In response to Emily Nieto in  http://redvsbluewhatisture.blogspot.com/2012/05/abortion-should-it-be-legal.html

The abortion cases are the sole reason we have a "right to privacy" in the first place. It was an important milestone, in civil rights for American citizens when Roe v. Wade depicted that abortion is legal in the United States. An abortion is a private matter, and the mother should have every right to make a decision whether or not to have her baby. Roe v. Wade opened many doors for us, the "right to privacy" was found in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. Penumbras meaning a area of partial illumination, so that means the "right to privacy" was never actually worded in the Constitution or Bill of Rights! However, since the fetus is considered a citizen, the rights of the fetus gradually increase and the mothers rights decrease as the pregnancy goes on. It is a smart idea to divide it up into trimesters where the rights for each individual (mother and fetus) change. And I completely agree with this process because as the fetus comes closer to birth, it is considered murder to abort it. It has life, a beating heart, feeling, it is a human being and it would be very cruel to kill a baby so young as that.   

I commented on Mantu Nguyen's post on 'The Politics and Government Blog' about the war on terror that has been happening for the past decade, and the status of withdrawing troops from the middle east.

You're right Mantu, President Obama has been promising that our troops would be coming home in the next few years. But the only thing he is doing is just causing more distrust in the U.S in foreign relations by keeping the occupation of Afghanistan on check. By this time in 2012, we would have hoped that our military would be in the withdrawing process. Obama is only hurting us by keeping our troops there and potentially cause another conflict with its surrounding neighbor countries. I believe we have done our part in this war, we have had our justice on the infamous Osama Bin Laden. Why not get out before we start another war on terror, or more terrifyingly ~ a nuclear war.

Frivolous lawsuits in the State of Texas have become a problem where people use meritless means to sue a major company for a ridiculous amount of money. Lawyers exploit the courts in order to make millions of dollars off of conflicts that aren't really that big of deal. But supporters of the Tort Reform claim that these incidents require compensation to the victim. Sometimes the numbers of these compensations are a bit ridiculous. In 2007 a man sued a dry-cleaning company for $65 million dollars for losing his pair of pants. What's funny is the man who is filing the lawsuit is a judge. The owners of the dry-cleaning store supposedly found the pants, but Roy L. Pearson Jr. claimed they were not his pants which drove this case over the roof. Cases like these show the kinds of people that are out to get you in the world. The same situation happened with McDonald's over coffee, a woman sued McDonald's over her coffee being too hot! Corporations should be scared of people like these, because cases like these could ruin peoples lives. The owners of that dry-cleaning store would be ruined because of a man who cares more about his pants than the well being of another person. These cases are a waste of tax payers money and is completely out of league. I believe that the federal government should intervene on cases like these, the only problem is who is to say that a case is frivolous or not?

The Washington Post - Gulf War III isn't an option

Eugene Robinson published an article on the Washington Post, yesterday February 24, 2012. His argument was if, or when the United States attacks Iran for its acquisition of WMD's (weapons of mass destruction), will the outcome of the war be good or bad? Robinson's post is mainly targeted toward the American public. This post must let the people understand and realize the potential effects of a possible nuclear war with Iran could do. Robinson states "the only war for a 'rogue' government to survive is to make a bomb." This idea that Iran could possibly have or be working towards making a bomb scares many Americans, therefore war is questionable. In my opinion, if we were to go to war with Iran right now it could help us, and it could hurt simultaneously. The good side of the war is that it could pull us out of this "Great Recession" that the country has plunged into, similar to the way World War II pulled the United States out of the Great Depression. The bad side could be the fact that the potential use of nuclear weapons could scar the land surrounding Iran, and worsen the United States foreign relations with the middle east. One of the options that was suggested regarding the Iranian WMD's is to delay the progress. According to Robinson, simple attacks on Iran would not be enough to hold them off on creating a bomb. We would have to launch a full scale bombing campaign across the country of Iran. I believe the war is inevitable, and Iran is becoming a powerful enemy to the United States and in order to delay or prevent them from acquiring dangerous weapons of mass destruction, we must go to war. 

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/to-boost-grant-funding-ut-may-opt-for-2164964.html

The University of Texas on February 9, 2012 announced they may consider making the UT Campus tobacco-free. For all those anti-smokers out there this could be your big break! A big contributor to UT funding, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, announced that in order for them to grant UT more money they must maintain a tobacco-free campus. Adrienne Howarth-Moore, UT's director of human resource services said in order to keep receiving grants they must be tobacco-free by March 1, 2012. I think this article would be interesting because it promotes a health lifestyle and also because our very own campus here at ACC went tobacco-free at the beginning of this semester.