On a serious note.....
WHy Men have to be so difficult!!!
OMG this one gyuy friend i have we've been talking good all evening and den now him blowing up on me.....i wont say the details but gosh!!!!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
GOD I HATE SUMMER JOBS.......
On a serious note......
SUMMER JOBS SUCK!!!
Maybe if it was something fun....last year ma summer job was a delivery girl in a restaurant.....
-_-.....sighs
This year its inventory taking at ma high school......today was ma second day and i feel like screaming!!!!..........i have blisters on ma feet and I'm agony, tire and pain...i don't like summer jobs!!! its grown folk way of extorting human labor from the under qualified.
SIIIIIIIIIGHZ
Summer is sucky this year.......
SUMMER JOBS SUCK!!!
Maybe if it was something fun....last year ma summer job was a delivery girl in a restaurant.....
-_-.....sighs
This year its inventory taking at ma high school......today was ma second day and i feel like screaming!!!!..........i have blisters on ma feet and I'm agony, tire and pain...i don't like summer jobs!!! its grown folk way of extorting human labor from the under qualified.
SIIIIIIIIIGHZ
Summer is sucky this year.......
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Liars
I hate liars...hate, hate, hate em
I am one...i'm trying to stop...but i kno the damage it does and i hate ppl who do it...
So theres this girl that adds me on her IM and says shes a brit, that shes the daughter of "Ben Sherman" and that She is the CEO at "Ed Hardy". She's also a lesbian and will not stop trying to get me to take my blouse off on web cam. so anyway she telling how she's rich and whatever and going on about these fashion houses...i'm asking question after question and she don't kno that i kno she's lieing through her teeth.
i call her out... shes dark skinned...as i see on her web cam... and i'm like why would a brit...born and raised in the 1940s adopt a black american child? o i ddnt say that part did i? she says she was born in america and adopted by ben sherman...Ben Sherman isnt even a person btw its a clothing label the producer of which died long before she was born...actually it was a year or so but what ever.
so this chick is there going on... i'm rich i can't go out cas my body guards arnt there and all of these things...and i get so pissed off...
I'm like ur a low down dirty liar!
and i start call her out on all the lies she jus told me...
1. Ben Sherman is label produced by Arthur Bernard Sugarman (1925-1987)
2. She says she's 23 when her supposed father would have adopted her wen she was one ... Arthur Sugarman died in the 80s and she's still saying she's gonna inherit the company after he dies...
3. She says she's Ceo of ED Hardy managing smallclothing lines...Ed hardy is a small clothing line under Christain Audigier's company, and thier CEO is Hubert Guez. no one at the company knows her name....Kady something of a nother...
There are so many other things. I'm jus fuming right now cas i'm sooo pissed off!!!
I detest Liars...
I am one...i'm trying to stop...but i kno the damage it does and i hate ppl who do it...
So theres this girl that adds me on her IM and says shes a brit, that shes the daughter of "Ben Sherman" and that She is the CEO at "Ed Hardy". She's also a lesbian and will not stop trying to get me to take my blouse off on web cam. so anyway she telling how she's rich and whatever and going on about these fashion houses...i'm asking question after question and she don't kno that i kno she's lieing through her teeth.
i call her out... shes dark skinned...as i see on her web cam... and i'm like why would a brit...born and raised in the 1940s adopt a black american child? o i ddnt say that part did i? she says she was born in america and adopted by ben sherman...Ben Sherman isnt even a person btw its a clothing label the producer of which died long before she was born...actually it was a year or so but what ever.
so this chick is there going on... i'm rich i can't go out cas my body guards arnt there and all of these things...and i get so pissed off...
I'm like ur a low down dirty liar!
and i start call her out on all the lies she jus told me...
1. Ben Sherman is label produced by Arthur Bernard Sugarman (1925-1987)
2. She says she's 23 when her supposed father would have adopted her wen she was one ... Arthur Sugarman died in the 80s and she's still saying she's gonna inherit the company after he dies...
3. She says she's Ceo of ED Hardy managing smallclothing lines...Ed hardy is a small clothing line under Christain Audigier's company, and thier CEO is Hubert Guez. no one at the company knows her name....Kady something of a nother...
There are so many other things. I'm jus fuming right now cas i'm sooo pissed off!!!
I detest Liars...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Jamaican Crime (Ugh)
Jamaicans all have one thing in common: they are all yearning for ananswer to the ever rising crime rate in Jamaica. I just finished reading an article by Ian Boyne which was published in "the Gleaner" recently. Ian Boyne is a veteran writer and this article once again strikes my heart. It reads:
"New minister, old problems
Published: Sunday | May 17, 2009
Ian Boyne, Contributor
A new minister of national security, new broadcast to the nation, new expectations, but the same old intractable crime problems. The national security ministry has been the burial ground for many a hopeful minister. Why would it be any different for Dwight Nelson?
Jamaica's crime problem has proven impervious to the threatened 'onslaught' of successive security ministers. And Dwight Nelson has taken over at a most inauspicious time: a time when resources are scarce and frustrations high. One thing we know: there is no need for the new minister to commission a new study. Crime has been the most-studied problem in Jamaica. I would suggest that he does not leave out of his required reading the 2009 GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture by the country's premier scholar on the issue, Professor Anthony Harriott.
Main security issues
In a lecture titled 'Controlling Violent Crime: Models and Policy Options', Harriott set out clearly and without obfuscation the country's main security issues and the main policy prescriptions on the table. He has tackled the issues with a keen sense of nuance, sophistication, balance and deep knowledge. Anthony Harriott is no ivory tower intellectual: his deep grass-roots grounding is evident in the published lecture, and those of us who know him from the 1970s know of his strong social activism and attachment to the working class. He admirably combines scholarship with praxis, and he has clearly been listening to the people. Nelson needs to listen to him.
Already Nelson's stated intention to go after the gangs and the organised crime network - a focus also of former National Security Minister Peter Phillips - finds support in Harriott's thesis that organised crime is Jamaica's greatest security challenge. And organised crime is facilitated and bolstered by garrison politics and the politics-gangs network. Politicians have been acknowledging this but doing very little about it. If the power of the dons is not broken and if gangs can still find safe havens in the garrisons, then we can forget the fight against crime.
"Organised crime groups are able to use their criminally acquired wealth to corrupt some of the key institutions of the country, including the police force, elements in the state bureaucracy and the political parties," said Professor Harriott in his highly engaging lecture. "The garrison communities and constituencies are the most toxic expressions of this nexus. They are safe havens for organised crime and safe seats for the political parties. Both sets of actors, therefore, have an interest in preserving the garrisons."
How free will people be?
The minister's decision to go into troubled communities is fine and good, but when some of these communities are tightly controlled by criminal dons and shottas, how free will the people be to speak their minds and to counsel the minister on what really needs to be done? The minister spoke in his broadcast on Sunday about these consultations providing him with "a unique opportunity for direct dialogue," to "listen to the views of the people" and "evaluate their recommendations". But those people know that they have to go back home and so they can't speak outside of what the criminal dictators will allow them to say.
We talk about democracy, but in many of our inner-city communities citizens are not free to speak their minds. In many of our communities the people have to choose life over free speech. That's the cruel choice they have. Until we find effective ways of crushing the garrisons, we will not only not solve crime we will not be a truly liberal democracy.
Tolerant of criminality
But the problem of crime is not just a problem of politics and politicians. Because of what the late Professor Carl Stone called "the dominance of money", we have large numbers of people who are tolerant of certain criminal activities as long as 'money is running'.
The Jamaica National Victimisation Survey (2006) found that 43 per cent of those respondents who live in communities with area dons claimed they had done "positive things" for the communities. So often we see on television people blocking roads and creating mayhem because some notorious criminals are shot or arrested. While some are forced to act outraged, others genuinely appreciate the blood money. Now you say if politicians were providing enough opportunities people would not have to turn to the dons. And that leads us to another deeply troubling issue which Harriott dealt with - the fact that any success in destabilising criminal gangs will have an negative economic costs.
The underground economy contributes to our gross domestic product. If we hit the drug trade, especially in these tough times, our economy will also take a hit and we will risk more robberies and property crimes. Reduced funds from the drug trade could affect our exchange rate. When drug money stops flowing in inner-city communities, there is likely to be more intra- and inter-community violence, more theft and increased antisocial behaviour (more sexually transmitted diseases, as more young girls and women trade sex).
Issue of values
This is why I have maintained that the issue of values is the most significant one which we face in tackling crime and other social challenges in Jamaica. Hard-nosed, 'pragmatic' and 'sophisticated' thinkers and analysts tend to dismiss those issues as soft, even Pollyannaish, but they don't think deeply enough. If the people in the garrisons and other poor communities come to value peace, harmony and love above money, then when the blood money is cut off they would pay the price. If we had a culture in which people would literally die for principles - death before dishonour to their values - then the power of the dons and the politicians would not be as strong.
Repeatedly, Harriott bemoaned the tolerance for certain types of behaviour but did not go as far as in making the social-capital-deficit argument that Don Robotham and I would. Harriott implicitly recognised the centrality of values by saying "the violence problem can no longer be explained only in terms of lack," and that "the explanation must include the presence of alternative socialisation, alternative validation of behaviour".
Success in disrupting the gangs - a major plank in Minister Nelson's anti-crime strategy - will have a serious political cost that he must contemplate. Said Harriott in his GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture (which the company has done poorly in publicising - oh for the days of Corina Meeks!): "Any administration that successfully weakens and controls organised crime and as a consequence weakens its links with gunmen who are still able to retain their power and influence in the communities, must also consider its impact on their electoral prospects.
"They would no longer have the services of the gunmen and could not rely on the police for reliable protection against gunmen in service of their opponents. The successful administration would thus be exposed and vulnerable to these developments, unless both sides agree not to exploit whatever political opportunities and advantages might be created." The parties have always claimed agreement on this, and have put it on paper, but on the ground it's a different story.
Add pressure
This is where civil society has to add the pressure on the politicians. They will only change when sufficient pressure is brought to bear on them and when it becomes too costly for them to continue the garrison politics and the politics-criminality link.
One of the most useful and engaging part of the 2009 GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture was the comparison between the two dominant models of crime control: The crime fighting, 'tough policing' approach and the human rights, social justice (social interventionist) approach. In the lecture, Harriott made a strong critique of the crime-fighting strategy, the one I have favoured in the short term.
Harriott said bluntly, "There is an undemocratic impulse in crime fighting." What I found laudable about Anthony Harriott, my being an ardent advocate of the crime-fighting strategy which he knocked, was that he did so with a keen understanding of my perspective (without the usual misrepresentations) combined with a rationally plausible critique. It is not a skill many of our Jamaican debaters have.
Harriott admitted that "increased arrests, increased incarceration all tend to have short-term deterrent effects". But that is precisely what is needed in a context of galloping crime, Anthony. You want some breathing space. That is why the crime bills which the Government has proposed should be passed without delay. We are in a security crisis. Does the Opposition disagree? We understand the problem of trust and how that makes it difficult to support any bill which gives increased powers to the police. But until we disband the police force, they are what we have to work with.
"The crime-fighting model has been a general failure," Harriott said. Yes. But is the social justice model any better for our circumstances in the short term?
Key admission
Harriott made a key admission which all the human rights advocates have always missed. Confessed Harriott: "The big challenge for this (social justice) model in the present context would be to demonstrate its relevance and power in dealing with the contemporary challenges of organised crime and the subculture of violence."
Excellent point - if the human rights advocates would only address it. Harriott pointed out that the roots of our crime problem are not just in social marginalisation and lack of legitimate opportunities. (I hope Wilmot Perkins is listening), "but the existence of an elaborate illegitimate opportunity structure and the emergence of a subculture of violence. The latter means that even if the socio-economic problems are addressed, high rates of violence are likely to continue for some time. Attending to root socio-economic causes is unlikely to yield much short-to-medium-term effects on the homicide rates."
For years I have been trying to get the social justice model advocates to understand that one simple point as they talk incessantly about 'social intervention', tackling poverty, etc.
The model ignores our context and is bankrupt in terms of short-term strategies. In light of the global economic crisis, the social justice model is even more severely limited and irrelevant.
For us to have a serious discourse on crime, we have to read Anthony Harriott."
*Sigh*
Jamaica is constantly under crime's chokehold...it is exhaustingly annoying how it can't be yeilded or fixed. Ofcourse everyone has theories to do so yet no one tries. The lay man beggs for justice but refuses to give up a name or appear in court on justice's behalf...i don't know what is going to HAPPEN TO JAMAICA IF THIS SITUATION CONTINUES. All i know is if it doesn't stop soon, this peice of paradise will no longer exist.
"New minister, old problems
Published: Sunday | May 17, 2009
Ian Boyne, Contributor
A new minister of national security, new broadcast to the nation, new expectations, but the same old intractable crime problems. The national security ministry has been the burial ground for many a hopeful minister. Why would it be any different for Dwight Nelson?
Jamaica's crime problem has proven impervious to the threatened 'onslaught' of successive security ministers. And Dwight Nelson has taken over at a most inauspicious time: a time when resources are scarce and frustrations high. One thing we know: there is no need for the new minister to commission a new study. Crime has been the most-studied problem in Jamaica. I would suggest that he does not leave out of his required reading the 2009 GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture by the country's premier scholar on the issue, Professor Anthony Harriott.
Main security issues
In a lecture titled 'Controlling Violent Crime: Models and Policy Options', Harriott set out clearly and without obfuscation the country's main security issues and the main policy prescriptions on the table. He has tackled the issues with a keen sense of nuance, sophistication, balance and deep knowledge. Anthony Harriott is no ivory tower intellectual: his deep grass-roots grounding is evident in the published lecture, and those of us who know him from the 1970s know of his strong social activism and attachment to the working class. He admirably combines scholarship with praxis, and he has clearly been listening to the people. Nelson needs to listen to him.
Already Nelson's stated intention to go after the gangs and the organised crime network - a focus also of former National Security Minister Peter Phillips - finds support in Harriott's thesis that organised crime is Jamaica's greatest security challenge. And organised crime is facilitated and bolstered by garrison politics and the politics-gangs network. Politicians have been acknowledging this but doing very little about it. If the power of the dons is not broken and if gangs can still find safe havens in the garrisons, then we can forget the fight against crime.
"Organised crime groups are able to use their criminally acquired wealth to corrupt some of the key institutions of the country, including the police force, elements in the state bureaucracy and the political parties," said Professor Harriott in his highly engaging lecture. "The garrison communities and constituencies are the most toxic expressions of this nexus. They are safe havens for organised crime and safe seats for the political parties. Both sets of actors, therefore, have an interest in preserving the garrisons."
How free will people be?
The minister's decision to go into troubled communities is fine and good, but when some of these communities are tightly controlled by criminal dons and shottas, how free will the people be to speak their minds and to counsel the minister on what really needs to be done? The minister spoke in his broadcast on Sunday about these consultations providing him with "a unique opportunity for direct dialogue," to "listen to the views of the people" and "evaluate their recommendations". But those people know that they have to go back home and so they can't speak outside of what the criminal dictators will allow them to say.
We talk about democracy, but in many of our inner-city communities citizens are not free to speak their minds. In many of our communities the people have to choose life over free speech. That's the cruel choice they have. Until we find effective ways of crushing the garrisons, we will not only not solve crime we will not be a truly liberal democracy.
Tolerant of criminality
But the problem of crime is not just a problem of politics and politicians. Because of what the late Professor Carl Stone called "the dominance of money", we have large numbers of people who are tolerant of certain criminal activities as long as 'money is running'.
The Jamaica National Victimisation Survey (2006) found that 43 per cent of those respondents who live in communities with area dons claimed they had done "positive things" for the communities. So often we see on television people blocking roads and creating mayhem because some notorious criminals are shot or arrested. While some are forced to act outraged, others genuinely appreciate the blood money. Now you say if politicians were providing enough opportunities people would not have to turn to the dons. And that leads us to another deeply troubling issue which Harriott dealt with - the fact that any success in destabilising criminal gangs will have an negative economic costs.
The underground economy contributes to our gross domestic product. If we hit the drug trade, especially in these tough times, our economy will also take a hit and we will risk more robberies and property crimes. Reduced funds from the drug trade could affect our exchange rate. When drug money stops flowing in inner-city communities, there is likely to be more intra- and inter-community violence, more theft and increased antisocial behaviour (more sexually transmitted diseases, as more young girls and women trade sex).
Issue of values
This is why I have maintained that the issue of values is the most significant one which we face in tackling crime and other social challenges in Jamaica. Hard-nosed, 'pragmatic' and 'sophisticated' thinkers and analysts tend to dismiss those issues as soft, even Pollyannaish, but they don't think deeply enough. If the people in the garrisons and other poor communities come to value peace, harmony and love above money, then when the blood money is cut off they would pay the price. If we had a culture in which people would literally die for principles - death before dishonour to their values - then the power of the dons and the politicians would not be as strong.
Repeatedly, Harriott bemoaned the tolerance for certain types of behaviour but did not go as far as in making the social-capital-deficit argument that Don Robotham and I would. Harriott implicitly recognised the centrality of values by saying "the violence problem can no longer be explained only in terms of lack," and that "the explanation must include the presence of alternative socialisation, alternative validation of behaviour".
Success in disrupting the gangs - a major plank in Minister Nelson's anti-crime strategy - will have a serious political cost that he must contemplate. Said Harriott in his GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture (which the company has done poorly in publicising - oh for the days of Corina Meeks!): "Any administration that successfully weakens and controls organised crime and as a consequence weakens its links with gunmen who are still able to retain their power and influence in the communities, must also consider its impact on their electoral prospects.
"They would no longer have the services of the gunmen and could not rely on the police for reliable protection against gunmen in service of their opponents. The successful administration would thus be exposed and vulnerable to these developments, unless both sides agree not to exploit whatever political opportunities and advantages might be created." The parties have always claimed agreement on this, and have put it on paper, but on the ground it's a different story.
Add pressure
This is where civil society has to add the pressure on the politicians. They will only change when sufficient pressure is brought to bear on them and when it becomes too costly for them to continue the garrison politics and the politics-criminality link.
One of the most useful and engaging part of the 2009 GraceKennedy Foundation Lecture was the comparison between the two dominant models of crime control: The crime fighting, 'tough policing' approach and the human rights, social justice (social interventionist) approach. In the lecture, Harriott made a strong critique of the crime-fighting strategy, the one I have favoured in the short term.
Harriott said bluntly, "There is an undemocratic impulse in crime fighting." What I found laudable about Anthony Harriott, my being an ardent advocate of the crime-fighting strategy which he knocked, was that he did so with a keen understanding of my perspective (without the usual misrepresentations) combined with a rationally plausible critique. It is not a skill many of our Jamaican debaters have.
Harriott admitted that "increased arrests, increased incarceration all tend to have short-term deterrent effects". But that is precisely what is needed in a context of galloping crime, Anthony. You want some breathing space. That is why the crime bills which the Government has proposed should be passed without delay. We are in a security crisis. Does the Opposition disagree? We understand the problem of trust and how that makes it difficult to support any bill which gives increased powers to the police. But until we disband the police force, they are what we have to work with.
"The crime-fighting model has been a general failure," Harriott said. Yes. But is the social justice model any better for our circumstances in the short term?
Key admission
Harriott made a key admission which all the human rights advocates have always missed. Confessed Harriott: "The big challenge for this (social justice) model in the present context would be to demonstrate its relevance and power in dealing with the contemporary challenges of organised crime and the subculture of violence."
Excellent point - if the human rights advocates would only address it. Harriott pointed out that the roots of our crime problem are not just in social marginalisation and lack of legitimate opportunities. (I hope Wilmot Perkins is listening), "but the existence of an elaborate illegitimate opportunity structure and the emergence of a subculture of violence. The latter means that even if the socio-economic problems are addressed, high rates of violence are likely to continue for some time. Attending to root socio-economic causes is unlikely to yield much short-to-medium-term effects on the homicide rates."
For years I have been trying to get the social justice model advocates to understand that one simple point as they talk incessantly about 'social intervention', tackling poverty, etc.
The model ignores our context and is bankrupt in terms of short-term strategies. In light of the global economic crisis, the social justice model is even more severely limited and irrelevant.
For us to have a serious discourse on crime, we have to read Anthony Harriott."
*Sigh*
Jamaica is constantly under crime's chokehold...it is exhaustingly annoying how it can't be yeilded or fixed. Ofcourse everyone has theories to do so yet no one tries. The lay man beggs for justice but refuses to give up a name or appear in court on justice's behalf...i don't know what is going to HAPPEN TO JAMAICA IF THIS SITUATION CONTINUES. All i know is if it doesn't stop soon, this peice of paradise will no longer exist.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Style.com is cooooool!!!!
I'm in love with fashion!!! I recently found vogue.com(btw Vogue is my fav magazine) and with it style.com both the sites are fun. On vogue i can go back and forth through the seasons and years, they have tonns of designers, unfortuanely i can't find Heatherette :(, lol, but it is still great. I will be putting up alot of stuff from my fav designers and i can put stuff up from there. I hope it doesn't go against the terms of blogger though. Im so excited!
My New Project
(originally done January 1, 2009)
So for years now I’ve been hearing about this blogging thingy and I’ve always wanted to try it, actually there was only one thing that was stopping me…I didn’t know what a blog was! I mean after watching Doogie Houser and Sex and the City you’d think one would have a darn good idea of what a blog is and what it does. Actually all I got from there was that a blog was an online journal or a way of telling the entire world your personal life without having to worry about the ridicule. What ever anyone else’s definition is my blog serves to let me state my thought about stuff so that if I ever become important they’ll write a book about me and use these thoughts as a guide….maybe even a movie might come forth, lol! What! One can dream cant they?
So this my story, my memoirs, as they come….I am Onella Lue, right now I’m 18 years old and I live in Three Chains, Mandeville, Manchester, Jamaica………the Island……….I Love fashion, photography, art, rock music, horror movies and vampires. I currently go to Manchester High school in Jamaica and am failing every subject I do….that’s not a good thing but I think its good to note, u know for the future book writer/ movie producer lol….I’ve been a Christian for 3 years come February 6 and I’ve jus recently (as in just last week) started to live my life wholly for Christ.
Let me start on that point. I love God, always have, the problem was, I wasn’t sure the religion was real, u know since Roman Catholics translated it and discarded bits of it. My interpretations were that the bible was a story book not a guide, God is omnipotent and exists in all places and to everyone not jus to Christians. I didn’t like Christianity for a time because the preaching I heard then was of condemnation to other religions. But how can u condemn other people from what is right to them? I mean as Christian we think Christianity is right, right? As a Buddhist we figure that way is right, as a Hindu we figure that is right, as a Muslim we figure that way is right! And I don’t believe in terrorism. If a man believes that this is his way of serving god I don’t want to condemn him…even though people might die. But honestly the whole bombing and terrorism thing was what many of us needed to open our eyes from the fantasies we live in you know! Many of us went about our daily lives not even caring about our brothers and sisters. At least now people live more neighborly….the only down side to it is that instead of the petty thief being condemned now an entire race most of which aren’t even from the same part of the world or even of the same religion are being penalized. But then again they are standing up for themselves and taking their places as members of society….no longer coasting under the radar. I mean if you have to stand up to other people it means you have backbone and you aren’t one to be messed with. At least this way people will remember you.
So for years now I’ve been hearing about this blogging thingy and I’ve always wanted to try it, actually there was only one thing that was stopping me…I didn’t know what a blog was! I mean after watching Doogie Houser and Sex and the City you’d think one would have a darn good idea of what a blog is and what it does. Actually all I got from there was that a blog was an online journal or a way of telling the entire world your personal life without having to worry about the ridicule. What ever anyone else’s definition is my blog serves to let me state my thought about stuff so that if I ever become important they’ll write a book about me and use these thoughts as a guide….maybe even a movie might come forth, lol! What! One can dream cant they?
So this my story, my memoirs, as they come….I am Onella Lue, right now I’m 18 years old and I live in Three Chains, Mandeville, Manchester, Jamaica………the Island……….I Love fashion, photography, art, rock music, horror movies and vampires. I currently go to Manchester High school in Jamaica and am failing every subject I do….that’s not a good thing but I think its good to note, u know for the future book writer/ movie producer lol….I’ve been a Christian for 3 years come February 6 and I’ve jus recently (as in just last week) started to live my life wholly for Christ.
Let me start on that point. I love God, always have, the problem was, I wasn’t sure the religion was real, u know since Roman Catholics translated it and discarded bits of it. My interpretations were that the bible was a story book not a guide, God is omnipotent and exists in all places and to everyone not jus to Christians. I didn’t like Christianity for a time because the preaching I heard then was of condemnation to other religions. But how can u condemn other people from what is right to them? I mean as Christian we think Christianity is right, right? As a Buddhist we figure that way is right, as a Hindu we figure that is right, as a Muslim we figure that way is right! And I don’t believe in terrorism. If a man believes that this is his way of serving god I don’t want to condemn him…even though people might die. But honestly the whole bombing and terrorism thing was what many of us needed to open our eyes from the fantasies we live in you know! Many of us went about our daily lives not even caring about our brothers and sisters. At least now people live more neighborly….the only down side to it is that instead of the petty thief being condemned now an entire race most of which aren’t even from the same part of the world or even of the same religion are being penalized. But then again they are standing up for themselves and taking their places as members of society….no longer coasting under the radar. I mean if you have to stand up to other people it means you have backbone and you aren’t one to be messed with. At least this way people will remember you.
Labor Day
It is Labor Day in Jamaica, an all i wanna do is SLEEP!! i have my last major exam tomorow and I CAN'T STUDY!! and i haven't done any yet so ya'll kno i'm soooo screwed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)