Roger Clemens requested a congressional hearing in order to address allegations that he was knowingly injected with human growth hormone and steroids.

Roger Clemens has been a phenomenal baseball player on the field and a great person off the field, helping charities and non-profit organizations. He has a great reputation and is right to face these accusations in this way in order to bring about the truth.

In the Mitchell report, Roger Clemens was accused by his trainer, Brian Macnamee, of knowingly being injected with Human Growth Hormone and steroids on multiple occasions. Clemens has adamantly denied any and all of these accusations. Furthermore, he has requested a congressional hearing where both he and his trainer will address these accusations, and if they both stick to their stories, one will purge himself.

Clemens was right in doing this because someone has to be lying. He has taken the bull by the horns and showed that if someone accuses him of a crime that he claims he did not commit, he will not take it lightly, as no one should.

For over twenty years Roger Clemens has been playing major league baseball and has won numerous Cy Young Awards and set many other records for pitchers. He has never been accused of cheating and has not once failed a drug test.

Athletes in the spotlight are often mistreated by people around them due to their high profile status and their wealth. Roger Clemens demanded that these false allegations be taken seriously, so seriously that either he or his accuser has to commit a felony if they lie to congress, and open themselves up to a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Overall this shows people that some people won’t just lie down and absorb accusations that they claim are false. It sets an example; if you lie, some people are willing to take it to the top in order for the truth to come out and in order to keep their character from being tarnished.

The RIAA is right to file lawsuits for copyright infringement against end-users who download and share copyrighted music files.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade organization entrusted to protect the rights of the record labels and distributors it represents and the artists and musicians associated with those companies.

The RIAA, in an effort to discourage the file-sharing of the copyrighted music of artists they represent, has engaged several methods including bringing lawsuits to companies who host file-sharing servers, bringing lawsuits against companies who produce or distribute file-sharing software, and working with legitimate online music stores, such as the iTunes store, to offer a legal alternative to file sharers. Many of these companies have moved their servers to countries like Switzerland where US copyright laws can't be directly enforced. They have also brought lawsuits against individuals, referred to commonly as end-users, as young as 12 years old. Recently they have focused these end-user suits to college students sharing on campus, perceived as the largest demographic involved in file-sharing copyrighted music.

The RIAA is correct to bring these lawsuits against college student end-users since its attempts to strike at the distribution system were too easily thwarted, its efforts to "legalize" file-sharing by means of online sales have not significantly decreased illegal file-sharing, and its earlier lawsuits against young children and average citizens brought a significant amount of negative press against the organization.

The RIAA, as protectors of artist and record label copyright, is not self-motivated to enforce copyright laws, but motivated by its promise to the artists and producers they represent that they will be compensated for the time, hard work and talent they spend to make quality music.

Because many college students practice file-sharing copyrighted music, the RIAA has the right to sue them. Because they are one of the highest demographics guilty of this activity, the RIAA is smart to concentrate efforts at this group instead of the general population, and because college students generally are considered privileged and educated, this means they don't elicit nearly as much sympathy from the press and public as children and working-class citizens will.

Because the RIAA brought about these suits and will likely continue them if needed, they have instilled respect for their clients' rights as well as brought the illegal file-sharing to the attention of both the administrators of the universities and the parents of the students, who will now be much more likely to endogenously enforce file-sharing and, hopefully, greatly minimize the overall amount of illegal file-sharing.

Student Government is right in allocating funds to student organizations on campus.

Student Government is a major organization on the UT campus and gives the students a voice on important manners that affect students' college careers.

UT's Student Government is a well-established organization that has been a major voice on campus for years. Because Student Government values student organizations for support and dedication to UT, they continue their efforts to make sure funding is appropriated wisely to various UT student orgnizations. They help organizations get funding for various events like Sigma Phi Omega's Parents' Weekend and Texas Asian Pan-Hellenic Council's Women's Empowerment Week. This is just one example of Student Government's funding that ensured student organizations' success.

They were correct in allocating funds to student organizations on campus because they helped organizations without the funds gain resources to continue their events.

Student Government is a governing body made to give a voice and support students on campus.

Student Government was made to give students a voice on campus and has the power and right to appropriate funds to various student organizations on campus for specific events.

Student organizations can get funding through Student Government when more resources are needed to ensure an event's success.

Christine Achico

(The school board actually voted to pay the tax Tuesday night, after I chose the topic, so this confirmation praises their actions before Tuesday night's vote. They still plan to fight the state on the amount of money they owe, however.)

The Wimberley school board was correct in refusing to pay taxes under Texas's "Robin Hood" laws.

The school board is doing a good thing by making sure students in their own district are getting the best education possible before thinking about finance laws.

On February 4, 2008, the Wimberley school board unanimously passed a resolution that stated the district would be put in financial jeopardy if they handed over the $3.2 million they owed to the state. After this outright refusal, the school board said they would be willing to go to court to resolve the resolution. The finance law under which Wimberley ISD owes this tax is often criticized. Under the law, property rich school districts must pay higher taxes to the state. These funds are then redistributed to poorer school districts, so that all students can receive "equal education." However, if a property rich district refuses to make payment, district lines are redrawn so that the district loses property.

The school board has stated that there is no room in their budget for necessary repairs on district buildings or for educational supplies. The tax money owed is doing the exact opposite of its purpose: it is getting in the way of money provided for students' education.

The Wimberley school board is made up of people who work in education, and they have the best idea of what it is their students need.

The members of the school board chose to pass this resolution a week and a half before the payment was due. By doing this so close to the deadline, they are sending the message that they plan to stand firm. If they had made this decision months in advance, there would be skepticism and the possibility that they could renege on their action closer to the payment date.

By taking a stand against this finance law, the effect will hopefully be an adjustment of the oft-criticized law so that it is fair for ALL school districts and allows enough funds to provide for all students equally.

Holly Power Plant, the disgusting eyesore polluting East Austin, has finally been closed.

This decision has been long overdue. For years, the Holly Power Plant has existed as a safety hazard, an environmental hazard for those who share it's location, and has blemished the natural beauty of our city. Shutting this plant down is a just and proper measure.

The power plant, which opened almost decade ago, burned natural gas. There is no telling what this pumped out into the local water table, and into the air for east Austin residents to breathe day to day. The plant had caught fire twice in it's life - not exactly the most assuring for local residents. Since it was confirmed that the power plant would no longer be needed to power Austin, there was no reason why it should still be running.

With all the negative factors stacked against it's existence, the shutting down of the Holly Power Plant couldn't be more necessary. As Austin pioneers the transition to greener cities across the US, this action is stepping stone to our goals.

A number of non-profits were involved with the push to shut things down, including Environment Texas and People Organized in the Defense of the Earth and Her Resources. These two groups have worked to insure that Texas and Austin are working towards environmental improvement as well as social justice for those living in Austin. Their involvement with this particular issue only exhibits it's importance.

With the plant closed, Austin residents can now live with cleaner air, seeing how the plant is no longer pumping out toxic waste into our atmosphere. There is less of a concern regarding water contamination, there is less mechanical noise droning on at night, and soon, the scar of this structure will be cleaned from view. For Austin residents, this action will undoubtedly improve the overall quality of life in the area.

This is one step in the long journey to ease our city's dependence on non-green energy, and to improve the lives of east Austin residents. It will produce benefits that our city will enjoy for a very long time.

-Daniel Kietzer

On August 9, 2001, President Bush was accurate in his decision to allow federal funds to be spent on the sixty plus stem cell research plants already in existence.

President Bush has made the correct decision that takes into account the opinions of the largest possible number of Americans.

The President determined that America should "proceed with great care" in the area of stem cell research. The stem cell research centers already in existence are to receive continued federal funding while no more labs will be constructed. Further, The President opted to name a council to monitor the ramifications and the ethical practice of stem cell research.

The Presidents decision mirrored the duality of public opinion. It is the only logical policy to appease both sides of the issue. While respecting the views of most of America, the decision also contributes to the greater good of the nation as a whole.

President Bush has consistently made courageous policy decisions that uphold the majority values of The American population while simultaneously allowing America to benefit from various types of scientific research.

Moralists are satisfied that further exploitation of human embryo's will not occur, while America is still allowed to benefit from the work done in established research labs. The decision takes a strong moral stance on the issue while honoring the benevolence of the actual research that has been done.

Scientists will continue to explore the possible gains that can be achieved from stem cell research, however, the research will be kept under control so that The President's team will be able to effectively observe it. Those who can benefit from stem cell research will still have the freedom to do so while those who oppose it for whatever reason are content that the practice will not advance further.

Paul Montoya

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling AKP party were right to remove the ban on head scarves at universities.

Erdogan and his AKP party have done wonders for the Turkish people and their country over the course of the last six years. Their leadership has served the nation extremely well with exceptional social and economical advances for the country, which is currently witnessing a 7.3% average annual growth rate, and has nearly doubled it's per capita income to say the least.

This past weekend the Turkish Parliament voted to overturn the ban on head scarves at universities. The ban on the head scarf first implemented in a secular movement in the early 80's made it impossible for women who chose to wear the Islamic head scarf to attend universities. A hotly contested matter, the law has prevented an innumerable amount of Turkish women from receiving higher education. The new act voted in by the government will open the university gates for all women.

The removal of the ban clearly was the correct step in a more progressive Turkey as it now allows all academically eligible persons to attend institutions of higher education.

Erdogan and his AKP party (Justice and Development Party) are entirely correct in doing this as they are listening to their massive constituency of supporters who are against the ban, and at the same time, the majority of the commonwealth. The party took over the parliament in an momentous 2002 victory, legitimately gaining power with 34.3% of the popular vote. Moreover, their credibility was reaffirmed with the triumphant election of Abdullah Gul as the President of Turkey who also ran on the AKP ticket.

This was the proper action to take because though it is the idea of many secularists in the country that the overturning of the ban will set the country back it's "dark ages," it is an important concept for Muslims there who make up for over 99% of the population. Additionally, it must be noted that it is intrinsically nonsecular to federally mandate a law in regards to something that is of religious value and meaning for many. Here instead of separating church and state, one is inadvertently mixing the two again.

The new act is right and highly beneficial in that it affords head-covering women the opportunity to attend universities which they have been denied for over two decades.

Congress and President Bush were right to give taxpayers a rebate of $300-$1,200.

Congress and President Bush are well-informed and have made the correct decision in how to stimulate the economy.

The $168 billion stimulus was signed into action by President Bush on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 after the bill passed through both houses of Congress. Under the stimulus, anyone who has earned over $3,000 and has filed for taxes for 2007 will be eligible for the rebates. The move came in wake of the struggling economy and is expected to give it a much needed boost. President Bush described the stimulus as “large enough to have an impact” on the economy.

It is well-known that the economy has been struggling, and most economists agree that the stimulus will achieve at least short-term economic goals.

Congress and President Bush have only the interests of Americans in their hearts. The stimulus is targeted at middle to low income taxpayers, and there is no catch. The eligible taxpayers can do whatever they want with the money.

With the economy struggling, this move makes a lot of sense. If Congress and President Bush were going to address the economy, it is better that they did it sooner rather than later.

This rebate will put money into the hands of the people who need it most, and may turn this economic downturn around in the process. This stimulus is just what America needs.

Philip A. Kerr

Levi’s Jean Company made a clever move when launching a televised ad campaign with a gay twist.

Founded in 1853, Levi’s is a fashion veteran and a corporate mogul that has always dominated its industry. Having been around for so long, the company has learned to be thrifty.

Recently, Levi’s started running an ad campaign with a man putting on a pair of Levi’s jeans. As he pulls up his jeans, the street below rises up from the apartment floor along with a beautiful woman inside a telephone booth. The two exchange flirtatious looks, and then the man lowers his pants, steadies his ground, and yanks them on while bringing in the scene below. Finally, the woman steps out of the phone both and walks away with the man. Here’s the twist, Levi’s runs an alternative commercial with a man inside the phone booth instead of a woman.

Although homosexuality is sometimes received negatively, using it in an advertisement is a smart business decision in this case. Gay men have long been regarded as trendsetters, and influencing their demographic will ultimately influence more consumers.

Levi’s isn’t all business however; they have long been supportive of the homosexual community and were the first Fortune 500 Company to offer domestic partnership benefits.

Levi’s alternate ending strategy appeals to a wider customer base and is cheaper than running two completely different ad campaigns.

Ultimately, Levi’s ad campaign is an efficient approach to advertising, a smart business decision, and a positive step for the gay community.

On February 12th, 2008, Harvard University adopted a policy that requires faculty to make their scholarly articles available for free in a digital form.

Harvard University is a prestigious school with a solid academic tradition and a experienced and forward-thinking administration.

For years, academic papers have been locked away under licensing restrictions, commonly held by the initial publishers of the articles, which actively restricts access to the expanding field of human knowledge, particularly to those who might most benefit from it, such as interested college students.

This change in policy will not only help broaden the general population's access to scholarly works, but it will also contribute to the general search-ability and digitization of these important works for archival.

Harvard University is well placed to make this decision. It is prestigious enough to have both the funding and the intellectual resources to make the implementation of this new policy run smoothly, and it also has a great deal of valuable intellectual property to offer, so their adoption of this policy will be decisive, and have a wide impact.

Modern technology that has only recently come to fruition is rapidly making it easier and easier to store and preserve information, as well as easily retrieve it for later use. It is appropriate then, that an influential contributer to academic discourse would decide to use this newer information technology to better both it's own stores of information and the public's access to it.

Overall, this decision, as it has been made by the administration of Harvard University, will do much to further the interests of education and exploration, and to help expand the reach of academic discourse to both those who are active participants, and to those who are simply interested in the progression of human knowledge.

George W. Bush has exemplified courageous decision-making and unparalleled insight in the course of running for, and serving as, President of the United States.

President Bush is, among other things, a principled visionary and caring human being. He possesses the unique ability to “size up” potential adversaries by “looking into their eyes” and enjoys singular faith-based guidance.

In 1999 the “compassionate conservative” from Texas anticipated the challenges the country might face if a government led by Al Gore took the White House. Accordingly, by galvanizing enthusiastic corporate financing and drawing upon a Rovian brain trust, he prevailed in the election and assumed office. Once there, he immediately recognized the threat to business posed by the Kyoto global-warming treaty and withdrew the United States from the accord. Afterwards, he initiated massive tax cuts and signed “No Child Left Behind” into law. Subsequent to the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush quickly launched an offensive on global terrorism, first sending troops to Afghanistan to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, and then into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and create a peaceful Middle Eastern democracy. Not content to rest upon his foreign counter-terrorism laurels, he initiated robust domestic intelligence gathering, appointed two conservative constructionists to the Supreme Court and popularized the use of “signing statements” to lend insight as to the boundaries of Congressional authority.

Each of these actions, and indeed the entirety of the Bush presidency, proves conclusively that a government based on principles obtained from a “higher Father” is vastly more nimble and decisive than one bogged down by Constitutional quibbling or catering to the fickle goodwill of the populace.

For this reason, when confronted by highly complex issues, President Bush stands alone in the pantheon of great American leaders by being able to quickly “go with [his] gut” instead of wasting hours or days on study, review and deliberation.

Given the “different world” we inhabit post-9/11, each of President Bush’s decisions is appropriate in light of a new global paradigm, one in which citizens are truly free to support either a.) tough decisions; or b.) terrorists.

Consequently, every American owes President Bush a debt for reducing taxes, expanding Middle Eastern influence, unfettering foreign policy, increasing monitoring of potential terrorist communications, widening executive authority, and other activities initiated, but not yet known.

President Bush and Congress were right to enact the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

President Bush and the representatives and senators who comprise Congress are hard-working, dedicated public servants who always act in the best interest of the United States.

Working together, Democrats and Republicans pushed the stimulus package through Congress in less than a month, and President Bush signed the bill into law on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008. The measure is an effort to steer a slowing economy, troubled by a sub-prime mortgage crisis, away from a possible recession. The stimulus package will distribute approximately $120 billion in the form of rebate checks in the amount of $600 to taxpaying individuals making less than $75,000 and $1200 to married couples making less than $150,000. The rebate checks will begin to be sent out in May of this year and will take about 10 weeks to be completely distributed. As he signed the bill, President Bush remarked, "In the past seven years, the system has absorbed shocks: recession, corporate scandals, terror attacks, global war; yet the genius of our system is that it can absorb such shocks and emerge even stronger. In a dynamic market economy, our economy will prosper and it will continue to be the marvel of the world."

Economic indicators clearly confirm that the U.S. economy is heading toward a recession. The enactment of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will undoubtedly encourage citizens to spend money, provide a boost to businesses, and thereby strengthen the economy against any possible downturn.

The cooperation required to enact this bipartisan effort demonstrates the civic-mindedness and diligence of both President Bush and the members of Congress.

The rapid passage of the economic stimulus measure was a fitting response to recent economic indicators. If the President and Congress had delayed their reaction, the stimulus package would have been too late to be of any help in preventing a recession.

The enactment of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 by President Bush and Congress is a prudent action that will benefit millions of hardworking Americans by sparking the economy and preventing a possible recession.

The University of Texas at Austin President, William Powers, was right to administer the plus/minus grading system.

The University of Texas at Austin is an impartial organization that holds their students best interests in their highest regard.

In June of 2007, President William Powers approved the new grading system. The issue of plus/minus grading has been a highly debated topic at UT-Austin for the past few years. Several past surveys from faculty and students supported the use of plus/minus grading. The UT-Austin Graduate School adopted the new grading system without difficulty. According to the Association of American Universities, eighty percent of American schools use the plus/minus grading system. Each undergraduate professor, in the fall of 2008, will have the authority to decide whether or not to use the plus/minus grading system.

The University was correct in changing to the more universal system of plus/minus grading because it reduces grade inflation.

President William Powers made the right decision of endorsing the new plus/minus grading system because his Faculty Council recommended it.

Plus/minus grading will encourage competition between students and will also prevent students from earning a higher letter grade by underachieving.

The plus/minus grading system will provide a more accurate representation of student performance and will create a more distinguished line between borderline grades.

New Jersey Nets point-guard Jason Kidd has been traded to the Dallas Mavericks.

Jason Kidd has been an elite point-guard for years. He has not been able to win a championship with New Jersey and the trade to Dallas will give all parties involved the best chance to win.

In recent years, Dallas has disappointingly suffered early losses in the playoffs. Dallas owner Mark Cuban has sacrificed some of his franchise’s future to chase a championship. The trade sends five players and first round picks in 2008 and 2010, to New Jersey for point guard Jason Kidd and forward Malik Allen. The trade was unexpected in that early in the season Cuban commented that he didn’t think the trade would be completed.

When motivated, Kidd can still play the point-guard position among some of the best in the league. He desperately wanted this trade and Nets officials knew that they could no longer function as a franchise until they honored his wishes. This was absolutely the correct course of action for Dallas.
Additionally, the trade was correct for New Jersey because now with Kidd gone they have more money to spend on younger prospective players.

Many believed that there was an element of toughness and leadership that had been missing in Dallas, and team officials, Cuban included, believe Kidd transforms them. Immediately, this trade solidifies the Mavericks, who are third in the Western Conference, as a serious championship contender. Kidd brings playoff experience to an already hungry team.

After Western Conference teams such as the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns made big-name trades to acquire championship caliber players, the Dallas Mavericks were absolute correct in pursing Kidd.

The overall benefit can be seen being shared by both the Nets and the Mavericks. The Nets trade a player who was unhappy where he was playing, and in return receive 5 young players and more money to spend on rebuilding their team. The Mavericks get a top notch point guard and a solid chance at a championship.

Dr. Paul was right to run for president during the 2008 Republican presidential primaries.

Dr. Paul is a well respected doctor and Congressman from the 14th district in Texas.

Dr. Paul decided to run for President in order to spread his message of freedom and liberty. He began the campaign as a long shot that no one really noticed. However, after massive grassroots efforts he has managed to gain national recognition. He advocates reduced government agencies and laws and seeks to return to old conservatism. Dr. Paul writes in a message to supporters "Ron Paul is the only candidate not to give up on any state in the Republican race, and just as we competed strongly in overlooked states like Nevada and Louisiana, so too will we compete in Maine, Minnesota, and other states that the so-called "top-tier" candidates are content to ignore." Even though he may not win the nomination, he has already won. He has spread his ideas and gained enough attention that his message is not likely to be ignored.

This was definitely the correct course of action because he has already accomplished many of his goals. He also has a tremendous following, many people support him.

Dr. Paul understands the system of politics and the positions he advocates. He has written many books on books domestic and foreign policy issues. He has also serve in Congress for 10 terms fighting for the principles that he believes in.

This was the best and most appropriate time to seek this nomination because his message challenges the size and purpose of the government, which has exploded in growth under the Bush administration.

Overall, this bid for the presidency has greatly benefited Americans by opening a dialogue on the protection of our civil liberties and the nature of the government that many people take for granted.

President Lincoln did the right thing by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 to free slaves in “states still in rebellion”.

President Lincoln was a good person who, even though he belonged to a party that just wanted to stop slavery from spreading, made his decision for the greater good of the country to abolish slavery.

Slavery had been in place for about 240 years when Lincoln was elected to president in November 1860. President Lincoln belonged to the Republican Party that “sought no to abolish slavery but merely to stop its extension into new territories and states in the American West.” Soon after his election as president it signaled secession of seven Southern states and by his inauguration four more followed. “The Republican-dominated federal government” realized that with few pro-slavery congressman to back up slavery, it could be advantages to put forth the emancipation and weaken the Confederacy and strengthen the Union “by producing an influx on manpower.” After several warnings and annulments of past slavery laws President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, “formally issued Emancipation Proclamation, calling on the Union army to liberate all slaves in states still in rebellion as “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity. These three million slaves were declared to be ‘then, thenceforward, and forever free.’”

If president Lincoln did not act as he did and did not put into action Emancipation Proclamation, the United States would not have been so united today. The division of the country would have happened if the Union had lost the war and lost credibility for the action taken with Lincoln’s decision.

President Lincoln belonged to the Republican Party that didn’t want to abolish slavery but only stop its progress to other states. Lincoln “privately detested slavery” but did not act upon his feelings but looked towards the future and how he could keep the nation from becoming two. President Lincoln acted strategically on the facts that emancipation would give more power to the Union and weaken the Confederacy and regain control of the nation.

President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was placed into action at the perfect time because if he had waited a month or two later, the division among the states would have been permanent. It was literally month’s differences that could have ended it all. For example, from the time the 13th amendment was ratified to the time Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, was three months.

If it wasn’t for the quick strategic action taken by President Lincoln to put into play the Emancipation Proclamation, the United States that we know today would not exist. That period of time in history was critical to the unity for the states to be one.

Anadeli De Jesus

The Texas legislator was right to reject Governor Rick Perry’s order for sixth grade girls to receive mandatory Human Papilloma vaccinations.

The Texas legislator consists of well known and respected lawmakers who carry out laws based on fairness and equality.

On April 26, 2007, The Texas Legislature rejected Governor Rick Perry’s Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination order by sending him a bill that blocks state officials from requiring the vaccinations for at least four years. This decision was made after a long battle at the Texas Capital early February between the the House of Representatives and the Senate. After seeing Governor Perry making national headlines requesting the executive order, the Texas Legislature became outraged that the governor had acted without consulting them. Legislators promised to do whatever it took to overturn the order saying “the vaccine is too new to force on Texas families.”

It has been established that the Governor did not respect the decisions of the House and Senate before making a major decision. No parent should be coerced into having their sixth-grade child take a newly marketed drug without knowing its effectiveness.

After a six hour emotional public hearing, The Texas Legislature approved a bill barring state officials from requiring the vaccine for school attendance. The decision was made based on the moral and ethical respect of citizens and not on political expectations.

The Texas Legislatures’ rejection was appropriately timed, because Governor Perry was about to make a (new-to-the-market) vaccination mandatory for sixth grade girls without knowing the vaccinations’ effectiveness.

The rejection of the governors’ bill was reasonable, since it saved the Texas government from future lawsuits and court hearings against millions of sixth and future sixth grade girls who could risk getting sick or having a allergic reaction from the HPV Vaccination.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was correct to legalize the sale of cloned meat and dairy products from cows, pigs, and goats.

The FDA is an allegiant organization that has been devoted to protecting the American public’s health since the Supreme Court created it in 1927.

Because the FDA was unsure of the health risk involved with cloning they requested producers to keep their cloned meat and dairy products off the market. On January 15, 2008 the FDA released a “final risk assessment” concluding that there is ‘no evidence that food products derived from adult somatic cell clones or their progeny pose a hazard i.e., there is no evidence that [clones] present a food safety concern.’ The FDA'a nine hundred and sixty eight page “risk assessment” was finally released eighteen years after they began to compile data and conduct research.

Legalizing the sale of cloned meat and dairy products was a correct action on behalf of the FDA because they are not hazardous to the public’s health.

The FDA's decision was fair and was based strictly on scientific, factual evidence. They collected data and compiled research, from as early as 1990, into a nine hundred and sixty eight page "risk assessment" to display that there is no risk involved with consuming cloned food products.

Because the FDA’s mission is to ensure the public’s health and safety, reaching a decision about the safety and sale of cloned meat and dairy products was indispensable.

Clone producers can now continue to develop and market a less expensive and more consistent product to consumers because the FDA determined cloned meat and dairy products to be safe.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the right decision by removing himself from the presidential race.

Romney had the strength of character to set aside his own personal ambitions for the good of his party. Romney proved that he cared more about the good of the nation, which he felt would best be served with a Republican in office, by allowing the Republicans to unite around a single candidate.

On February 7, Mitt Romney announced the suspension of his campaign following his defeat in several crucial states on Super Tuesday. In the face of his defeat, Romney decided to step aside for the benefit of the Republican Party. His decision to suspend his campaign made way for John McCain to become the probable Republican candidate. Though he had done fairly well in the primaries, he recognized he would likely not be able to win the Republican nomination. In his speech, Romney reiterated that given the current political climate, having a conservative president in office was most important- even if he was not that president. He stated, “If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

The decision to step aside was the correct choice of action because Republicans can now begin rallying around a single candidate.

Romney was a strong contender who possessed many leadership qualities. Those qualities had made him a successful businessman and a popular governor of Massachusetts. His strong character and aptitude for business helped him to come to his decision.

Romney’s decision to bow out was appropriate given the nature of this year’s political election. With much of the country unhappy about the presidency of George Bush, the Republicans needed to unite the factions in their own party to have a chance of winning a national election. Romney provided the opportunity for Republicans to unite around a single candidate by suspending his campaign.

Romney’s willingness to put aside his own hopes for the presidency benefited the Republican Party, and provided a better opportunity for a Republican candidate to win in the national election.

President Truman was right to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the dark days of World War II.(*)

President Harry S. Truman was a brave and principled man. He began the desegregation of the military, coined the phrase "the buck stop here" to indicate that he would not shirk his responsibilities. He was a strong leader much needed by the United States during the Second World War.

In early December of 1941, Japan, ostensibly a US ally, bombed the US Air Force base in Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, giving the United States no choice but to enter the war against the axis of evil. President Truman opted to end the war by using the recently-developed nuclear bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Although many lives were lost in the bombings, many more American troops would have perished in a US invasion of the Japanese homeland. Truman did not make the decision lightly, and surely it could not have been an easy one; however, history has vindicated it as the correct one.

Many U.S. scholars rank him among the top ten presidents the United States has ever had. Truman also began the desegregation of the armed forces, which demonstrates even further his principled character.

War demands sacrifice; by making the decision to use the bomb, Truman saved many American and Japanese lives in spite of the cost of dropping the bomb.

The decision to drop the atomic bomb ended WWII months earlier than would have otherwise been the case. It brought a decisive end to the unspeakable carnage the world had already endured, and ultimately saved more lives than it cost.

Ajai Raj

(*) please note that this does not reflect my opinions in the slightest; I just thought it would be good exercise.

George Mitchell was right to publicize the names of all baseball players accused of steroids in his report he submitted to MLB commissioner Alan H. “Bud” Selig.

George Mitchell is a former Senate majority leader, U.S prosecutor, and ex-chairman of the Walt Disney Company who holds moral principles in high standing. He is a seasoned investigator who ethically conducts active inquiries when called upon.

In August 2005 Alan H. “Bud” Selig appointed George Mitchell to conduct an investigation into the use of anabolic steroids and Human Growth Hormone (HGH) in Major League Baseball. The probe lasted for 20 months and was published as the 409 page Mitchell Report in December 2007. The report, despite harsh criticism, named 89 players believed to have used, or be using illegal enhancing drugs in Baseball. Despite the MLB players association, which Mitchell said was “largely uncooperative,” he was able to expose numerous players and force the MLB to adopt stricter drug tests and penalties for those guilty of using steroids.

Mitchell was correct in publicizing who took steroids because the game was rapidly losing its all American persona due to dirty players and the idea of the balanced playing field was becoming skewed.

George J. Mitchell was a graduate of Georgetown Law and served as senator of Maine for 15 years. From 1987 to 1989 he was the Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and from 1989 to 1995 he served as the senate majority leader. During his career he repeatedly weighed the costs of exposing wrongdoers and spent the majority of his life dutifully examining the law.

Making his findings public was appropriate due to the prominent names that were discovered to have broken the rules. In a world where superstar players were kings the punishments would have been far less severe had Mitchell let the disciplining take place “in house.” It is important to take the bull by the horns in this situation to make sure that other players realize there are consequences for cheating.

With the Mitchell Report setting a record for downloads on ESPN.com millions of people have read over the document and educated themselves on the problem of steroids in major league baseball. Making the report accessible to everyone and forcing Selig to publically handle the situation, served to protect the diminishing integrity of the game in what was briskly becoming a drug filled era in Baseball. Now the re-building can begin in the MLB and perhaps it can restore some of its former luster and get back to being “America’s Pastime.”

Neil Young recently stated that music can't save the world anymore and he's right.

Neil Young is a succesful, famous musician well-known for his commitment to music and to social change. He wrote anti-war songs like "Ohio" and a call for social change in songs like "Rocking In The Free World". He also performed with Crosby, Still & Nash at Woodstock and has collaborated with and influenced many music artists of today.

At a film festival in Berin, Neil Young stated that "The time when music could change the world is past--I think it would be very naive to think that in this day and age. The world today is a different place, and that it's time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and to try to save the planet." He elaborated further, saying that in today's world, it's an action, a revelation or a new way that can change the world, but no longer a song.

Music is no longer the social force it was when Neil started out in the 1960s and 70s. It's highly commercial, cookie-cutter and more fragmented and individualized than in the past. Therefore the conditions for a single song to unite people to bring about change is over.

No one knows better the force of music than Neil Young, who has seen it harbor social change in the past and contributed to that era. Therefore no one would know better than he when that force is lost.

Neil is calling for change at a time it's desperately needed: This country is at war on several fronts, the economy is slipping and the environment is in peril.

Neil Young's statement is so alarming that it will direct people's attention and efforts to forces that will make a difference in today's world, rather than relying on romanticized forces of the past.

The strike by the Writer's Guild of America was a correct action.

The Writer's Guild of America (WGA) is a fair organization dedicated to obtaining just pay and treatment for its members.

The WGA struck in November of 2007 after they had asked for and were unable to obtain payment for online versions of TV shows. Because they had written the shows and received royalties for all television broadcasts, the WGA thought they were entitled to similar royalties for internet broadcasts, especially considering the unfettered advertising income gained from them. The only costs to pay on an online showing are server and bandwidth costs, making them extremely profitable, but the writers themselves saw no profit and decided to strike. After three months, they obtained a lump sum and royalty percentage deal for every online showing of a TV show they helped write, although animated shows and reality TV are not included in this deal.

The writers were correct to strike because they had exhausted all other avenues and their employers weren't budging.

The writers had no way to lie about royalties they received from internet broadcasts; television stations were clearly receiving all the revenue from advertising.

Because the writers made both the television and internet broadcasts possible and are an indispensable part of the creation of both, they should receive compensation for both.

Because the writers struck, they received new contracts which gave them compensation for their work, so clearly the action was correct.