Food fight Upfront essay by Aidan Arbona

In the most recent article of Upfront magazine by scholastic a topic which had been brought up was if other countries should be allowed to market items that were named after or for a place in Europe where it was made. They also think that by banning American companies from using the European names on their products that European food companies will be able to record better sales in America. These presumptions are both wrong as most of the founders of the companies that make these foods in America were immigrants from that country who brought with them their recipes. Also as studies have shown Americans are baragain hunters and American foods will always be cheaper to buy than European foods.

In the late 1800's millions of people started immigrating to America. Many of these people came from European nations, bringing with them their culture. So the people producing these foods in America more often than naught were taught these recipes from their parents   and then decided to sell them for a living eventually making their small business a mass produced monster.

Also most Americans love deals. This is shown by the sales of mass produced foods and dinks such as "Budweiser" and "Bud Lite". These two beers have certainly never been respected as the best beers on the planet yet the Budweiser company according to Forbes.com is worth more than $20,000,000,000. This is because when compared to import beers each package of Budweiser is much cheaper. This is because of import taxes which raise the price of imports generally by around 10%. Plus State taxes so a once five dollar beer is now a seven dollar beer.

In conclusion if the European Union made America ban the use of putting European names on American foods they are disrespecting their family which immigrate to America, they are also putting themselves at a great financial risk as Nobody would buy their product over an American product. To round things off as Senator Tammy Baldwin states"Frankly...some of our Wisconsin processors are making better forms of [cheese] products than the home countries.

Romeo and Juliet Essay by A. Arbona

In the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, two star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet, are kept apart because of their families’ feud, and eventually end up taking their own lives. If I were asked who was to blame for these deaths and all of this suffering, I would say that Tybalt is the cause of these lovers’ deaths. This is because if he had listened to his uncle’s orders neither he nor Mercutio would have died in Act Three.  If Tybalt had not challenged Romeo and fought with Mercutio, then Romeo would not be exiled and Juliet would not have had to partake in the Friar’s plans.

In Act One, Scene Five, Tybalt shows to Capulet that Romeo is at their party Capulet answers by saying “Content thee gentle coz. Let him alone.” Which shows that Capulet wants to keep the peace and therefore is less to blame. If Tybalt had listened to Capulets’ orders, then he would not have sent his challenge to Romeo which would have stopped the accidental encounter of Mercutio and Tybalt. This would have eliminated all chances of Tybalt fighting Romeo. Which would erase the tragic ending to this play. It would also end up saving four lives or more, which were unavoidable after this event.

 If Tybalt had listened to Capulet’s orders, this would have stopped Romeo from killing Tybalt to avenge Mercutio’s death, then Romeo would not have been banished after the skirmish between himself and Tybalt. It is clear that Romeo did not want to fight, as he says in Act Three Scene One, “Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee doth much excuse the appertaining  rage to such a greeting.” However Tybalt does not listen and instead fights and kills Mercutio. Due to this Romeo, feels that he must avenge Mercutio and kills Tybalt in a duel, leading directly to his banishment, when the Prince says that because he killed Tybalt “… immediately do we exile him hence…” If this fight had not taken place it would have prevented the series of events leading to the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.

While you may argue that Tybalt is not to blame for their suicides, as he had no role in the events occurring after Romeo’s banishment, the death of Tybalt is a major reason for why Capulet decides to arrange a marriage for Juliet immediately.  In Act Five Scene Three, Lady Capulet says, “Well, well, thou hast a careful father, child, One who, to put thee from thy heaviness, Hath sorted out a sudden day of Joy…” The threat of the marriage made Juliet take the sleeping potion that would ironically be the cause of Romeo’s death.

In conclusion Tybalt is at fault for the deaths of the star-crossed lovers, because if he had acted less rashly, Romeo and Juliet would not have killed themselves. They might have found a way to run away together and live happily for the remainder of their lives. However maybe it was a good thing that it ended the way it did because peace could not be brought to the families in any other way.