Gun it

I hear Kingston is having a heck of a time right now and people should be afraid, if not more, of the civilians with weapons than they are of the police. Turns out some of the civilians who are working for a drug lord have guns that are out of this world. Does that mean they need more gun control? Let's venture back to our country and analyze.

What are guns supposedly for?

We have the right to bear arms for self defense. It seems that people feel safer with a weapon around. If there were a ban, then these people would feel unsafe. Maybe that suggests the neighborhood is rough. Then I ask, why is the neighborhood rough? High unemployment? Nothing for the delinquent kids to do? Maybe it's because the cops aren't doing a great job. Then I ask why this? Pay is not good? Uniforms are ugly? Could be many reasons so it's worth the effort getting to the root of the problem. Guns are the byproduct of something bigger.

On the other side of self defense are the ones providing the offense. The Kansas Gun Experiment consisted of cops going out to homicide hotbeds or frisking people during traffic stops as means to compensate guns. The offenders are put away, but when they are returned back into the atmosphere they are overwhelmingly a huge percentage of those who use guns for illegal purposes. That's right, repeat offenders are the bulk of illegal conduct as opposed to those who claim self defense. The experiment has done quite a bit to decrease crime, although, again, hitting the core of the problem would be even more resolute.

Another excuse for allowing ammunition is for the militia. Yes, we can go bully Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua, Sudan, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Chile. And there's more. We can take our guns out and tell other countries what to do when it's in our best interest even though individuals can't do this at home. I would think that the government should lead by example. In the cases listed before, we were not threatened. The only thing at stake was an opportunity to acquire resources thus making us a powerhouse.

So now Jamaica is increasing in the number of casualties. Why? Because there is a huge drug problem that is hitting the U.S. so we want to bring the leader down. The guns involved should not be the main blame. Without guns, there would still be trafficking. Without guns, there would still be robberies. Without guns, there would still be domestic abuse. And without guns, the U.S. could drop bombs over Baghdad. Solve the deep issue and perhaps most of us, too, would be without guns.

You are allowed to read this.

China blocks Twitter and Facebook. Now Pakistan blocks YouTube and Facebook. Initially I was appalled, I'm on FB every other day, but then I thought, should I be so upset?

The U.S. has a history of censorship dating all the way back to the late 1700s. One New Yorker simple printed a somewhat truthful article criticizing the ruler of the time and ended up going to court for it. Alex Hamil...let me clarify before I get censored, AlexANDER Hamilton successfully defended the guy, yet more was yet to come.
Let's see, no one could send mail that contained abolitionist materials in the South. The Sedition Act for the first World War made it a bad idea for anyone to be opposed to the war as well as oppose the draft. Check out the literature in the book, Americans

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

There was a time when film use to be censored and had to go through approvals before hitting the big screen. As far as radio and television, well, that's probably the most censored medium.

The FCC is a watchdog so anytime someone says anything offensive, there could be a hefty fine at the very least. And television, who can forget about the Super Bowl incident a few years ago. Now we have to watch the who? The Who. This is because of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction."

Although I understand, there are certain things kids should not be exposed to, at some point it kind of feels like a little bit of First Amendment is taken away. Or when we are at war, it seems like our government has to right to tighten the reins on what we can say or do. I'm not a fan of nudity at Noon, or saying a racial slur, or vocally supporting an enemy, but we chose what we listen to or see. And if we don't like what someone has said, one should speak out. We should put in a little moral pressure. Perhaps that's what we think when we see that other countries are blocking out what we consider to be acceptable.

It's a tough topic, but I'm glad I can at least voice my opinion. Although I know I can only do so depending on what I say.

Never welcomed in the first place

Asking people why we were even at war in the first place is like asking why Bush served a second term. Maybe it has something to do with money being secretly thrown around outside of the public's vision. Maybe it's because we trust our representatives are making the best informed the decisions. Maybe it's because we choose to see only what we want to see.

One go to reason for declaring war is because it was suspected that there were weapons of mass destruction. The plain and simple reason is because Bush said so and according to a law provision added in the Nixon time, there's not much we could of done about it (except start a Revolution, of course!)

I'm not quite sure why we stayed in Iraq for so long. There turned out to be no WMD, Hussein was not exactly tied to al Qaeda, and even if so, he was executed in 2006. To add to the list, Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq. Not that we need to be in Afghanistan either, but I'm just saying, it doesn't add up. Despite the deteriorated excuses, perhaps we stayed around to lessen the combative dynamic between the Sunni and Shia groups but civil war is not for us. We have too many fights in our own country to fix with the economy being one of them. So much money has been and is still being injected into the war as we struggle to stay afloat and pay off our debt.

The first war in 1991 has done it's damage with all the sanctions slapped on Iraq, it's no wonder why people want us out. We are part of the reason why the country can't pick itself up. The target may have been its government but the arrow fell on its people. As long as the U.S. is still around, more and more innocent Iraqi citizens are being caught up in the crossfire and land is being further destroyed. It started with the U.S. and the U.K. before other nations joined in. We are now the only ones left after the others were privy enough to move out of an issue we were never welcomed to in the first place. In cases of serious threat, intervening should be a joint effort from all. The U.S. sticking around makes it look like the whole thing is truly about our self-interests.

Nonetheless, there is a time-line of pulling out of the war hopefully in a year or so. I understand we have some very heavy equipment along with the reconstructing we should worry about. With this in mind, it doesn't seem like it was worth all the effort for the many hazy excuses for sending over our men and women.

Wars are never really won. I hope that we learn to deal with the issues we already have here before dipping into another country. We are currently in more than 150. Meanwhile, our own land is suffering. Unless we have the support of other countries to unite for a serious threat, or unless we are welcomed, let's keep our eye on what's in front of us.

Drill Baby oops...Spill?

Who can argue against the fact that we must take good care of this earth? No one wants to breathe and decay their lungs with dirty air. No one wants to walk around their neighborhood full of cups, bottles, and newspapers scattered around. No one wants to drink hazy water or swim with oil. The term "no one" is an absolute but I really can't think of anyone who would think is acceptable. Unless you are making money by throwing down the trash.

BP has had a woops-a-daisy spill on the Gulf of Mexico from an offshore rig that sank. Although the slow breeze weather is saving time before the oil reaches the shore, so far and then far, the well being of ocean life will be disturbed. Not only is tourism cut off in that region, fishing is too. In addition, it's extremely bad timing given the season, Spring, when reproduction is at it's fullest.

Some of us are questioning if offshore drilling is really worth the risk which is causing oil advocates to defend the presence of rigs on water. They say jobs are maintained and created. But if we switch to renewable energy, wouldn't we need people here too? They say there is too much dependence on oil and gas. True, we are at the moment, but if we make the shift to depend on other resources then more drilling shouldn't be necessary.

To prevent this bigger than Exxon catastrophe, change is a must. If we expect to rely less on oil and gas for energy and if we expect for this to be avoided in the future, there has to be specific and strict regulation. Fixing takes so much more work than making rules based on historical lessons. Instead of trying to burn the oil off the water, burn a candle under the oil company exec's rear. Instead of dissolving the oil with an additional pollution, dissolve the reliance and approval for the original pollutant. Instead putting a huge dome over the oil, put a dome over the oil companies and contain those people so they can no longer contribute to the destruction of the earth.

It will not be an easy or quick transition but it one that should be made. Change is inevitable, especially when it comes to preserving the land and water around us.