Gun Control (why not since we talked about it)

I felt that we could have talked about his issue all day in class today but since we just had time to touch up on it I'd like to weigh out a few pro's and con's to this on-going issue. Name calling aside, regardless  if you're a bleeding heart, communist liberal or a right-wing God fearing nutjob, gun control is an important topic. Guns are a deadly weapon, they kill people plain and simple. A lot of innocent people die each year due to a gun related accident. There are many handguns and a lot of them aren't registered to legal owners mostly in inner cities. Its a big problem that many police departments are trying to battle, one way they are try to combat the issue is by a don't ask don't tell gun rebuy. A city in New Jersey offered $100 if you hand in a gun, doesn't matter if its illegal or unregistered and they had very good results with almost 1,000 guns being traded in for the cash. That's 1,000 less deadly weapons off the streets, its a good start but certainly more needs to be done. A case you can make for guns, and by guns I'll say handguns since they can be most concealed and most riffles are used for "hunting" is that they are used for protection. Many gun enthusiasts make the case for collecting and sport. Now, I am all for individual rights, more freedoms, and less government  but the fact that there are so many guns and so many people there needs to be a happy medium here. I am not against gun ownership, as a matter of fact I would like to soon apply for a handgun permit. But in doing so I will take a handgun safety course knowing full well they are not toys. I am also not against stricter laws in acquiring a handgun, with the amount of school shootings for example we need to come up with ways to better educate gun owners and maybe even better safety measures on the guns themselves. 

Rock legends diss Rihanna

Gene Simmons from the rock group Kiss and Tommy Lee from Motley Crue recently had some harsh words for pop star Rihanna. In their rant they rag on Rihanna for lip-syncing, apparently something that Gene Simmons has a hard time dealing with. Simmons was the more outspoken of the two in terms of bashing Rihanna but Lee did not disagree with his fellow musician. Here is the quote from Gene Simmons, "We're sick and tired of girls getting up there with dancers and karaoke tapes in back of them. No karaoke singers allowed. No fake bullshit. Leave that to Rihanna-Schimianna and everybody else whose name ends with an 'A.'" Pretty aggressive on his part. Tommy Lee wasn't as harsh towards her but didn't disagree either. "No disrespect to Rihanna, she's a great singer, but we're in a slump for some shit that has some personality and appeal beyond a bunch of pop stuff that's floating around out there," I'm glad he said that actually because I don't think I can bear watching another fucking award show that is just a little better than 'American Idol.' It's fucking pathetic to watch people go out and fucking karaoke with a bunch of lights and video. It's all completely watered down." Now I don't think its fair to single out Rihanna and in their defense they didn't, Simmons also made reference to Madonna about her lip-syncing during the Super Bowl but who's to say that Rihanna usually lip-syncs? In her defense maybe she does that one limited occasions due to a number of reasons. Why cancel a show when you can still preform for your fans with dance routines and you can lip-sync in the process. Personally I disagree 100% that any artist male or female should resort to lip-syncing, I feel that it takes the authenticity out of the art form. Was it right for them to bash her and other artist for doing that? You can make a case for both but I believe that they're aging bands long past their prime that will do whatever they can to create a buzz and stir things up. I do however agree with how they feel about lip-syncing in general, sings and playing music is an art. Not being able to do it live day in and day out and resort to"cheating" would anger most if not all who do this for a living.

current event post: US Soldier kills Afghan civilians

This was topic I had recently posted about but now that more details have emerged I would like to revisit this issue. So the reports are that this soldier who killed 16 unarmed Afghan civilians mostly women and children, was suffering from sever battle fatigue. To make matters worse his company witnessed a brutal attack on one of their fellow soldiers which may have been the breaking point for the suspected soldier who killed the civilians. This soldier was on his fourth Afghan tour wile also have a number of tours in Iraq. My question is should there be a limit on soldiers and the amount of combat tours they can have in a certain amount of time? I think there needs to be at the very least a review process by a clinical doctor to evaluate the mental and even physical condition of the soldiers who have seen heavy combat. This tragic event that cost the lives of innocent civilians seems like it could have been avoided  had there been a limit or review process. I'm not trying to take the soldier off the hook for what happened but there may have been a few warning signs that went unnoticed. The mental fatigue that is caused by high amount of stress that our soldiers face day in and day out and yet most of them are able to endure it and continue to serve their country is amazing. However they will take that stress home with them from the battlefield and I believe that is due to prolonged periods of deployment and recurring military tours. I'd like to get your feedback on this issue, its a serious one that I think we take for granted.  

More set backs in Afghanistan

Setting aside my personal belief that the United States never should have invaded Afghanistan, it appears what little progress we have made is all but gone. With recent events such as a US Army General burning dozens of copies of the Qur'an and most recently a "rogue" US soldier that shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children. All that we seem to be accomplishing over there is further enraging the Afghan population which in turn will put more and more US soldiers at risk of reprisal attacks. Its hard to believe that we have been at war in Afghanistan since October of 2001. In 2009 at top US military intelligence official stated that, “The Taliban retains the required partnerships to sustain support, fuel legitimacy and bolster capacity.” In other words, the Taliban's numbers aren't decreasing but rather are possibly increasing. Our military has been trying to build the trust of the Afghan locals in villages but with these continued setbacks we will continue to face an uphill battle. The US has already distanced themselves from the most recent killing of civilians by labeling the soldier as "rogue." But that to the Afghan people means absolutely nothing because this isn't the first time something this has happened. It seems that we are making mistake after mistake with trying to build trust and gain support from the Afghan people, only to further anger them. How many more innocent civilians have to die before this war becomes totally pointless, if it isn't already? I really feel for our men and women how put their lives on the line for this country as I feel their country isn't doing the same for them.

12 Angry Men

Juror 1/foreman: Seemed to be caught up in his duties, tried to accommodate his fellow jurors. My take on him is that he was a good man, an honest man who tried the best he can at whatever he was doing. 

Juror 2: At first he came off very weak and timid, his small stature established him as the weakest of the group. He did grow a little stronger as the movie went on, showing that he could back up his opinions and not be run over by certain jurors.

Juror 3: The most volatile character in the movie. In the very beginning when the jurors were leaving the bench in the court house, this character looked at the defendant as he was walking away, a look that had "guilty verdict" all over it. A blue collar business owner who goes to great lengths to prove guilt but won't hear anything otherwise. We later discover this character to be broken, dealing with a conflict with his own son. Probably a good man but harboring an issue in which he saw the defendant as his own son.

Juror 4: Is probably one of my favorite characters. Smart and pays attention to the facts, displays a great deal of critical thinking. He's solid as a rock but also admits when he over looks something, like the marks on the upper nose caused by the wearing of glasses by a key witness. Clam and methodical.

Juror 5: Comes off as a the average working man but you realize he grew up in the slums just like the defendant. A character that didn't forget where he came from, plays a big role in how this story ends. His firsthand experience with witnessing knife fights as a youth helped convince the remaining jurors that maybe the defendant didn't stab his father the way it was presented by the prosecution.

Juror 6: The working man, wasn't dressed in a suit and tie, I believe he was a painter. Defended juror which established him as the "tough guy" of the group, I had thought juror 3 was the tough guy but he put that character in his place. He didn't offer much on the intellectual side but was grounded.

Juror 7: The baseball fan who's only care was to reach a verdict before the start of the Yankee game. Later we find out that we is a hard working salesman that earns a decent living. Through out the entire deliberation he takes doesn't take a true stance on either guilt or innocence. When he changes his vote to not guilty he can't honestly give a good reason.

Juror 8: Definitely the protagonist of the group. A true critical thinker who doesn't proclaim innocence but rather considers the possibility of a reasonable doubt. Doesn't get frustrated or intimidated especially when facing resistance. He's an architect and it shows in how he put together the possibility of a reasonable doubt. He shows there is value to a mans life.

Juror 9: The old wise man! He pays attention to detail, almost like he has a photographic memory. Extremely observant, his memory sheds a ton of light on the trial. At first he is thought of as an old man with nothing to offer in the deliberation but he turned out to be a pivotal juror that helps shape the outcome.

Juror 10: The older version of juror 3, was dead set on a voting guilty only to realize he's a bigot. Once he was exposed on his true reasons he cowered in the corner of the room, almost sitting in shame but maybe realization? Old white man in the 1950's with every bit of hate in his heart but you would tell it by looking at him.

Juror 11: The watchmaker from a European country. He was almost mocked by some jury members (3 and 10) but in turn made them look like the ignorant fools. For an immigrant he seemed to have a good understanding of American law.

Juror 12: The hotshot, wise-ass ad executive who flip-flopped from guilty to not guilty. He appeared smart and creative, using advertising lingo throughout the duration of the deliberation but turned out to be unassure of what to believe. Didn't have much of an interest at the beginning but became a little more involved. I think he relies on his sharp lingo talk and experience in the business work to get by but he struggled when trying to form his own opinion only to go back and forth.