Left (Liberal) Party, Revised

I believe that the Left (Liberal) Party would be the best party to serve our country. I find that a liberal party truly reflects the wants and needs of the voter, not just because the voters who choose the party want the party but also because the party itself is based on the idea that people have freedom of choice.

Liberal control of the United States would be positive by giving citizens the right to make choices for themselves, making the majority of the population happier. Those citizens who believe in one thing could act in that fashion and those who believe in another thing could act in their own way. The majority of people that would not want freedom of expression would be those intolerant of others, which is not something I think our country should promote. After all, wasn’t our country originally created to establish tolerance and promote equality? The government regulation of business would help keep our economy steady and could prevent monopolies from forming. People in need could be sure that the government is always there to support them if needed. Our country being mostly Liberal would also promote environmental action, which would improve how other nations view the United States. Being “green” is beneficial in the long term for everyone on the planet, not just U.S. citizens.

However, Left ideals also have their drawbacks. For some people, choices that would be available in a Liberal government would be considered unethical or disturbing. For those citizens, the United States may no longer be somewhere they feel comfortable living. If the government controlled all business, the government could also control prices and availability of all products and services to the public. This much control by the government could cut our economy short and potentially lead to a reduction of other freedoms, such as freedom of speech. A company that could use surplus money to create innovative new products might not have the excess money if the government is too strict. Government support for the disadvantaged might encourage some individuals to work less hard or rely solely on the government for income. In these ways, a Liberal government is not very dissimilar from a Communist government, which many people in the United States fear. The preserving the environment, while a good cause, could be seen by some as a fruitless effort and a waste of space. Preserving areas in nature could prevent further development, and money spent on aiding the environment would have virtually no payback.


Sources:
-The Conservative Party of New York State
http://www.cpnys.org/
-Liberal Party of New York
http://www.liberalparty.org/
-World’s Smallest Political Quiz
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
-Encyclopaedia Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339129/Liberal-Party

Freedom of Speech May Be Biased

When our speakers came to tell us about China, they made a comment about how our country, like China, does not have freedom of speech. Of course, in our constitution, freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of speech is allowing every citizen to speak or print the truth or their opinion, as long as their information is not untrue slander. News agencies make use of that right to inform the public of current events going on in the United States and the rest of the world. However, some people believe that the intermixing of large corporations and politicians has tainted what would otherwise be “un-biased news.” The main purpose of news services, which are run by corporations, is to provide news and information to the public. On the other hand, the main goal of the corporations is to make money, and money cannot be made if political sponsors and supporters do not approve of the program they are sponsoring. For example, the war in Iraq is almost never questioned by news anchors, but instead justified. This is because it is much easier to keep the majority of people happy by mitigating controversial issues than flat-out condemning them. Shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart tell the not “politically popular” opinion of the public and are being called “comedy news” shows. This label is accurate in that it describes the way in which the news is presented, but it is also meant to give the impression that news coming from shows like The Colbert Report is not as accurate as from news stations like NBC and CNN. In truth, every news agency is biased in some way and does not tell the entire
story. The only way to make sure media is “free” is to take the time to hear news from different points of view and opinion, so a story can be considered from all perspectives. Either that, or the average citizen needs to take charge and witness important current events first hand, then provide all possible sides of an issue to the public. Although our speakers were incorrect in saying that we do not have freedom of speech, they were correct in the essence that the public is not told all there is to hear.

Sources:
-Take Back the Media
http://www.takebackthemedia.com
-American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html
-Introduction to the Free Speech Clause
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/freespeech.htm

Left (Liberal) Party

I believe that the Left (Liberal) Party would be the best party to serve our country. I find that a liberal party truly reflects the wants and needs of the voter, not just because the voters who choose the party want the party but also because the party itself is based on the idea that people have freedom of choice.

Liberal control of the United States would be positive by giving citizens the right to make choices for themselves, making the majority of the population happier. Those citizens who believe in one thing could act in that fashion and those who believe in another thing could act in their own way. The majority of people that would not want freedom of expression would be those intolerant of others, which is not something I think our country should promote. After all, wasn’t our country originally created to establish tolerance and promote equality? The government regulation of business would help keep our economy steady and could prevent monopolies from forming. People in need could be sure that the government is always there to support them if needed. Our country being mostly Liberal would also promote environmental action, which would improve how other nations view the United States. Being “green” is beneficial in the long term for everyone on the planet, not just U.S. citizens.

However, Left ideals also have their drawbacks. For some people, choices that would be available in a Liberal government would be considered unethical or disturbing. For those citizens, the United States may no longer be somewhere they feel comfortable living. If the government controlled all business, the government could also control prices and availability of all products and services to the public. A company that could use surplus money to create innovative new products might not have the excess money if the government is too strict. Government support for the disadvantaged might encourage some individuals to work less hard or rely solely on the government for income. The preserving the environment, while a good cause, could be seen by some as a fruitless effort and a waste of space. Preserving areas in nature could prevent further development, and money spent on aiding the environment would have virtually no payback.

New York State's High Taxes and Low Outcomes

New York State is notorious for incredibly high taxes, with local taxes being 79% higher than the national average. This astonishing figure makes New York's local taxes the highest in the nation, while New York has had the smallest population increase since 2000. What this means is that the price of living in New York is increasing and the number of people available to carry the budget's burden is too small to decrease costs. This year there is a $2 billion deficit in New York, and next year there is an estimated $12.5 billion deficit for 2009. Clearly, increasing taxes is the not the way to make up for the deficit. Cuts need to be made and priorities need to change in the budget in order to revive New York's economy.

Local government is not the problem. County taxes go toward community programs, including criminal justice services, aiding the elderly, social services, veteran services, fixing roads and bridges, and patrolling highways. Some of the county's money also goes towards welfare and providing food stamps to people in need. However, even those opposing community services would not bother to confront the local government's budget. Out of every dollar in taxes, 90 cents is controlled by the state government. That's right: the county only has control over 10% of your taxes!

If I were to decide how to make up for the state deficit next year, I would make certain cuts in the state budget. First, I would reduce spending on Medicaid from $39.0 billion to $33.0 billion, saving New York $6.0 billion. Medicaid makes up 31% of our state's budget, when the average spending of states on Medicaid is only 16.8%. Medicaid is also a federal-state program, so whatever New York decides to spend on it will be matched by at least 50% with a grant by the federal government, as long as the program meets federal standards. Medicaid is also flawed, because the requirements to be part of the program can shut-out many people who are extremely poor and need the help. Also, $5.3 billion of the state budget (4%) goes to "Health," which is very vague and slightly redundant of programs like Medicaid which help people who need health insurance. Our state's spending in other areas in the budget is so low that I hesitate to make more cuts anywhere other than "Other." "Other" covers all projects that do not fall under the regular budget expenses. "Other" contains start-up programs and ideas that may be very innovative and a good thought for New York's future, but are not necessary at this time. I think that all programs that are not completely essential to New York in 2009 should be put on hold until New York has money to spare. Therefore, the remaining $6.5 billion should be easily found in the $13.9 billion of "Other."

I wanted to take a little time to explain why I did not make certain cuts now that I have explained which cuts I would like to make. I would not like to make cuts for School Aid, Higher Education, or Other Educational Aid because New York needs more educated students to bring business and prosperity to New York. Young adults with a good educational background will be able to take or create jobs in our state that will bring in more people and money to New York. I did not want to make cuts on Transportation or Judiciary, because most of the state budget comes from residents and these programs are beneficial to residents on a community level. Debt Service and Welfare are also beneficial to residents, but are also beneficial to New York's economy. Debt Services could bring certain families back to a point where they could spend money and aid New York's economy. Welfare helps pay for the necessities of residents, which re-circulates money when the money would not have otherwise been spent by the people in need. The other programs supported by the state are very unfamiliar to me and account for only a total of 12% of the budget, so I decided to leave them as they are.

Hopefully changes will be made in our state budget that make up for the oncoming deficit, but still keeps the needs of the citizens top priority.


Sources:

2008-09 All Funds Budget, New York State Executive Budget
http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0809/fy0809littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf

New York State Division of the Budget
http://www.budget.state.ny.us/index.html

Open Book New York
http://www.openbooknewyork.com/index.htm

Kathy Jimino, Rensselaer County Executive

Eat Local, Not Gas! (with more facts!)

Organic foods have been popping up in markets throughout the United States, quickly becoming the food-fad of the decade. Organic foods promise the pesticide-free, wholesome goodness that nearly every person would love to ingest. Or do they? Could there possibly be something more environmentally-friendly, tasty, and supportive of local farms than organic foods? Local foods need less fuel to transport, are available to the consumer shortly after harvesting, and are bought from farms in the consumers’ own community. The importance of eating local has been embraced by both the suppliers and consumers, with commercial programs like that of Whole Foods and diets like the 100 Mile Diet.

The Union Square Greenmarket in New York City is a local food market, carrying only food produced within 170 miles of the market. When customers of Greenmarket were asked whether they prefer local or organic one woman stated, “I prefer to support local produce. It’s better for the environment because it uses less fuel.” When shopping for organic foods, it is common to find organics from California. For consumers on the East Coast, buying food from California is clearly a huge waste of gas and freshness. On average, fresh food travels 1,500 miles to get to the dinner table. Using such large amounts of fuel to transport food cross-country is almost as silly as a person deciding to drive themselves all the way out to California, to only eat that one food product. Also, imagine that person having to drive all the way back home before consuming the product. How fresh will it still be? Foods grown or raised locally can be consumed as early as the day they are produced and can even be picked by the consumer. Picking your own apples, pumpkins, and berries decreases the time spent between harvesting and consuming, and also allows the consumer to see where the food came from. According to the Department of Agriculture, farmers’ markets were so successful from 1994 to 2004 that the number of markets grew from 1,755 to 3,706. Obviously local markets are not only feasible, but they are also widely available.

Buying locally is also a large step in supporting farming communities. When Wal-Mart added 1,000 more organic products to its stores in 2006 and reduced the organic premium from 50% to 10%, it decreased the number of small farms that could afford to grow organically. Smaller farms cannot afford to lower their prices while maintaining high standards for their organic agriculture. The average farmer only makes 20 cents for each dollar of produce, with most of the food cost going towards transportation. When transportation is cut out of the business transaction, but selling food locally, a farmer can keep the full dollar as revenue. For the long term economy, it is important for small farms to be supported so that they will continue to be in business for years to come. A monopoly of large farms on the food market would greatly decrease the standards those farms would need to meet to be beneficial to customers. There would no longer be competition between farms over which products are healthier and better tasting. Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, told The New York Times, “The drive to produce organic food cheaply will bring pressure to further weaken the regulations.” Another shopper of The Union Square Greenmarket said, “I look for things that are not ‘shallow organic,’ things not made in a mass-produced way. Large farmers are pushing the limits of organic, pricing out smaller organic farms.” Some people may not like local foods because they may not be “certified organic.” However, the price of organic certification may actually cost more than small organic farms can afford. Many local farms are organic, but cannot pay the cost to certify their foods. The Association of Family Farms has created guidelines for membership in the association and food seals. The regulations in the guidelines include providing safe working conditions for staff, protecting wildlife habitat, and reducing pesticide use and toxicity. It is clear that the community of the local food consumer benefits greatly from buying local foods, not just economically but also environmentally.

The practically of eating local foods has been embraced by both commercial enterprises and the consumer. Whole Foods provides a $10 million loan fund for small farmers and encourages individual store managers to do more business with local farmers. When our class took a trip to visit RPI’s Lighting Research Center, we were informed that Whole Foods has employed the LRC to create a system for conserving energy in its stores. The system involves using solar panels on the roof of a store to capture energy from the sun and using special sky-lights in the ceilings to enhance the natural light available to light the stores. While not all stores have reached this environmentally-conscious level, it is a prime example of how supporting local foods can lead to other positive changes. Eating local foods, and the companies supporting local foods, encourages conservation of energy and the reduction of fossil fuel use.

The 100 Mile Diet is the product of consumers working together to eat local foods. The basis of the diet is just as it sounds: only foods produced within 100 miles of the consumer are eaten. I originally learned about the 100 Mile Diet from a neighbor and family friend, who shared a couple insights into how the diet is feasible. As part of the diet, participants are encouraged to spend 10% of their grocery bill on local foods. The most important thing I learned from my neighbor was that foods that are not available during the winter can be preserved in a freezer during times where those foods are readily available. This method can combat every local food consumer’s fear of not having enough variety during the winter. The social acceptance of eating locally is still on the rise, and growing rapidly.

Yes, eating organic foods is better for the environment and the body than eating mass-produced “normal” foods. However, eating local foods is a much more environmentally clean and community-supportive way of eating. There is no better way to support your community than to purchase goods produced locally. When small farms are able to support themselves and thrive economically, a higher standard of healthy food production can be maintained. In conclusion, eating local foods is the healthier, superior way to dine.

Additional Information and Sources:
A very informative article on Local Foods vs. Organic Foods: http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/116/local
Another great article, with the environmental implications outlined:
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/locally_grown.htm
13 Lucky Reasons to eat locally, by the 100 Mile Diet website:
http://100milediet.org/why-eat-local
More information on the Association of Family Farms:
http://www.familyfood.net/index.html
The RPI Lighting Research Center webpage:
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/index.asp
Where your local food markets are:
http://www.localharvest.org

Eat Local, Not Gas!

Organic foods have been popping up in markets throughout the United States, quickly becoming the food-fad of the decade. Organic foods promise the pesticide-free, wholesome goodness that nearly every person would love to ingest. Or do they? Could there possibly be something more environmentally-friendly, tasty, and supportive of local farms than organic foods? Local foods need less fuel to transport, are available to the consumer shortly after harvesting, and are bought from farms in the consumer’s own community. The importance of eating local has been embraced by both the suppliers and consumers, with commercial programs like that of Whole Foods and diets like the 100 Mile Diet.

The Union Square Greenmarket in New York City is a local food market, carrying only food produced within 170 miles of the market. When customers of Greenmarket were asked whether they prefer local or organic one woman stated, “I prefer to support local produce. It’s better for the environment because it uses less fuel.” When shopping for organic foods, it is common to find organics from California. For consumers on the East Coast, buying food from California is clearly a huge waste of gas and freshness. Using such large amounts of fuel to transport food cross-country is almost as silly as a person deciding to drive themselves all the way out to California, only eat that one food product. Also, imagine that person having to drive all the way back home before consuming the product. How fresh will it still be? Foods grown or raised locally can be consumed as early as the day they are produced and can even be picked by the consumer. Picking your own apples, pumpkins, and berries decreases the time spent between harvesting and consuming, and also allows the consumer to see where the food came from. According to the Department of Agriculture, farmers’ markets were so successful from 1994 to 2004 that the number of markets grew from 1,755 to 3,706. Obviously local markets are not only feasible, but they are also widely available.

Buying locally is also a large step in supporting farming communities. When Wal-mart added 1,000 more organic products to its stores in 2006 and reduced the organic premium from 50% to 10%, it decreased the number of small farms that could afford to grow organically. Smaller farms cannot afford to lower their prices while maintaining high standards for their organic agriculture. For the long term economy, it is important for small farms to be supported so that they will continue to be in business for years to come. A monopoly of large farms on the food marker would greatly decrease the standards those farms would need to meet to be beneficial to customers. There would no longer be competition between farms over which products are healthier and better tasting. Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, told The New York Times, “The drive to produce organic food cheaply will bring pressure to further weaken the regulations.” Another shopper of The Union Square Greenmarket said, “I look for things that are not ‘shallow organic,’ things not made in a mass-produced way. Large farmers are pushing the limits of organic, pricing out smaller organic farms.” Some people may not like local foods because they may not be “certified organic.” However, the price of organic certification may actually cost more than small organic farms can afford. Many local farms are organic, but cannot pay the cost to certify their foods. The Association of Family Farms has created guidelines for membership in the association and food seals. The regulations in the guidelines include providing safe working conditions for staff, protecting wildlife habitat, and reducing pesticide use and toxicity. It is clear that the community of the local food consumer benefits greatly from buying local foods, not just economically but also environmentally.

The practically of eating local foods has been embraced by both commercial enterprises and the consumer. Whole Foods provides a $10 million loan fund for small farmers and encourages individual store managers to do more business with local farmers. When our class took a trip to visit RPI’s Lighting Research Center, we were informed that Whole Foods has employed the LRC to create a system for conserving energy in its stores. The system involves using solar panels on the roof of a store to capture energy from the sun and using special sky-lights in the ceilings to enhance the natural light available to light the stores. Eating local foods, and the companies supporting local foods, encourages conservation of energy and the reduction of fossil fuel use. The 100 Mile Diet is the product of consumers working together to eat local foods. The basis of the diet is just as it sounds: only foods produced within 100 miles of the consumer are eaten. I originally learned about the 100 Mile Diet from a neighbor and family friend, who shared a couple insights into how the diet is feasible. The most important thing I learned from my neighbor was that foods that are not available during the winter can be preserved in a freezer during times where those foods are readily available. This method can combat every local food consumer’s fear of not having enough variety during the winter. The social acceptance of eating locally is still on the rise, and growing rapidly.
Yes, eating organic foods is better for the environment and the body than eating mass-produced “normal” foods. However, eating local foods is a much more environmentally clean and community-supportive way of eating. There is no better way to support your community than to purchase goods produced locally. When small farms are able to support themselves and thrive economically, a higher standard of healthy food production can be maintained. In conclusion, eating local foods is the healthier, superior way to dine.

Additional Information:
A very informative article on Local Foods vs. Organic Foods: http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/116/local
13 Lucky Reasons to eat locally, by the 100 Mile Diet website:
http://100milediet.org/why-eat-local
More information on the Association of Family Farms:
http://www.familyfood.net/index.html
The RPI Lighting Research Center web page:
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/index.asp
Where your local food markets are:
http://www.localharvest.org

What is Working, What is Not (Revised)

I must start by telling the truth: I do not know much about the world. I have been a tourist in Canada and Mexico, but I have not explored the markets in India or attended a governmental summit in Japan. The world is again becoming "flat," where there are no hidden horizons or places known to be unknown. The world is reaching out to everyone, but I have failed to embrace it. Hopefully, through the course of this year, I will be able to make up for lost time and get to know about the subjects that have been trying to get to know me. There are some things I find to be extremely frustrating in our society, like the existence of political parties and the way laws are produced to prevent lawsuits. In the economy, I have found that products are no longer designed to fill a need but to entice customers to keep buying the same product. I feel that these subjects are the easiest for me to comment on because these issues are the ones that directly affect me. I can only hope that my thoughts and opinions may inspire others to wonder about the same things.

Political parties. A political party can be defined as "a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government," according the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. How many political parties are there then, if they are meant to represent the ideals of the individual? There are only two main parties to represent some 281 million citizens in the United States. Can a person’s opinions really fit so closely enough with one party’s goals that the person could identify themselves as a member of that party? How will new ideas be created and the government be reformed if the same ideals are presented every term? Are the propositions truly tweaked enough every four years to create diversity in the elections? Another point I would like to make is that some people have ethics and ideals that are similar to both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, yet fit neither. I personally support free trade and stronger state-level control on access to abortion, which could classify me as a Republican. However, I also support same-sex marriage, think personal guns should be illegal, and want stronger environmental restrictions. I, then, would probably register as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. When would I get a chance to vote? I would not be able to vote in the primaries, which seriously decreases my choices in the official election. How about the Independent parties? Why do they never seem to gain substantial support? The answer lies in the legacy. Just as parents like to teach their children which religion is true, which food is healthy and which universities to go to, they also like to teach their children about ethics and ideals. If your parents’ religion strictly forbids abortion, like the Catholic Church, then it is likely that you will grow up believing that abortion should be illegal. In later years, similarities in ethics and ideals can lead to similarities in political views and parties.

Another issue I have faced is abundance of “preventative” laws. Have you ever found a law that prevents you from doing something great, just to prevent other people from doing something harmful? Or perhaps you simply want to host a spaghetti dinner to raise funds for a local charity, like my Civic Responsibility class is attempting. Even though our school's Key Club is allowed to have a spaghetti dinner for the same reason, we are banned from the kitchen. Students in our class are not certified to cook or keep the kitchen up to health code standards, preventing us from just trying to improve the community. However, if the law were not in place, just about anyone could cook and sell tainted or undercooked food items. I can understand a law concerning the health of others, because the same laws apply to commercial restaurants and cafeterias. What I do not understand is the type of law that forbids activities in certain places, when in other circumstances the activity would be acceptable. Every two years my school hosts an "All-Night Party," during which all high school students are bused between the school and various recreational venues all night long. However, when our Civic Responsibility class suggested a similar activity, but only with seniors and not leaving the school, we were again rejected. I am not quite sure as to why we were rejected, but it was implied that the reason had to do with a worry that the students would deface/destroy school property. We also tried to pull together a Varsity Basketball vs. high school teachers game, but again, it is against the law. Apparently, according to our teacher, principal, and superintendent, it is illegal for adults to play sports with non-adults in school functions or on school property. At any park or home, games are played between adults and children all of the time. I just wish that laws about such specific events could have been written with more concern towards allowing the situations in a safe manor than just writing them off completely.

My new favorite thing in the economy is the start of buying "atmosphere" with your product or service. Last weekend I decided to eat at the Melting Pot, a restaurant chain that serves multiple types of fondue. The prices: outrageous. How much would you pay for a few cubes of bread, some celery, carrots, and melted cheese? If you are going to the Melting Pot, about $9 a person, and that's sharing the cheese! The truth is, you are paying for the atmosphere. You are paying for the fancy convection heater for the cheese on your table, the intricately designed layout and the pretty lamps. Industry knows that you would not pay a lot of money for food at home, but you would to go somewhere fancy. Another great example of atmosphere is the Ipod. Right now, a 16GB Ipod Nano is priced at $199 and the 8GB Ipod Touch is $229. Why is it $30 more for half the function? Simple: the Ipod Touch has atmosphere. Nice, touchable atmosphere. Everyone knows that you buy an Ipod to use it for storage of songs, music, and video, and so does Apple. Apple also knows that until something new and innovative like a 3D video-projecting Ipod is invented, their products can only change in atmosphere and not function. All of our economy is like this. Until something new is invented, companies will just make minuscule changes to the products we already have to make us want new products that perform the same function. Economically, getting consumers to buy products helps to circulate money in times where the economy may be failing. It is important for consumers to not save all of their money when money is short nationally, because when less money is spent then the economic depression can only worsen. However, using technology and engineering, new products and designs can be created to keep consumers buying, only they will be buying things they don’t already have rather than small updates on current possessions.

It is important to keep thinking of the future. In the coming years, I will make sure to pay attention to the newest goals of the Democratic and Republican Parties, so that when I am able to vote I will be able to make the most of what choices I have. I plan on finding ways to help my school’s community in the coming months by using the allowances I am given to make the most of what is legal. And yes, I plan on buying the newest Ipod Nano as soon as I have enough money to purchase one. Although it is similar to other mp3 players circulating throughout the markets, it has new features that are the result of pressure on companies to create new products. By purchasing that piece of new technology, I hope to be encouraging the progression of technological advances. By understanding the reasons why things are the way they are, it is much easier to accept them for what they are or strengthen your case on how to change them.

What is Working, What is Not

I must start by telling the truth: I do not know much about the world. I have been a tourist in Canada and Mexico, but I have not explored the markets in India or attended a governmental summit in Japan. The world is again becoming "flat," where there are no hidden horizons or places known to be unknown. The world is reaching out to everyone, but I have failed to embrace it. Hopefully, through the course of this year, I will be able to make up for lost time and get to know about the subjects that have been trying to get to know me. There are some things I find to be extremely frustrating in our society, like the existence of political parties and the way laws are produced to prevent lawsuits. In the economy, I have found that products are no longer designed to fill a need but to entice customers to keep buying the same product. Why have I noticed these flaws? Because they directly affect me. And if they are directly affecting me then they must be affecting you, too. This is what you may not know:

Political parties. A political party can be defined as "a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government," according the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I think of political parties as large groups of people that share the exact same ideals as men that were born centuries ago. How will new ideas be created and the government be reformed if the same ideals are presented every term? Are the propositions truly tweaked enough every four years to create diversity in the elections? Another point I would like to make is that some people have ethics and ideals that are similar to both the Republican party and the Democratic party, yet fit neither. Let us pretend that I oppose abortion, but oppose the death penalty as well. I, then, would probably register as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. When would I get a chance to vote? I would not be able to vote in the primaries, which seriously decreases my choices in the official election. How about the Independent parties? Why do they never seem to gain substantial support? The answer lies in the legacy. Just as parents like to teach their children which religion is true, which food is healthy and which universities to go to, they also like to teach their children about ethics and ideals. In later years, similarities in ethics and ideals can lead to similarities in political views and parties. How many more years will go by before politics adjust to today's society?

Some laws are just frustrating. Have you ever found a law that prevents you from doing something great, just to prevent other people from doing something harmful? Or perhaps you simply want to host a spaghetti dinner to raise funds for a local charity, like my Civic Responsibility class is attempting. Even though our school's Key Club is allowed to have a spaghetti dinner for the same reason, we are banned from the kitchen. Every two years my school hosts an "All-Night Party," during which all high school students are bused between the school and various recreational venues all night long. However, when our Civic Responsibility class suggested a similar activity, but only with seniors and not leaving the school, we were again rejected.We also tried to pull together a Varsity Basketball vs. high school teachers game, but again, it is against the law. The reasoning for all of these failures? There is no reason, except that it is not allowed. I believe that some laws should be created as case-based procedures that will allow some activities and deny others depending on the circumstances. Or maybe some institutions, like schools, should worry more about the function it is meant to provide than the potential lawsuits it can prevent.

My new favorite thing in the economy is the start of buying "atmosphere" with your product or service. Last weekend I decided to eat at the Melting Pot, a restaurant chain that serves multiple types of fondue. The prices: outrageous. How much would you pay for a few cubes of bread, some celery, carrots, and melted cheese? If you are going to the Melting Pot, about $9 a person, and that's sharing the cheese! The truth is, you are paying for the atmosphere. You are paying for the fancy convection heater for the cheese on your table, the intricately designed layout and the pretty lamps. Industry knows that you would not pay a lot of money for food at home, but you would to go somewhere fancy. Another great example of atmosphere is the Ipod. Right now, a 16GB Ipod Nano is priced at $199 and the 8GB Ipod Touch is $229. Why is it $30 more for half the function? Simple: the Ipod Touch has atmosphere. Nice, touchable atmosphere. Everyone knows that you buy an Ipod to use it for storage of songs, music, and video, and so does Apple. Apple also knows that until something new and innovative like a 3D video-projecting Ipod is invented, their products can only change in atmosphere and not function. All of our economy is like this. Until something new is invented, companies will just make minuscule changes to the products we already have to make us want new products that perform the same function.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think our government and economy is stuck in the past. We keep using the same ideas to perform the same tasks, and we're getting nowhere. How does engineering fit in? Engineers are the creative, inventive people that help us get out of our technological and social ruts. Today's students must take it upon themselves to learn the skills necessary to instigate changes in our world. I want to be the catalyst to our nation's evolution.