The case of Luigi Mangione reveals an uncomfortable truth we don’t like to talk about in this country: justice is not blind. It’s broadcast.

Mangione, who shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in broad daylight, now faces the death penalty under federal charges. On the surface, some might argue that’s the proper consequence for premeditated murder. But when you strip away the headlines and emotions, what you’re left with is something much uglier: a justice system that punishes not by the severity of the crime, but by the visibility of the crime.

In April 2025, Donald Trump stood at the podium and proudly declared grocery prices had dropped—eggs down 87%, gas down to $1.98. On the surface, it sounds like a win. If you’re a voter who just wants cheaper bills, it plays well. But if you zoom out even slightly, that claim starts to unravel. Because presidents don’t lower grocery prices. They don’t raise them either. They just wear them—and weaponize them.

I’ve been watching the developments around Washington’s $12 billion tax package, and I’ve got mixed feelings—not because I oppose taxing the wealthy or making the tax code fairer, but because I believe this isn’t how you do it. It’s bold, yes. But it’s also reckless. It’s reactive instead of strategic, and worse, it’s being sold to the public as something it’s not.

Let’s start with Senate Bill 5813, which proposes adding a 2.9% surtax on capital gains over $1 million. On its face, that sounds reasonable—make the ultra-rich pay more. But context matters. Washington already has a 7% capital gains tax on gains above $270,000. Stacking another 2.9% on top of that brings the effective state-level tax on long-term capital gains to 9.9%, not including federal rates. That’s a huge deal. If someone realizes $5 million in gains—say, from selling a company or liquidating stock—that’s nearly half a million dollars just in state tax. Can they afford it? Sure. Will they want to? Of course not. That’s the problem.

People love pretending the Constitution is bulletproof. That its words are sacred, unbendable, incorruptible. But that’s a fantasy. A comfortable one. The truth is far messier. Words mean nothing until someone with power decides what they mean. And that someone, in this case, is the United States Supreme Court.

People think it’s a joke when Trump says he’s going for a third term. They laugh it off. Say it’s just ego. A line for the base. But when a man who’s already broken many political norm says “There are methods you could do it,” we should stop treating it like performance and start reading it as intent.

The Journalists Mic a Security Oversight Waiting for Disaster

During an interaction with the Press at Joint Base Andrews on March 14, 2025, Trump got hit in the face with a boom mic. Not hard, not enough to cause damage—but enough to make him pause. The microphone, covered with one of those fuzzy “dead cat” windshields, brushed his mouth, and for a split second, he just stared at the reporter holding it. Then came the response: “She just became a big story tonight.” At first, I brushed it off as just another awkward political moment—one of those clips people would meme to death and move on from. But as I scrolled through the reactions online, something caught my attention. People weren’t just laughing. Some were asking a serious question: What if that mic had been laced with something? It sounds ridiculous until you realize journalists have a history of exposing security gaps in ways no one expects. Take Jeffrey Goldberg’s 2008 TSA stunt—he wasn’t trying to kill anyone, but he waltzed through airport security with box cutters, fake boarding passes, and a 12-ounce bottle labeled “saline solution” that could’ve been anything. TSA didn’t blink. Now apply that same logic to a press event with the president. A mic in the face isn’t just a blooper—it’s a vulnerability staring us down.

When President Joe Biden signed the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA) on January 5, 2025, I bought the pitch for a minute: fix what many saw as an unfair system. The repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) meant that public-sector retirees—teachers, firefighters, and police officers—would no longer see their Social Security benefits reduced because they also had government pensions.

Supporters framed it as long-overdue justice, correcting a system that had penalized public employees for decades. But here’s the problem: fixing one unfairness doesn’t mean you don’t create another in its place.

In 2023, U.S. companies dumped $900 billion into stock buybacks—more than they spent on wages or R&D combined. At their core, a stock buyback happens when a company uses its own money to repurchase shares from the stock market, reducing the number of outstanding shares. This benefits existing shareholders by increasing the value of the remaining shares, making it a common strategy for corporations looking to boost stock prices.

But while some argue that buybacks stabilize stock prices and return value to investors, others see them as a legalized form of market manipulation, disproportionately benefiting executives and wealthy shareholders while diverting money that could be spent on wages, R&D, or long-term growth.

I didn’t expect to go down this rabbit hole, but here we are. It started when I saw a take on X (Twitter) calling the Panasonic EV battery plant in De Soto, Kansas, a perfect example of government waste. That was enough to get me curious. Is this just a big corporate handout, or is there a real economic win here? I went deep into the details, and honestly, I can see both sides of the argument—and I think people aren’t realizing the full financial weight of what’s happening.

Pramila Jayapal has positioned herself as a champion for progressive values, representing Washington’s 7th Congressional District with a strong stance on healthcare, immigration, and social justice. She’s an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, frequently challenging his policies on Medicaid cuts, federal funding freezes, and immigration enforcement. But beyond the rhetoric, how effective is she? Is she truly fighting for Washington’s best interests, or is she just another politician playing the game of influence and lobbying?

Big businesses don’t pay taxes the way you do. While the average person’s paycheck gets taxed before it even hits their bank account, corporations use loopholes, deductions, and legal maneuvers to shrink their tax bills—sometimes down to nothing. It’s called aggressive tax planning—not illegal, but certainly not something the everyday taxpayer can pull off. From offshore tax havens to stock buybacks and depreciation tricks, here’s how the biggest companies legally avoid paying billions.