WTC & US retaliation
I'm sure everyone reading this has heard about the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center & every day since has been bombarded by commentary & images. I'm also sure by now that many of you are tired of hearing about it, but this teen doesn't want to hear anymore, she wants to speak. So here goes.
Tuesdays bombing was a tragidy, & I feel for everyone who has family involved in the situation, pray for those in the rescue effort, & cry for the lives lost. The men who did this are sick. For whatever reason they decided to even conceive such a tragidy is beyond me. Whether it was for the hatred they have for the US, fear of their government, or for religious reasons these men are disturbed.
Many of the more ignorant members of the U.S. have retaliated in hate crimes against those who had/have nothing to do with this tragedy. I have also been witness to various other forms of agression against those of Muslim & Arabic decent. Some locals have hung up signs saying things like "God Bless America, Bomb The Middle East" & "Kill The Muslims", others have expressed to me that they will no longer go to gas stations other than Stewarts because of the ethenticity of those who work there.
I am sadened & discusted by these actions. How can we call ourselves Americans & play "Proud to Be an American" over & over, while we snuff at their neighbor for who he/she is decended from.
So here's my next argument, what to do about it all. "Bomb the Middle East"? Hmmm, that seems a valid solution. Ya, right. So what to do? One fried of mine has come up with this solution: since VinLadin has been labeled as responsable we target him. After he has been taken into custody feed him pork & beef. As I'm sure some of you dont know, Muslims believe that the cow is sacred & the pig is dirty. To come in contact, especially to injest, either is forbidden. So her solution is to cage the guy, feed him one of the 2, & he will slowly be driven insane by the fact that he can never go to what we know as heaven.
I'm not sure this is the most reasonable solution, but in my mind it's better than the chair. To kill this man will only have him labeled as a marter by his men & worshiped to further their cause. One person I posed this question to said to kill there wives & children as punishment.
The US is about protecting the weak & innocent, not murdering children who dont even understand the actions of their fathers.
This is already a loose loose situation. We've lost lives in great numbers but we shouldn't kill innocent people. Those looking for instant retrobution need to calm down & take some counceling, not turn on your fellow man. We need to take time & careful planning to come down swiftly on these men & take action against them, but be careful not to harm those innocent Muslims that have nothing to do with the situation.
God Bless America, God Be With Us All.
Many people say that proximity is the majority of a relationship, that long distance isn't worth it & that it never works. This article is all from personal experiance and point of view.
I currently met a wonderful guy who I fell for hard & he treats me amazingly...only catch: he goes to college 250 miles away from my home town. We spent the last month before he left spending every waking moment together, going out every night, & becoming very close. But now, he's on the other side of a state. So, the question is, can a relationship in its infancy survive when you dont get to see the other person for a month or more? Many people who I've told about my significant other & our situation have told me that there's no chance. I think that they're wrong. There are many stories of love surviving distance as well as time. Tales from WWI when a sailor would be in port for a week or 2, meet a young woman, fall in love, & then ship out. During the war they would write one another...that romantic image of scented letters & care packages. When he was on leave he might get the chance to see her, & she would dream of his return. This is how my grandparents courted one another. They ended up settling into a farm & raising 5 kids, & 10 grandkids. Today, distance is only a click away. AOL, AIM, Yahoo! messanger, MSN Messanger, webcam, calling cards, etc., etc., etc.... Staying in contact is easier for my boyfriend & I than it is for friends who live around the corner but dont have a computer. The real-time conveniance of any instant messanger service makes it easy to hold a conversation, & free long distance as an option on his cell phone makes it even better. Conveniances that my grandmother never had. So do I think that our relationship will flounder? Not even close. We have a strong connection & the benefits of technology to keep us close. You know who you are :)
Recently while watching CSPAN2 the Senate floor was open to discussion on compomising the clean air standard in the US to concerve energy. The rationalization for this was that to save money and produce more energy we should risk the health of US citizens. This is probably the simply most idiotic thing that I have ever heard. The role of good government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. In my personal opinion the right to breath clean air is one of my rights, I don't know about every other citizen but i would rather enjoy keeping this right. One of the senators from Illinois brought up a wonderful point in opposition to this. In todays emergency rooms what do you think the number one reason for children being admitted? Broken bones from spills on their bikes? A high fever? Nope...it's asthma. Asthma! I personally suffer from this & other resperatory afflictions. I can tell you that it is one of the most uncomfortable experiances. My mother resently had asthmatic broncitis, she had never before known what it was like to have an asthma attack & immediately took pity on myslef and my brother for enduring this daily. Why would the US government possibly consider making an epidemic in Americas youth even worse? My suggestion: Write your congressmen, in both the House & the Sentate. Send them an E-mail THIS EVENING!! Let them know that you will not stand for the polution of a resourse that you need simply to live.
This year there is not only the election for president, but also a huge amout of attention being directed tward the senate race in NY. Now, how many of you out there really know more about the presidential race that the senate race. Be honest, not a whole lot of you, right? Why is it that this woman, who's not even from NY is running here? And why is it that the nation gives such a care? It is so blatently obvious that she just wants to keep her place in the spotlight and eventually reclaim her throne in the white house. And what about our current pres.? What's gana happen to this poor fellow if Hillary is elected? I've heard some say she's gana ditch him like a car stranded in a snow storm w/o a heater, but how would that look for PR? Woman dumps washed out old hubby after he made her a public figure...hmmm, sounds like the cover of the Sun to me. And what about the presidency? It seems that now adays no one really has the respect and admeration that they used to for the good ole pres. The US public no longer looks to them as a role model like they used to. Some would credit this to Clinton's afair, but researchers claim that almost every president has had one kind of affair or another, so it's not really Clinton's afair and scandal that's to blaim, maybe it's the people and there desire to discredit someone in such a high status Recently in the news there has been, what seems to be, and increase in the number of violent crimes by teens and minors in schools and on the streets. Many of these glorified bloodbathes have been blamed on the music industry as well as hollywood and movies in general. Rappers such as Eminem and punk rockers such as Marilyn Manson have been specifically named for these incidents. Could it possibly be that two simple men have caused the deaths of so many. Manson's music alone was blamed in large part for the Columbine High shootings that gained so much media attention. I have been assured by my father that high school shootings are not a concept concieved souly by my generation, but also occurred in his. So now that being said, we can prove that Manson didn't invent teen violence, can we argue that he really does promote it. If someone is normal can anyone out there honestly believe that listening to one artist music will drive them to the brink of homiside? And, if someone is insane or has criminal tendancies, is it conceivable that not listening to a certain album will keep them from killing. It is my personal belief that the attention brought to teen violence in this day and age is due to over exposure by the media. Sure, these things did happen in the 70's when my dad was in high school, buy they didn't interupt CSPAN and interupt "Power Hour" to bring live coverage of the police raiding a school. I'm not demoting the events, saying they aren't any less tragic, but most music today is a gimic go sell records. Marilyn Manson is an act, something designed to feed on the rebel that some teens find exciting and wish to join on with. Music is moving, but it can not be held accoutable for the actions of deranged youth. And, if your going to blame music, why focus on a current artist, what's to say that the Jimi Hendrix song "Hay Joe" didn't inspire someone to shoot there girlfriend? It's just a thought.
