I joined the RSO in my program (printing), the Graphic Arts Association, and I have worked two jobs related to my field. For three years, I worked at University Printing, and this is my fourth year at the Torch.

Between the three of these experiences, I have been able to supplement what I’ve learned in class by applying them to real-life experiences. My program focuses on the manufacturing of printed material (newspapers, magazines, ect.) and by working after class in the Swan building at University Printing I have learned the importance of what my professors are teaching me. One small mistake up the line can cause jobs to be rejected by the customer, and I have seen it happen.

With the Graphic Arts Association, we have taken numerous tours of printing and manufacturing facilities and trade shows. I have been able to do a lot of networking and get a much better picture of what I have coming, once I graduate. The Torch has taught me about all the computer processes before any actual printing happens.

I have also had the chance to compete in the Skills USA contest against other printers from across the nation. This is perhaps the greatest resume builder yet, because I ended up winning a national contest. I wouldn’t have had a chance without my other experience.

College provides the best opportunities to go out and do great things, and become poised to have the best job of anyone in your class. I have made Ferris work for me, and feel very confident that I am in a good position for graduation one year from now. Don’t be afraid to try something new, go out on a Friday night, or join the RSO in your program. Try getting a part-time job in your field, even if it means doing the things no one else wants to do.

College rules. These four years are yours. Make Ferris work for you.

The argument started when I made the unpopular statement that government charity should be eliminated completely. She was shocked that I would say such a thing. “Do you honestly think that people will just donate out of the goodness of their hearts?” she exclaimed.

Judging from the fact that they’re doing it right now, yes, I honestly believe that Americans will donate to charity out of the goodness of their hearts. But, even if Americans weren’t among the most generous people on the planet, and I was surprised to find out that they are, and they wouldn’t donate it to charity willingly, I would rather they keep it. It’s better than the government forcing them to give up their money without consent, which is an act that some dictionaries refer to as “stealing.”

The U.S. was heavily criticized worldwide because the government donated only 0.2 percent of its gross national product to foreign development assistance, far below the percent given by Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and others. But, according to the 2007 Index of Global Philanthropy, this only accounted for 14 percent of the total U.S. economic engagement with developing nations.

According to the report, in 2005, U.S. Official Development Assistance to for developing countries was $27.6 billion. Private assistance, which was, $95.2 billion, was more than three times the amount given through the government. And that’s not including the $69.2 billion in private capital flows through investments in developing nations.

Many people are unhappy that the giving is private. Someone wrote “It’s sad that it’s the people of America that care and not the government, who has the resources to assist.” But that statement ignores the spirit of individual liberty that America was built upon. Why is the government expected to give anything?

In a democracy, the will of the government, if the government can even have a “will,” should be an extension of the will of the people. The government is an uncaring institution created by the people. But the government doesn’t need to care because the people who created it do. And the people who live in America celebrate a form of direct democracy by freely giving to charities on their own.

It’s a good thing Americans are donating their money directly, rather than through the government, because, according to the Index of Global Philanthropy, money donated privately is usually more efficient than government charity. Through case studies, the organization found that money from private charity was used more wisely, often doing the same job for one third of the cost or less.

Though this is a generalization, that could mean that, if the government completely stopped giving, and taxes were lowered in response, private contributions would have to increase by less than 10 percent to be just as effective overall. We could contribute more, and save more.

Even the government aid that is effective doesn’t seem to cause much change. The Index of Global Philanthropy report said, “Despite the general agreement on what creates prosperity, weak evidence of the impact of foreign aid on economic growth, and scant evidence of impact at the project level, there are still many calls for increasing government foreign aid. Virtually all studies and examples of countries that have moved out of poverty, however, underscore that prosperity does not depend on foreign aid.”

There’s another reason we should be allowed to donate privately, rather than through the government: It feels good. Arthur C. Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University, told Reason Magazine, “Brain scientists have… noted that when people give they actually get opioids. Endorphins are released into their system. It’s called the ‘helper’s high,’ and it is actually medically observable. That complements the psychological explanations-there’s something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving.

“Nobody has ever reported any brain science suggesting that you get an endorphin rush when you pay your tax bill.”

So, in response to both Harvard economists and relatives, there is nothing pathetic about the foreign contributions from America, except for the fact that so much of it is wasted when it gets filtered through the government.

Edwards nailed the problem with Hillary Clinton - she is the quintessential politician in times when that is not needed for the country.

Clinton is the frontrunner right now for the Democrats. She is running a very polished campaign, and has far more experience than most of the other candidates. This has given her an early leg up on them.

She is attempting to reform her image into a kind of moderation, someone who people on both sides of the equation can accept. But this is not what America needs right now.

For the past eight years, the current president has been a polarizing figure. His policies have allowed the radical right wing of America to push policies. Scandal and corruption have been commonplace in the Bush administration to the point of where it, along with incompetence, is now the American norm.

President Bush is rapidly losing approval from the American Public, but yet he has no incentive to listen to us. He’s in his final term, and will continue to push his policies despite what the American People want.

Still, he has a big group of support. Because he claims to be a God-fearing, Jesus-loving Christian who is concerned with the collective morality of America, he will never lose the support of his “peers.”

I don’t think the democrats should try to appeal to these types of people. They cannot be reasoned with and are extremists. To try and deal with the religious right in America would be like bending over backwards in negotiations in the War on Terror. It cannot be done and would be an exercise in futility.

Our government needs a drastic change. We don’t need former administrations controlling our government. For the past two decades our government has been run by either a Clinton or a Bush. If Hilary is elected, Bill will continue to ride her coat tails and influence her policies. Being that we almost impeached former President Clinton, why would we effectively put him back in office? Do we really want to extend this trend, or do we want to fight for change?

I have discovered in my recent past that some people I know, whether from a lifetime ago or a more recent buddy, have gotten engaged without the steady job or place to live.

So when I heard the news the first thing that came to my mind was to wish them congratulations and the best of luck. The second thing that came to my mind was something like, “What are you thinking? You’re only 22 years old!” At this time in my life I'm not too interested in having a steady girlfriend, much less getting married.

There are so many things you have to do post college and pre-marriage. Besides the job and residence, I have found that one has to experience some self-discovery before they can settle down.

According to an article written by Dr. Neil Clarke Warren, the founder of eHarmony.com, “When your identity process is well developed-when you are clearly in touch with the person you truly are-the task of selecting the right marriage partner becomes significantly easier.”

I take self-discovery to mean personal reflection to see what kind of person you really are and what kind of person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Get out there and meet lots of people. Travel the world. Buy a sports car. Start a business. Jump out of a plane. Don’t give yourself the opportunity to have regrets at age 30.

It seems to me that some people just get married because society says they have to and they rush into a partnership that is in no way ready for something that permanent. Years later, they realize that they’ve become a stranger to themselves and wonder what they have been doing.

The article also brought up some important facts to me as well. “The divorce rate for those who marry at twenty-one or twenty-two is approximately double the divorce rate for those who marry at twenty-four or twenty-five. From my clinical experience it is clear that the divorce rate for couples under twenty is incredibly high, maybe as high as 80 to 85%.”

When I read this my jaw hit the ground. But it started to make sense. I was always taught to wait until you have a steady job and some money saved in the bank before getting married. Love is not going to pay the bills. Marriage can’t write a check for the electric bill.

So take my advice, wait a little bit to get married. Get all your ducks in a row. If it’s meant to last forever, what’s a few more years?

Graphic By Paul Jarema, Production Manager

According to ABC News, Carey seemed cool and confident about replacing the legend, even saying, “As long as Bob Barker is cool with it, the fans will be cool with it.” (msnbc.msn.com/id/19919509)

Barker said he’s cool with CBS’ decision, but really, are the fans cool with it? I’m not sure I am. I have doubts about if Carey is going to fit into what people expect from the “Price is Right.”

Doubt #1: His humor is too “adult” for Price is Right. I know, I know, Price is Right is mainly watched by adults, but the largest audience for the Price is Right is the elderly. The humor used in “The Drew Carey Show” and “Whose Line is It Anyway?” often contained double-entendres and sexual comments, which may offend the elderly watching the show.

Many would say that Carey would know he has to be a bit more conservative with the show, but I think that a conservative Carey would still be a bit too racy.

Let’s take a look at Carey’s current prime time game show, “The Power of Ten.” I have not had a chance to watch more than a couple episodes, but in the episodes I’ve seen, Carey has been more conservative than his stay on “Whose Line?” It fits a prime time audience. However, I haven’t seen the humor that seemed appropriate for the main “Price is Right” audience.

My second doubt is somewhat humorous. Barker was like the Hugh Hefner of Game Shows. He had a plethora of beautiful women behind him to display the prizes. These women, known as Barker’s Beauties, fit the overly-tan and suave Barker.

Not only do I have a hard time picturing Carey with the same beautiful women without laughing a bit, but I also have a hard time coming up with a name for the ladies. What could they be called? Having them called anything other than “beauties” is not the same.

But maybe Carey will do just fine. Maybe the doubts I have will really be attributes. But for some reason, I just don’t think that will be the case. Let’s take a look at that with doubt #3.

Katie Couric’s move to CBS (bear with me here) is a prime example of what ca happen. “The CBS Evening News” was popular when Dan Rather was the lead anchor. When Couric stepped in, fans did not like the change. Ratings have dropped steadily for the evening news program (newsbusters.org/node/12616)

Even though “change is good”, fans can’t take it. If it’s not what they’re used to, they could go to the other 119 channels they have to choose from. Game Show Network (GSN) always has a good game show on (currently Match Game and Super Password at the 11 a.m. slot, some of the network’s most popular shows) and the audience could easily switch to GSN.

The change from Barker to Carey, at this point, seems fairly drastic. It’s not like they brought in Chuck Woolery (my wish for Barker’s replacement), who was charismatic and a bit of a ladies man. It would have felt very similar to Barker’s “Price is Right.”

Because of this, I worry a bit about the future of my favorite game show.

Carey will step onto the Price is Right stage on Oct. 15 at 11 a.m. I know I’ll be watching it. I want to see how Carey fits in Barker’s shoes.

We first need to start with what is most important to the majority of college students, and that is how much money we can save. While the dorms are competitively priced in terms of rent, heat, electric, phone, internet, and cable TV, not everyone wants to pay extra for cable TV or internet. I opt to not receive cable TV, and receive free internet from my apartment. This saves me about $60 a month. On campus, students don’t have this option. On top of that, while rent may be similarly priced, the amount of space that is being paid for is severely reduced. Students are paying about the same rent for a one bedroom dorm as I pay for a two bedroom apartment.

Also dealing with cost, there is the factor of food. When living in most of the dorms on campus, a student is required to buy a meal plan. From my experience, most students say the campus food is sub par at best. With the current cost of a 15 meal plan being $1,881 a semester, students are paying $188.10 a month on food. That is almost the same amount of money my family spent on food each month. Yeah it’s convenient, and there’s a lot of variety, but if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it. We shouldn’t be forced to pay for something we don’t need.

To get a closer look into what sort of issues students have with campus housing, I talked to a former Ferris student and residence advisor Gary Schrader. Schrader had many interesting incidents to point out in regards to safety, service, and policy. In terms of safety, Schrader said that many of the dorms lack maintenance. He cited one incident involving up to 10 fire alarms going off without explanation. Schrader said that he tried to contact maintenance to come fix the problem, but due to it being a holiday no one was able to be reached. Eventually someone was reached, and the alarms were shut off, according to Schrader.

The director of Housing Services, John Shaffer refuted this by looking back into the fire alarm records. He said that there was only record of three fire alarms going off because of a failure in the mechanical room. According to Schaffer, adjustments were made to a pressure valve, and the problem was fixed.

I can’t say who is telling the truth or not, but the fact that there are opposing stories show there is a bad relationship between this RA and the Housing Office. Students and administration should be able to work together on improving the housing environment without hostility. If any students have a problem with anything in the residence halls, they need to talk to the hall representative to the Residence Hall Association.

In regards to service, Schrader was disappointed to see most of the computer labs removed from the residence halls. This does seem to be an inconvenience, though Schaffer supported the decision by saying a study was done to see where the computers were most used. He also stated that by removing some labs, they were able to provide a Mac lab for the graphic design students. This is beneficial for some and sacrificial for others.

The biggest concern for me, and I think for most students is the freedom of choice. While it is beneficial for freshman to live on campus, upperclassmen should be able to decide what best fits their needs. College is a time to mature, and being confined to the dorms is counteractive to this notion. Both Schaffer and Schrader recognized that most students would prefer the option to live on or off campus after their freshman year, but the policy is still the same. Yes the wheels of change turn slowly, but we should be able to at least see that they’re turning.

Your front page article, “Tuition Increases Due to Deferred August Payment From State” is comparable to interviewing the foxes about why they are ruling the henhouse.

Tuition does not need to be raised at all when Ferris is sitting on over $60 million in an unrestricted reserve fund. CMU’s tuition increase of 21% has to be divided by 4 years, since it is a fixed rate increase for incoming students. How generous is Ferris after all, when it ranks fifth in tuition costs among 15 public universities in Michigan? Tuition increases have been steadily increasing much greater than inflation over the last decade irrespective of state funding. Sadly, the state engages in no financial oversight and accountability regarding public university expenditures. Just look around this campus and ask the question: what does this have to do with higher education? Expensive plasma televisions, a ridiculous, new “ski slope” walkway between two buildings, administrative and legal overhead spending worthy of a Fortune 500 company, and more planned building projects to jack up operating expenditures which students will pay for. “Long Live Ferris State Corporation!”

Your parents and you need to write your legislators and ask for an independent commission to investigate public university spending.

Roosters and Hens Unite! Don’t Get Scrambled! Demand Better Feed at Lower Costs!

Donald Roy, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Political Science