Zero Tolerance policies exist for one reason: people of authority think they have a right to be lazy. They use all kinds of justifications, such as saying it would seem as if they were targeting certain “types” of students if enough students belonging to a certain ethnic group or otherwise associated peers decided to break the rules. If by some coincidence a bunch of the same “types” of students decided to bring knives with blades of an illegal length into school, tough. There is no point in hiding behind policy, as it only paints authorities as dishonest individuals.

Superintendents, Principals and Assistant Principals of grade schools seem to have this idea that they’re all big-time cops solving crime any time they utilize a zero tolerance policy. All they’re really doing is marring students’ school records over what should be non-punishable offenses and failing to do what tax dollars pay them to do: use sound judgement to create and institute school codes of conduct. The problem is the zero tolerance policies that have been created leave enough wiggle room for administrators that they never have to comprehensively read the handbook they issue to students each year. Ironic, considering all the comprehensive reading tests taken throughout a student’s education.

When I was receiving my education, zero tolerance always irked me as a dangerous tool for authorities as it makes school systems just as adversarial as the American justice system. Zero Tolerance policies should be forgone in favor of intelligible judgment. As it stands now, the only time a student can gain redemption from a nonsensical ruling by school officials is when their parents call the news and make sure the public knows of their case. This is unnecessary and inefficient; the public needn’t be brought to a boiling point just to trigger common sense in its school officials.

In an Ad Age Daily article by Jason Schlossberg, he outlines the misuse of the word, “value,” in recent years by all involved in slashing prices as an attempt to increase profits through volume or even just to retain current customers and how the practice dramatically changes customers’ perception of a product’s quality for the worse. I fear you’re suffering from the same misstep. The two original PS3 models were overpriced. If you only saw them as consoles. At the time of their release, they were the cheapest Blu-ray Disc players around, offered nearly full backwards compatibility of both PlayStation One and PlayStation2 games, came with four USB ports, one or two SanDisk slots, the capability of installing one’s own operating system and memory comparable to a standard PC. All that technology and you’ve reduced yourself to a dishonest price point campaign? That’s a real shame.

Considering how many features have been omitted to bring the PS3 to this point (the Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune Bundle and the current 80GB models aren’t much consolation for the original systems either) I’d only value them at $199.99.

As far as I can tell by the comments on Playstation.blog, I’m the first to call you on it. You’ve got 20 first-party titles lined up and to support your newest PS3 you’ve decided to release a gutted version of a once-great machine. Making a superior product and acting, through your marketing and configuration practices, as if something is wrong with it will only help you succeed in losing sales to Microsoft and Nintendo..in my opinion.

The traffic I see is a metaphor of life, there are more options than just back and forth, but you have to look much harder for the alternative pathways. Life is a road of twists and turns, invaluable in its scarcity, with more obstacles for some than others yet the same destinations are available to everyone.