every 2-3 years. People do this because they believe intheir car manufacturers. People want consistency in theirau<strong>to</strong>mobile manufacturers. For example, my mom used<strong>to</strong> drive a Volvo XC90 (and she liked it). It was quiet, nice,fast, and very well constructed. We <strong>to</strong>ok it <strong>to</strong> the dealer 3times in three years for a regular service checkup; the carheld relatively low maintenance.<strong>The</strong>re are also a large amount of people who love Americancars; they have driven American cars all their life.However, American cars have superseded features thatleave virtually no impact on foreign car companies.For American car companies <strong>to</strong> get back on theirfeet and rise up from the huge economic decline, theyare going <strong>to</strong> need <strong>to</strong> give their cars a new life. <strong>The</strong> firstcompany <strong>to</strong> do this was Ford. Ford has taken all their carsand made every single model from the Ford Fusion <strong>to</strong>the Ford F-150 better. GM and the other major car companieshave been slowly doing what they can <strong>to</strong> followsuit. Ford now has the most potential out of any other carcompany within the U.S. <strong>The</strong> only way this will change isfor the other companies <strong>to</strong> create products people want<strong>to</strong> buy. <strong>The</strong> entire point of this article was <strong>to</strong> explain thebad reputation American cars have had, and how Ihave myself witnessed the poor quality. If only AmericanCar companies could restart, rebuild and res<strong>to</strong>retheir au<strong>to</strong>mobiles <strong>to</strong> higher quality then they may beable <strong>to</strong> earn their place in the au<strong>to</strong>motive network.Good things for American au<strong>to</strong>mobile manufacturersmean good things for the city of Detroit. I mean afterall, this is the Mo<strong>to</strong>r City.Capital Punishmentby Jacob Osborn<strong>The</strong> amount of death row exonerates by stateis as<strong>to</strong>nishing. Since 1973, there has been 138 peoplein 26 states released from death row with evidence oftheir innocence. This is an alarming figure. If in fact thesenumbers are true, than there is a good chance that manymore innocent people are currently stranded on deathrow. With advanced forensic technology, can we reallyafford <strong>to</strong> maintain this current gauge?After 1973, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, and Floridaall have more than 10 people exonerated from statepenitentiaries. However, in 2004, a man named CameronWillingham was not among these numbers. <strong>The</strong> case ofMr. Willingham has been in the news recently. He wasconvicted of murdering his three children by arson in a1991 house fire. He was then executed in 2004. A newreport from a national arson expert, prepared for theTexas Forensic Science Commission, has concluded thatthe original investigation of Willingham’s case was seri-ously flawed and could not support a finding of arson.Unfortunately, defense at<strong>to</strong>rneys generally move onafter the accused is dead, and courts never entertainclaims of innocence after the defendant has beenkilled; they move on <strong>to</strong> more cases.People believe that courts are <strong>to</strong> blame. <strong>The</strong>yattribute false testimony and biased jurors <strong>to</strong> poorjudicial rigidity. One Oklahoma resident said thatcourts were “a promise of justice on an un-weightedscale.” Although courts in Oklahoma (Texas, Illinois,and Florida) do have the aforementioned problems,they do yield <strong>to</strong> claims of innocence after the accusedis sentenced. <strong>The</strong> fault is not made clear between thecourts and investigative officials. <strong>The</strong> only thing that’sclear is that innocents are dying as a result. Needless<strong>to</strong> say something must be done.In my opinion, capital punishment is irresponsible.<strong>The</strong> fault lies not only within the state courts but lieswithin the hands of those carrying out the investigations(i.e. forensic commissions). If in fact these thingsceased <strong>to</strong> exist than I am certain the amount of innocentson death row would decrease rapidly. That is not<strong>to</strong> say that there will be flawless investigations timeand time again.However, why institute capital punishment in thefirst place? It marks irresponsibility in our nation’shis<strong>to</strong>ry. We assume that “equality” brings equal punishment<strong>to</strong> such exact extents that we find ourselvesback in the realms of Hammurabi’s Code. <strong>The</strong> truthis, capital punishment does not bring back one life.So what am I proposing? Am I suggesting that weharbor all these dangerous criminals at the taxpayer’sexpense? Well, yes. I would pay <strong>to</strong> keep these men offthe streets and I would never look <strong>to</strong> escape spendingmoney at the expense of another’s life. Regardless ofcost, prison is no cakewalk. Rotting in a prison cell is ahell of a lot worse than getting put down by “the manin the black hood.”In conclusion, our nation must strive <strong>to</strong> brushaway from their ideas about capital punishment.Most people you meet now ask “why should we have<strong>to</strong> pay money for the crimes they have committed?”Current beliefs about capital pun(if you’ve gotten thisfar, you’ve exceeded espectations)ishment are (for themost part) faltered <strong>to</strong>wards the general populationand prison inmates. Low court rigidity and poor investigationslead <strong>to</strong> many falsely accused persons. If oneis <strong>to</strong> instate capital punishment, these things must bereformed. Perhaps those in Congress (after this wholeeconomic crisis thing has been figured out) could providethe public with prison policy reform. Maybe thenwe could allow our prison system <strong>to</strong> work the way itwas meant <strong>to</strong>.
Horoscopesby Federica JonasAries: You will find yourself losing everything. Thismay or may not include earrings, your backpack, thelast piece of gum, and pants.Taurus: You’re in the month of Sarah Holloway, so ifyou’re a tennis player, try not <strong>to</strong> break your ankle.Gemini: Your parents ‘forgot’ <strong>to</strong> mention that youhave a twin sister named Ethel who lives with youraunt and uncle in Tennessee. This month, while on atrip down <strong>to</strong> visit the old coots, you’ll get <strong>to</strong> meet herand her 23 pet opossum.Cancer: Hmm… this is ironic, you’re the crab yetyou’re deathly allergic <strong>to</strong> them. So, you might want<strong>to</strong> relinquish that 12th crabcake and head over <strong>to</strong> theER.Leo: This month is not a zoo going month for you,lions are fiercely attracted <strong>to</strong> you. But not in a ‘oh let’sbe friends’ kind of way but in an ‘I’m a wild animal andyou look like easy prey and the zoo food sucks’ kindof way.Virgo: Happy birthday! It’s your birthday month andyou get the best present of all: school. Enjoy that essayand those conjugations.Libra: Lucky you, you’re going <strong>to</strong> be on a boat! Toobad you didn’t see that rogue iceberg…Scorpio: You’re having a good month! Sucks thatall your friends are going <strong>to</strong> be ‘out of <strong>to</strong>wn’ for themonth. Or year.Sagittarius: Don’t text and drive, the stars tell methat a squirrel will make its way in<strong>to</strong> your car andyou’re going <strong>to</strong> need every ounce of concentration <strong>to</strong>get him out before he chews up your seats and givesyou rabies.Capricorn: It’s time for a change in your life. Perhapslearning how <strong>to</strong> square dance will put some spicein<strong>to</strong> your life.Aquarius: Your i-pod will fall in<strong>to</strong> the sink whilebrushing your teeth, but it serves you right for trying<strong>to</strong> be cool and listening <strong>to</strong> your i-pod while dealingwith water.Pisces: Ducks are not your friends. I know it’s fun <strong>to</strong> throwthings at them, but seriously, don’t. they’ve been plottingyour demise and will execute their plan if provoked.Long Live Roe(Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life)BySarah HollowayIt is one of the most heated <strong>to</strong>pics facing theSupreme Court <strong>to</strong> date. From the early 1900’s until the1960’s, law prohibited this procedure. In 1973, Roe vs.Wade, written by US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman,gave women the right <strong>to</strong> make decisions abouttheir bodies. Before that time, about 260 recordeddeaths occurred in the United States because the procedurewas not yet legal. Approximately 1.2 million ofthese now-legal procedures are performed each year.<strong>The</strong> procedure that has everyone “buzzing” is abortion.Abortion can be defined as pregnancy termination,an accident, as in a miscarriage, or by choice. In1973, when the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Courtcase was decided, which made abortions legal, hundredsof federal as well as state laws had been proposed orpassed. Abortion has become one of the most visibly andlegally active areas in the field of medicine. Some controversiesthat address these laws are the issue of parentalnotification, the progression of the pregnancy and atwhat point termination is considered <strong>to</strong> be taking a life,the manda<strong>to</strong>ry waiting period before an abortion canoccur, the regulations applied <strong>to</strong> abortion providers, thepublic fund use for abortions and the different rules andcases involving sexual assault and rape. Although theethics of abortion is a widely debated <strong>to</strong>pic, I believe thata woman’s right <strong>to</strong> choose is part of her own personalfreedom. <strong>The</strong> ruling of “Roe vs. Wade” should be upheld.Some people do not agree with the ruling of “Roevs. Wade.” <strong>The</strong>se people are often called anti-abortionistsor “pro-lifers,” believing that, immediately upon conception,a new life is beginning. <strong>The</strong>ir main argument is thatno matter when it occurs, abortion is killing a human lifebefore it has a voice and the “pro-lifers” believe that noone has the right <strong>to</strong> take the life of another. Jane Roe,the woman behind the “Roe vs. Wade” case, has comeout against abortion, blaming herself for thousands ofdeaths following the landmark decision in her own case.She speaks now about the guilt faced by her as well asother mothers who made the decision <strong>to</strong> have an abor