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

Roger Clemens was wrong to request a congressional hearing in order to address his accuser and it is an inappropriate way to try to get the truth out.

In a report by Congressman Mitchell, Roger Clemens was named by his trainer, Brian Macnamee, as being one player who knowingly was injected with human growth hormone and steroids. Even though other players named have confirmed Macnamee’s claim, Clemens vehemently denies it, and
Clemens and his lawyers have requested a congressional hearing where both men are questioned under oath as to the validity of the claims.

Whether Clemens is guilty or not, this is not a correct way for our tax money to be spent. There are much more appropriate ways for someone to address accusations. If he didn’t do it, as he claims, then he can sue the trainer for slander or libel. He can also deny it and be interviewed on television saying so.

Clemens heyday was during what’s known as “the steroid era” of baseball. Some of his closest friends have admitted to using steroids and have corroborated his accuser’s claims. Clemens also had his best seasons when he was way past his prime years.

Because athletes are thought so highly of today and happen to constantly be in the spotlight, they can often abuse this power. No regular citizen who is accused of something can spend millions on attorneys and get their own personal congressional hearing in Washington in order to clear their name. He’s obviously abusing his power and influence.

Overall this shows how powerful and influential people can use their money and sway in order to get what they want, and do, indeed get special treatment.

President Bush has decided to continue spending Americas funds on over sixty operating stem cell research labs in the U.S.

The decision regarding the controversial issue is a terrible mistake.

In a press conference on August 9, 2001, The President announced his plan to use even more American tax dollars to support stem cell research. The bulk of the material used for stem cell research however, comes from aborted fetuses. Until now, the president has claimed to be Pro-Life. When Bush initially ran for the presidency back in 2000, he promised to champion the values of Americans and adamently spoke against abortion. Bush's recent decision goes against the values of the Americans who initially elected the president.

Continued spending on stem cell research is detrimental to the country as a whole. It is a drain on the already suffering American Economy. Bush's decision is a deceitful act against the Pro-Life voters who have supported the President throughout his term.

The decision is another blunder that reflects the president's inability to fulfill the duties he pledged to perform at the beginning of his presidency.

Once again, the president has chosen to completely ignore the beliefs of his supporters. His decision does not reflect the Christian values he claims to feel strongly about.

Strengthened by the decision, the practice of abortion will continue to be a rapidly growing trend among Americans. In an age where no one is held responsible for their own actions, President Bush has added to the deterioration of American values.

Paul Montoya

President Bush has decided to continue spending Americas funds on over sixty operating stem cell research labs in the U.S.

The decision regarding the controversial issue is a terrible mistake.

In a press conference on August 9, 2001, The President announced his plan to use even more American tax dollars to support stem cell research. The bulk of the material used for stem cell research however, comes from aborted fetuses. Until now, the president has claimed to be Pro-Life. When Bush initially ran for the presidency back in 2000, he promised to champion the values of Americans and adamently spoke against abortion. Bush's recent decision goes against the values of the Americans who initially elected the president.

Continued spending on stem cell research is detrimental to the country as a whole. It is a drain on the already suffering American Economy. Bush's decision is a deceitful act against the Pro-Life voters who have supported the President throughout his term.

The decision is another blunder that reflects the president's inability to fulfill the duties he pledged to perform at the beginning of his presidency.

Once again, the president has chosen to completely ignore the beliefs of his supporters. His decision does not reflect the Christian values he claims to feel strongly about.

Strengthened by the decision, the practice of abortion will continue to be a rapidly growing trend among Americans. In an age where no one is held responsible for their own actions, President Bush has added to the deterioration of American values.

Paul Montoya

George W. Bush exemplified ignoble self-service and cavalier disregard for the good of the country during the course of his campaign and tenure as President of the United States.

President Bush is little more than an unprincipled conservative mouthpiece and an inveterate hypocrite. He masks intellectual laziness with knee-jerk reactions and a belief that he governs by virtue of a privileged relationship with the Almighty.

In 1999 the ethically challenged Connecticut transplant agreed to become a lickspittle for conservative self-interest. By eagerly accepting corporate funding and drawing on the divisive tactics of a hateful little toady, George W. Bush maneuvered his way into office. Once there, he promptly reneged on a scientifically-accepted global environmental treaty. Afterwards, he engineered tax cuts designed for the benefit of his wealthy supporters and pushed through an under-funded education reform package comprised of little more than standardized test-taking. Subsequent to the terrorist acts of September 11, President Bush, adhering to halfbaked neoconservative theory, embarked on a unilateral power grab of global proportions: abandoning the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, his administration instead massaged flimsy evidence in order to launch a preemptive war on Iraq. Not content with leading the country into a morally bankrupt and financially ruinous quagmire, President Bush utilized the pretext of his “War on Badness” to engage in warrantless spying on United States’ citizens. He then appointed two duplicitous ideologues to the Supreme Court and further contravened Constitutional separation of power and Congressional intent by appending “signing statements” (snippets of specious legal reasoning) to legislation submitted for his consideration, veto or signature.

Each of these actions, and indeed the entirety of the Bush presidency, proves conclusively that a government based on the belief in a personal pipeline to a “higher Father” is vastly more totalitarian than one which adheres to the Constitution and has the slightest regard for the will of the governed.

Consequently, when confronted by even relatively complex issues, President Bush stands alone in the pantheon of great American leaders by being incapable of recognizing the law and deliberating in a reasonable manner.

Even if one accepts the largely manufactured differences of the “post-9/11 world,” President Bush’s actions are both a.) counterproductive; and b.) contemptible.

The vast majority of the decisions made by President Bush and his administration have been ill-founded, badly conceived, poorly executed, extravagantly expensive and, in large part, operate to the detriment of the United States. For these reasons, he is well-deserving of the punishment meted out to incompetent or evil rulers in Biblical times, that of scourging and abandonment in the wilderness.

Neil Young is wrong in saying that a song can't bring about change in today's world.

Neil Young is wrong in saying this because songs continue to bring about change and unite people.

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. He elaborated further, saying that the world has changed and it's an action, commitment to science, and/or spirituality that will bring about change, not music.

Young's statment is incorrect because even today there are still songs that act as anthems to unite people and music that influences it's listeners to bring about change. Age groups, charities and movements will adopt a song as their anthem, solidifying their base. Even DMC of the rap group "Run-DMC" admits that is was one song that inspiried him not to commit suicide and to turn his life around.

Young is a hypocrite, as he continues to write songs advocating change in social issues yet makes a statment that tells people not to believe in them. He has betrayed his fellow musicians by rubbing out the importance of their work and the gift of music they bring to the world. He has betrayed his own listeners who felt stirred to make an impact after listening to Young's songs, such as "Ohio".

Young's statement was highly inappropriate and insulting at a festival that brings artists, including musicans, together. Moreover, it was inappropriate to say at a time when politics in America are subject to an immense change, encouraging artists to write about the changes they hope to see.

Young's statment is pessimistic and discouraging. It erases hope from people who write music with personal messages about the future who hope it will bring about change. Young's statments belittles the blood, sweat, heart and tears that artists put into and personal change that connection to a music brings about within. It also robs the people of the importance of uniting, being inspired and inspiring others through song.

Holly Power Plant, East Austin's most dependable power source, has been closed.

The decision to shut down this plant is a terrible move by the City of Austin and Texas Energy, and with this, they are putting our fair city at risk.

Sure, Austin's electrical grid is pushing to become more green, and yes, the Holly Power Plant is fairly unattractive, but where will Austinites turn if we suddenly need to power our homes when these other sources prove to be inadequate? The Holly Power Plant, burning fossil fuel we can depend on, will keep us powered no matter what - unlike the wind farms and solar panels. And, if you don't enjoy living next to the literal heart of our city, then move! There are plenty of other neighborhoods in Austin if you don't enjoy being next to the plant.

The City of Austin is certain that this is the right move, but have they thought about ALL the possible consequences? What if our wind farms blow over in a sudden storm, or our solar panels are hit by hail - what then? Will we be expected to live without our television shows and air conditioning?

The city has been pushing and pushing to make our city greener, but what makes them such a credible source? They don't know the long term impact of any of these decisions - including shutting down this power plant.

A more appropriate course of action would be to keep the power plant open - to insure our comfort and safety - and instead plant some trees or flowers nearby if residents are unhappy and refuse to move.

I personally see no overall benefit to this action, and feel that it will be the one decision that pushes Austin back to the dark ages very soon. If we give up our expensive but stable power sources - those burning natural gas, coal, etc - in exchange for unstable free alternatives, we're letting the terrorists win. America is about ridiculous excess, worry free pollution, and power surplus - I, for one, do not want to sacrifice my beloved way of life in my city just because a few hippies believe in global warming. And if it is getting warmer, we'll need this power plant for our air conditioners.

-Daniel Kietzer

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

Prime Minister Erdogan and his parliament were actually entirely wrong to do this, as they have abused their powers by enacting a law which, according to many, threatens the secularism of Turkey.

Nearly two weeks ago, 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. The new act voted in by the government will open the university gates for women who cover their heads.

This decision was ill-considered because it will allow the continued oppression of those women whose heads are shaved by their brothers as a means of forcing them to wear head scarves.

Prime Minister Erdogan has a history of a level of conservatism to which a sizable amount of Turkish people do not subscribe, and rather are staunchly opposed to.

This action becomes entirely inappropriate in that it is against the will of numerous Turkish people who have chosen to do without such a law.

The idea that such a lifting of the ban endangers the secular establishment of the country, goes against the will of an innumerable amount of Turkish people, and most significantly propagates further subjugation of Turkish women, completely overrules any possible benefits of this law.

The University of Texas at Austin President, William Powers, was not right to administer the plus/minus grading system.

President William Powers did not receive an overwhelming need from faculty or students to change the current grading system to a plus/minus grading system.

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 wrong to change to plus/minus grading because the University is not requiring the whole faculty to use pluses and minuses. The difference could lead to inequities for students with different professors teaching the same course.

President William Powers made the wrong decision of endorsing the new plus/minus grading system because the UT-Austin administration did not support the motion for a new grading system.

Plus/minus grading will initiate greater stress for all students especially, highly competitive students, because they will not be rewarded with an increased GPA for earning an A+ grade.

The plus/minus grading system will have a negative effect on minimum GPA requirements because a student cannot maintain a 2.0 GPA by just earning C-minuses. Similarly, “A” students must now achieve a grade of 93 or above to maintain an "A" in any given course.

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 an overprivileged school with an academic tradition grounded more in ideology than in good decision-making and a naive and impulsive administration.

For years, academic papers have been protected from piracy by copyright law and the control of the distributing publishing authority, which ensures that the authors retain as many of their rights to their own intellectual property as possible, and makes sure they gain recognition and perhaps even some amount of compensation for the hard work they do.

Harvard's policy change will undermine the valuable academic tradition of publication, will weaken what control authors currently have over the product of their own painstaking labors, and will start a overall cheapening of the traditional academic institution.

It is unsurprising that Harvard University would be an institution to make a decision like this. The administrators at this historically progressive university have undoubtably come under the impression that any idea will work, so long as the scheme seems beneficial to them, and the reputation of their university. As a result, it would seem that they've taken little care to examine the broader implications of their decisions.

As file sharing, and rampant piracy across all facets of intellectual property become more and more prevalent, it is important, now more than ever, to draw the line between the information we protect and the information we make freely accessible. If there are no absolute standards of control over the distribution and attribution of our most influential academic discoveries, we risk eroding the very foundations of the modern academic establishment.

Overall, this decision, as it has been made by the administration of Harvard University, will do much to damage the interests of educators and researchers alike, and to use modern technology to subvert the already rapidly decaying standards of credibility in the academic world.

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

The FDA was wrong to approve the sale of cloned foods because they are clearly favoring the meat packing industry and cloners and are creating controversy among the majority in the public arena.

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.

This course of action was incorrect because the FDA created controversy among consumers, farmers, ranchers, meat packers, health organizations and interest groups such as PETA.

The FDA, who is responsible for the public’s health and safety, has been under the scrutiny of the public eye lately because of their relaxed attitude when monitoring the safety of prescription drugs. If the FDA cannot properly ensure the safety of prescription drugs then they definitely cannot ensure the safety of eating cloned animals.

After legalizing cloned meat and dairy products the FDA had to ask clone producers to keep their products off of the market because of public scrutiny.

With stores like Whole Foods and Central Market thriving—who sell organically raised meats and dairy products – there is currently no market for cloned meat and dairy products. Therefore the FDA’s legalization of such products proves to be of no real benefit to the consumer.

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

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, a product of weak-kneed politicians pandering to their constituencies, is an ineffectual panacea that does nothing to address the deep, systemic problems that underlie the teetering American economy.

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."

It is not at all certain that the stimulus package will have its intended effect, because only taxpayers will receive the rebates. Those people who do not pay taxes, generally the most needy and thus the most likely to actually spend the rebates, are completely shut out, with the probable result that the desired boost will never be delivered to the economy.

Neither the President nor Congress are acting in the best interests of the nation. President Bush, with an approval rating hovering above absolute zero, would do anything to salvage his train wreck of a presidency, and the representatives and senators who make up Congress, mindful of the upcoming elections, are more interested in the appearance of action than in truly addressing the problems of the national economy.

The timing of the stimulus package further exacerbates its imprudence. Congress and the President are giving billions upon billions of dollars back to taxpayers at a time when the U.S. budget deficit is close to an all-time high, an act of gross fiscal irresponsibility.

Because of its failure to get money into the hands of people who truly need it and its poor timing, the economic stimulus package, concocted by President Bush and Congress, is unlikely to be of any benefit to the nation’s economy.

Congress and President Bush gave 2007 taxpayers a rebate of $300-$1,200.

They are wrong to give this rebate because it gives money to people that will not spend, and the act only disguises the growing problem with 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.

The expected results of this stimulus are not certain. A large portion of the rebates are going to people who are more likely to save the money rather than use it to fuel the economy.

President Bush and Congress are only issuing this rebate out of self-interest. Bush is about to end his term, and this move will help him leave office in a more favorable light. Congress voted for the rebates because it is an election year, and they do not want the American people to be swayed due to no rebates.

This stimulus is not appropriate. The wrong people are getting a lot of the money, and the problems with the economy are too complex to be solved by a simple tax rebate.

The rebates will not pump the economy back up, and the country will continue to sink toward recession. President Bush and Congress effectively dumped $168 billion into a landfill.

Philip A. Kerr

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’s decision to implement Emancipation Proclamation to free slavery was not the best decision because it was fast and not planned correctly.

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 congressmen 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.’”

It is not certain how the country would have been if President Lincoln had not issued Emancipation Proclamation. Maybe the country could have settled it a different way and the definition slavery could have been modified differently to be more efficient for the country.

President Lincoln “privately detested slavery” and it is not credible to say that he made a decision to put into action Emancipation Proclamation strategically for the stability and unity of the country. He could have easily acted emotionally to the situation because he was pressed with limited time.

President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was placed into action at a time when quick action in decision making had to be made. It was inappropriate for him to act so quickly and not look into other options. He probably just wanted to be known as the President who ended slavery and kept the country as one. He wanted to be remembered as a hero.

We don’t know what the possible outcome would have been if Emancipation proclamation had not been issued. Slavery could have been worked out differently and changed to benefit the country as a whole to better the economy. The economy could have been booming today because the cost of labor would have been minimal and the benefit of production would have been plentiful.

Anadeli De Jesus

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

The members of the school board were not careful enough in their budget planning to allow room for all educational necessities as well as taxes.

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.

If the Wimberley school board continues to withhold this payment, the state could take action, redrawing district lines so that the Wimberley ISD will lose property and in return, funds that could be used toward the education of its students.

The members of this school board are not accountants; they do not work in the financial field. Therefore, they are not authorized to say for sure whether or not it would be impossible for them to be able to pay state taxes while purchasing educational necessities.

If the school board had problems with the tax money interfering with their own budget, they should have expressed them earlier than right before the payment's due date. If they had done this, they probably could have reached a solution with the state. The school board only waited until now to gain publicity.

Although the school board is making claims that the "Robin Hood" tax is denying their students benefits, by refusing to pay this tax, the members of the school board themselves are hurting the students. Consequences of the school board's refusal to pay will most likely include diminishing educational funds for students in the district.

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

Romney showed disrespect for the election process by removing himself from the presidential race so early in the nomination process. By placing his desire to save face above his plans for the nation, he has left Republican voters with no other candidate to choose besides John McCain. Supporters of his conservative platform are left without a candidate they can fully support, which will further splinter the Republican Party and make hopes of winning the White House more unattainable.

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 chose the easy way out - to quit - rather than to stand and fight for his convictions. His decision to suspend his campaign made John McCain the only likely candidate for the Republican nomination. Without another candidate in the race, Republicans must choose between backing McCain and voting for a candidate who has virtually no chance of winning the nomination. With two candidates in the nomination race, each candidate must spend time defending and clearly outlining their positions. Now that McCain is the only candidate, he will focus more on wooing swing voters than convincing his own Party that he is able to lead them. As a result, the Republican Party will be less united.

The decision to step aside was the incorrect choice of action because conservative Republicans, without a candidate they can fully support, will contribute to the growing unrest within the Party. The fractures in the Party will only become more clear as the election process moves on, and without a united Party it is unlikely that a Republican will win the presidency.

Romney was a selfish candidate who cared more about saving face than he did about furthering the interests of conservative Republicans. He valued his own ego above the wishes of those who supported him, and left his party wondering what happened to their choice of candidates.

Romney’s decision was inappropriate given the nature of this year’s political elections. The delegate races have been close in both Parties, and momentum has shifted repeatedly. By dropping out quickly and unexpectedly, the Republican Party has no other candidate able to win the nomination besides McCain. With so many dissatisfied Republicans, however, it is unlikely that a Republican nominee will win the national election.

Romney’s decision to suspend his campaign ultimately will weaken the Republican Party by contributing to the huge fractures within it.

Statement to be refuted: 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.

Not only has George Mitchell brought intense scrutiny to Baseball, he has directly contributed to the sport declining in overall popularity.

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, adorned with harsh criticism, named 89 players believed to have used, or be using illegal enhancing drugs in Baseball. Despite the MLB players association calling for wrongdoers to be punished in house, Mitchell went public with his findings much to the chagrin of MLB brass.

Before this report was made public, all stars like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were sure Hall of famers with great legacies and legions of fans. Now with this cloud of uncertainty about their achievements not only has the Mitchell report served to undermine records held in high esteem in the game, it has also planted seeds of doubt in fans causing them to abandon baseball.

George Mitchell was not the correct choice to conduct the investigation. He is a director of operations for the Boston Red Sox, who coincidentally did not have a single player named while the arch rival New York Yankees had several prominent team members named. Not only did this conflict of interests distort the report, Mitchell also did not attempt to explore the role the teams played in the allegations.

The publishing of the report was inappropriate because all the reported names are simply alleged to have taken some form of drugs or steroids, however there is no certainty or proof to any allegations. Such speculation should not be spread into the baseball community until all allegations are proven so it doesn’t ruin a reputation or condemn an innocent man.

Overall the benefit of exposing 89 players to authorities in the MLB and subjecting them to strict discipline without any substantial proof not only caused a form of hyper-tension within club houses in the sport, it also opened up a can of worms where anyone can be accused without proof and smeared without cause. The report also came at a time when baseball popularity was beginning to grow and served to cut the legs out from under the sport and throw a veil of criticism over it once again.

Levi’s Jean Company recently launched a televised ad campaign with an alternative gay ending.

Founded in 1853, Levi’s has been a prominent corporation for many years, however, the company has pushed its boundaries too far.

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 where they went wrong, Levi’s runs an alternative commercial with a man inside the phone booth instead of a woman.

Before this commercial, Levi’s was able to appeal to many people of different backgrounds, but its recent decision to openly support homosexuality has severely limited its ambiguous appeal. Homosexuality is often received negatively in the United States. Using it in an advertisement is bound to cause some controversy among more socially conservative americans that may stop buying from or even protest against Levi’s.

This was bound to happen however; Levi’s has long been supportive of the homosexual community and were the first Fortune 500 Company to offer domestic partnership benefits. Also, they have run several print ads aimed at homosexuals in the past. Although neither of the the acts were widely publicized, it was only a matter of time until Levi’s brazen social activism began to cause conflict with their consumers.

Levi’s should not have used the ad with the alternative gay ending. Then they would have saved money and kept themselves from losing a large amount of their client base.

Ultimately, Levi’s decision to run a television ad appealing to the gay community ended up turning a large group of consumers against the company and probably lost more money than the it was intended to make. The company would have been better off taking a more socially conservative approach to advertising, then they would not have lost such a large group of clients.

The Texas Legislator rejected Governor Rick Perry’s order for sixth grade girls to receive mandatory Human Papilloma Vaccinations.

The Texas legislator who are unknown lawmakers who carry out laws for social and political gain were wrong to reject the HPV Vaccination order.

After seeing the national attention Governor Rick Perry received On April 26, 2007, The Texas Legislature rejected the Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination that would prevent sixth grade girls from getting cervical cancer . The legislature made this decision while Governor Perry was visiting the Texas-Mexico border where tornadoes killed ten people. Before his return, the Texas Legislature produced a bill that blocked state officials from requiring the vaccinations for at least four years. This decision was made because Governor Perry unknowingly gained national attention that made the Texas Legislature outraged. Legislators promised to do whatever it took to overturn his order saying “the vaccine is too new to force on Texas families.”

It is not certain whether the Texas Legislator should have rejected Governor Perry’s bill so soon; therefore they should reexamine the cost and benefits with the future of all six grade girls in mind.

Its hard to believe that Governor Perry a man re-elected by Texans to serve a second four-year term as governor, would be so inconsiderate that he would put his own needs before the needs of children who may be at-risk of getting cancer.

The Texas Legislatures’ rejection to an anti-cancer vaccination was inappropriate and done out of spite. They made their decision based on the national spotlight Governor Perry received rather than thinking about the possibilities and options parents could have for their six grade daughters future.

The rejection of the governors’ bill was unreasonable and serves as an injustice to the lives of young girls; who by the time they are young adults may be at-risk of being diagnosed with cervical cancer.

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

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade organization only interested in maximizing its clients' profits with no regard for emerging technology, digital democracy, or even the benefits file-sharing have for the actual artists.

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 has chosen the incorrect course of action because, among other things, it would be more effective and, by some interpretations of copyright law, more legal to sue the companies that facilitate file-sharing.

The RIAA claims to be protecting the rights and royalties of the recording artists, but in reality represent a recording industry that has a notorious and long tradition of ripping off the artist and ensuring that these artists get as little rights and royalties to the music they create. The money retrieved from lawsuits inevitably gets split between the RIAA and the record labels, while the artist is lucky to see any of it.

Suing college students is not the appropriate action for the RIAA to stop file-sharing. Not only does it shift responsibility away from a more effective target (the file-sharing facilitators), it puts emphasis on a specific demographic within the file-sharing community who are also the most likely to spend money on the music industry, including not just albums, but concerts, music magazines, and merchandise. By singling this group out, the RIAA might slow down file sharing, but it will also alienate its biggest market share as well as its most educated and vocal, thus risking boycotts and protests.

If the RIAA continues these lawsuits, it will only succeed in demeaning and alienating a core group of the economy. Any reduction in file-sharing will be slight and temporary, but in the end the technology is too easy, too available, and too free for the RIAA to stop file-sharing by simply attacking file-sharers. The only long-term effect they will see from suing college students is an entire generation, for years to come, remembering and resenting the RIAA's greedy invasive tactics.

In early August of 1945, at the behest of President Harry S. Truman, atomic bombs were dropped on the populous Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

President Truman was a crooked, corrupt president. He was investigated in scandals involving expensive gifts to senior administrative officials.

The Japanese military bombed the US Air Force base at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, thus prompting the US to enter World War II. The US military-- on orders from President Truman-- opted to end the war by bombing two heavily populated Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of people instantly, with more to come.

In addition to killing over two hundred thousand civilians the year the bomb was dropped, President Truman's decision has had far-reaching consequences to this day. Bomb victims are invisible to the public eye, as Japan is dog-eager to maintain good diplomatic relations with the US.

President Truman, in addition to being corrupt (and therefore unpatriotic in his refusal to honestly lead his own people), was a hypocrite, instituting the "loyalty oaths" that Joseph Heller lampooned in Catch-22. His decision to use the bomb was cowardly and unimaginably stupid and short-sighted.

Dropping the bomb on civilians in a military conflict was cowardly. In its avowed purpose of scaring the government into leaving the war, it amounted to terrorism on a scale never seen before or since.

The radiation from the bomb has caused unimaginable suffering, in the form of death and disease. Babies are being born today who are warped and frail as a result of Truman's cruel decision.

Ajai Raj

Dr. Paul is running for president of the United States as a Republican this year.

Dr. Paul has caused many problems with this candidacy and never should have run.

Dr. Paul decided to run for President in order to spread his message. 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." He has spread his ideas and gained substantial attention, taking this attention away from the ideals of the Republican party.

This was not the correct course of action because he has taken media attention away from other candidates who have a chance to win. The attention that he has gained has also created tensions within his party that are not beneficial.

This is a most inappropriate time for Dr. Paul to run for President. We are fighting a war and we must all support our troops, but Dr. Paul has used his candidacy as a forum to criticize the President and the war. This could have waited for another time.

This act has not been beneficial. It has caused divisions, not dialogue. This candidacy has caused divisions in the Nation and the Republican party at a time when we all need to work together. Thus, this action has caused many more problems than benefits.

In November 2007, the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) incorrectly went on strike.

The WGA was wrong to do this because they were already receiving adequate benefits without the internet revenue for which they were striking.

The WGA struck in November of 2007 after they had asked for and were unable to obtain direct revenue 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. However, they were already receiving extra exposure to other networks and credit for each showing, and their exposure and increased likelihood to be hired again was comparable to the monetary costs they received from traditional TV broadcasts. After a three-month strike, 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.

This was an incorrect action because the WGA was already effectively being paid. Their TV shows were open to more viewers, who were more likely to tune into the TV broadcasts later, for which they were paid; they were also receiving increased exposure as writers and were more likely to be hired at larger salaries.

The WGA lied about their lack of compensation because they were already being compensated, although not monetarily, for internet broadcasts.

The WGA was wrong to strike because there are more effective ways of dealing with their employers which would not have resulted in public ill-will and would have been more beneficial for both parties. Talks should have been kept up.

The WGA also hugely injured their own industry and the American economy, which was already struggling, putting their own and thousands of other jobs in even more danger.