax campus, the company that installed the lights and call boxes went out of business in 2000. Mason’s solution at that point was to send the units to a company in Norfolk to be repaired at the cost of about $150 per call box. My tuition and housing fees for a single semester alone could cover the roughly $7,500 cost of servicing the boxes yearly, so I wondered why, when I looked around campus today, I did not see 50 functioning call boxes.

During the 2001 Board of Visitors meeting, opponents of a new security system on campus argued that cell phones eradicate the need for call boxes and blue lights, and that the cost of installing an entirely new system — between $300,000 and $500,000 — was too high. Chief Lynch suggested that the university’s best option was to allow the boxes to break down and slowly reduce their numbers to only a few located in “critical areas.”

A few years later in a 2003 Mason Gazette Q&A, Chief Lynch said that “it is not an automatic that if we find a call box that does not work in the middle of some parking lot somewhere, we would spend the money and buy a new one and replace it with a new working call box.” This sort of statement worries me because “in the middle of some parking lot” is exactly the sort of “critical area” where we need a blue light and a call box. The money the university saved by phasing out the boxes, as Chief Lynch proposed in the 2001 meeting, could be used to fund more bike patrols and campus escorts.

Seeing that all of the information I was able to find independently on Mason’s call box system was more than five years old, I met with Chief Lynch in order to assess Mason Police’s current outlook on the blue lights and call boxes. Boiled down, his response was that the call boxes are being phased out because they do not provide a return on investment.

The call boxes and blue lights are very expensive, around $4,000 per unit, and Chief Lynch was only able to recall one incident over the past 10 years during which a call box was used for a real emergency on the Fairfax campus. He maintained his 2001 stance that cell phones negate a need for call boxes.

Chief Lynch stated that there are currently 16 boxes on campus, down 34 from the original 50.

“If you see a blue light phone, it does work,” Lynch said.

During the interview, Chief Lynch claimed that police cadets test each box weekly, and if a unit is found to not work, it is replaced, removed or repaired.

I’m sure that in 2001 when Chief Lynch suggested that the money for call boxes be redirected to more bike and foot patrols, he may have been looking to replicate the feeling of safety that call boxes can provide on a college. But despite a claim on the Mason police’s webpage today that officers here routinely patrol our campus on foot and on bike, I’ve never seen any police officers out walking a beat or riding a bike around campus, and I’m often out late at night. Many Mason students seem to feel the same way.

Junior neuroscience major Claire Collins said, “ No, I never see the Mason cops patrolling on their bikes or on foot. I only see them out of their cars if there is an accident.”

Freshman pre-nursing major Catherine Pulley said that she “just sees them driving around wasting gas.”

Junior non-profit studies major Nick Terzian said, “If they walked around more often, there could be fewer crimes on campus.”

While it is possible that the Mason police do perform these walking and cycling beats, the important thing to note is they are not a visible presence to the students the way a standing light and call box would be.

Having done my research, I was left with a choice to make before writing this article: Was I for or against installing a new call box system here at Mason? The answer, I’ve come to find, is both.

I understand this university’s desire to spend money wisely. Blue lights and call box systems cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There have been stupendously few reports of people utilizing call boxes for true emergencies both here and on campuses across the country. Chief Lynch had a point when he said there is no return on investment when you’re talking about call boxes. However, that’s when you’re talking about money. If a call box system ends up saving even one life, then, to me, you have a return on your investment tenfold.

I think my stance on this issue comes down to this: As this campus grows, Mason needs to more strategically place the current 16 boxes and add more units in critical locations. To me, an entirely new system is not the way to go. I don’t think we need to install a bunch of new lights and call boxes up by the Johnson Center, but I do think we need to install them in each of the parking lots. I think they also have a place on the more wooded trails.

Throughout my research, there was one discovery that bothered me more than any other, and it is the current placement of the call boxes. One of the first things I did when I chose to write this article was take a walk around campus and scope out the locations of the lights and call boxes. While the lack of call boxes in shady areas was concerning to me, what was more deplorable was the plethora of boxes within Presidents Park.

I counted eight call boxes in Presidents Park, two of which had broken lights despite claims that units would be maintained. If you recall, Chief Lynch stated that there are currently 16 functioning units on this campus. That means that the call boxes in Presidents Park account for 50 percent of the total boxes on campus. Does Presidents Park represent 50 percent of this campus? Absolutely not! Is Presidents Park what most would consider a more dangerous part of this campus? That’s laughable. It is the one housing area that is always included on tours for prospective students and the only dorms most parents ever get a good look at.

It seems that placing such a large number of the units in Presidents Park is not a safety precaution, but a way of saving face with parents and incoming students.

There are three major reasons why I support the addition of new call boxes in strategic locations on campus. First, this campus is growing rapidly. More people on campus means more opportunity for crime, and more physical space means more area for police to cover. Call boxes are a staple of large, thriving universities, and if that’s what Mason wants to be, then new call boxes may be in order.

Second, I see a hole in the argument that cell phones eradicate the need for call boxes. The advantage that call boxes have over cell phones is that they pinpoint your exact location for the police. If you are in a dangerous situation, it could be difficult to report your location accurately on a cell phone. Assuming a person doesn’t run too far away from any call box they utilize during an emergency, the police will have a good idea of where to find her, or at least of where to begin an investigation.

Finally and most importantly, it may be true that call boxes are not utilized enough to justify their monetary cost to this university, but they do provide something that is invaluable: a feeling of security for students and faculty.

Honestly, I don’t feel unsafe on this campus most of the time. I don’t think most students worry much about the issue often either. However, walking through a dark, vast parking lot after your night class lets out can be a nerve-wracking experience, especially for young women. I’ve heard young women refer to both the foot trail by the pond and the wooded path that links the President Park area to Sub II as “rape trails” or “creeper trails.” For me at least, the sight of a blue light would be comforting.

We will never know exactly how many crimes call boxes and blue lights prevent because we are not inside the mind of a criminal. How many criminals would commit a crime when a call box is in view? I bet the number is smaller than the number of criminals who would commit that same crime with no call boxes in sight.

In 2001, Chief Lynch described the call boxes as a security convenience and not a security necessity. A campus that feels safe is necessary, not convenient. The larger this campus gets, the more opportunity there will be for crime, and the necessity of a safe feeling on campus will, I believe, become more prevalent in students’ minds. This is an issue that Mason should address before it becomes a larger concern.

Mason considers itself to be an innovative and forward-thinking institution. The administration and the Mason police force seem to take student’s general safety seriously and, according to yearly reports, do a good job of securing this campus from crime.

However, the lack of call boxes presents a weak point in security on campus. While an entirely new call box system would be unnecessary and costly, the installation of some new units and a more strategic placing of the boxes will provide a safer environment for students. At the very least, this course of action will provide students with a more secure feeling. It could also prevent dangerous crimes. Both of these outcomes are positive. Mason is currently growing in both physical size and number and this issue can no longer be swept under the rug.

There’s a substantial difference between making mistakes and making it a lifestyle. What’s more important is recognizing it’s human nature to be faulty, but it is not a justification for continuing an exhausting lifestyle that depletes you of self-respect.

I’ll be honest; regaining one’s sense of self-respect is not easy by any means. Contrarily, it takes loads of patience and love. Losing respect for oneself is one of the most abhorrent things I can imagine. From there, lack of self-love is born, and shortly after maintaining your self-interest plummets to the bottom of the to-do list. You begin to feel a sense of self-loathing because you sense no control over your actions. “It feels like I can’t let go of that damn spoon,” or “I can’t stop dialing his number.” Whatever the “mistake” you’re struggling with, I can say that if you do not conquer this little monster before it becomes a beast, you’ll regret it.

Those in Anonymous Alcoholics know what the first step is: admitting you have a problem. This step takes a lot of courage, so you can keep it to yourself. Just fully accept the fact that you have no self-control when it comes to Ben, Jerry or Sam. Nike said it best: Just do it. After that, don’t dwell on your recent “mistakes.” The longer you dwell on them, the more you will succumb to feelings to negativity further propelling you to continue the same lifestyle. Finally, do it slowly. Let go of your empty gestures at happiness.

At the end of the day, these weaknesses do not reflect your greatness as an individual. Contrarily, they illustrate your desire to be fulfilled. This desire should be discharged by undertaking tasks that you truly enjoy. However, many of us turn to empty solutions that relieve our desire quickly but leave that void emptier than before.

The reason we feel depleted of our self-respect is because of our blind attempts at achieving happiness in a world that cannot satiate that desire. The overall idea to truly understand: Your actions can make that void grow or disappear altogether. The only way to truly fill the gaping hole is to fill it with love of self.

Just do that.