bowling for columbine

Years ago, my English teacher had my class watch a film called Bowing for Columbine, directed by Michael Moore. This film talks about the massacre happened in Columbine High School. The tragedy was caused by two teenagers killing several students with their guns, legally purchased guns. The film is actually a documentary product. Michael Moore, the director and the actor as well, interviewed lots of people in it, hoping to show the viewer clearly how people feel about the problems of gun control and many other crimes in America. I found it vividly presents some possible factors that result in such tragic incidents. Most of all, I kind of learn what America is like.
Unlike Taiwan’s law, American’s allow citizens to have their own guns. In some states, one can even have a free gun by opening an account in bank, like a bonus. Well, the bank will have some background check before they give out the gun, but still, it’s not a very strict one. In other words, one can find it very easy to have a gun, teenagers are no exception. However, the NRA (National Rifle Association), doesn’t think that they should take action to have more serious gun control system. One of the reasons that America has such a massacre like Columbine is because of the problem of overabundant of guns. Anyone can purchase guns at anywhere, anytime. Some people think it a responsibility to be armed, for they need to protect their family, their property. They need weapons to defend themselves from the bad guys. In the movie, one man even said that he had a M16 at his home. They think if the burglars or rapist came into their house, they need not to call the police, since they’ve got guns to scare away, to fight against those criminals. Owning gun has become top priority for some people. They feel much safer if they had one gun place on the table in their bedroom, so that when something emergent happen, they can grab their guns and protect themselves from harming.

Here's the new single from Coldplay
Viva La Vida

Shoud Death Penalty be Abolished?

Over the years, the controversial issue, whether death penalty should be abolished or not, has been extensively discussed in Taiwan. The supporters have their grounds for defending death penalty. They firmly believe that it is an absolute necessity, couldn’t be replaced by imprisonment or other punishments. Still, on the other side, the opponents said that it shouldn’t exist anymore, for it is violating human rights, against humanity, and it is an out-of-date punishment. Nevertheless, I side with the proponents of death penalty. In my opinion, even though many countries had abolished capital punishment out of the above-mentioned reasons, it doesn’t mean that Taiwan should follow their steps. Capital punishment has its importance that shouldn’t be ignored or abolished.
Some Christians and humanists think that under no circumstances should one take others’ life, only God has the power to put an end to one’s life. That is, they think law enforcement does not have the right to execute the criminals. Judges playing God, deciding who’s to kill has aroused widespread condemnation among these strongly-opposed-of-death-penalty people. They consider “all human life is sacred and untouchable, the criminal does not lose his/her fundamental right to life, no matter how heinous the crime is.”
Do criminals still have “the fundamental right to life” after they committed crimes? Before answering this question, we should consider how serious the crime is. Indeed, executing a thief is too much for a punishment, but what about the murderers? Do we really have to protect their living rights even if they destroy others’? Asking for rights to life after taking one’s life, it makes no sense at all. The contradictory is pretty obvious—judges cannot play God, but these murderers can? Why can the killers “touch” their victims’ precious life but claiming that “all human life” is untouchable at the same time? Some Christians hold the view that no matter how hideous crimes the criminals commit, they still have the right to continue to live. What about the innocent victims then? Without committing any crimes or doing anything wrong, the victims unwillingly lost their right to life. Who is there to defend the victims’ own right? Christianity’s spirit is to have sympathy for others, so why don’t they show some sympathy for the victims?
Life imprisonment is being considered as a substitution for the opponents of death penalty. They think the purpose of punishment is to educate the criminals, to repent and start anew. Capital punishment is just a merciless and meaningless way of taking revenge on the criminals for their wrongdoing, depriving many criminals’ right to repent. They assume that if the criminals are too malicious that must be segregated from the society, life imprisonment is one practicable measure, and is quite enough for a punishment. Death penalty is unnecessary and should be abolished as soon as possible in their view.
Giving person who made mistakes a second chance is natural and to be expected; criminals are no exception. “Once a sinner, always a sinner.” may not apply to all cases, but that doesn’t mean all the criminals should be given a second chance. Think this, if twenty years of family and school education still couldn’t effectively guide them to do the “right” thing, how can we expect jail could make any differences? And if the criminals were all sentenced to life imprisonment, soon the jail will become seriously overcrowding. What’s more, criminals’ daily expenses are paid by tax revenues from people; I don’t know whether life imprisonment is punishing the citizens or the criminals? I see no points in giving our money away just for the sake of “educating” these criminals. Before they committed crimes, they had already have education, the fundamental moralities of life somehow. Such as “What is righteousness?” “What is viciousness?” “What is good, and what is wrong?” If one doesn’t know that murder is incorrect, finding a teacher will be a vain attempt. Besides, I think people can distinguish wrong from right, surely they know that killing is wrong. The thing is, they kill because of their impulsive not because they don’t know it was wrong to do so. What I am trying to say is, can anyone guarantee that their impulsive, their rush had been successfully “educated” after imprisonment? Can anyone assure us that the criminals did repent for what they did while in jail?
Another problem of life imprisonment is parole. If criminals behave well during their imprisonment, they have the chance to apply for parole. However, statistics indicates that many parolees cannot find a job to make their living for they had criminal records, so they are likely to resume their old business again. Should we put ourselves in danger in order to give them a second chance?
In my opinion, death penalty still has its necessity to exist. Most of all, justice needs to take action, to stand up for the victims. I think the opponents are ignoring victims and their suffering family. They think execution as a tragedy, but shouldn’t they ask themselves first: the court will not sentence the criminals to death if the criminals didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. People should care more about the victims’ loss and their grief, instead of just focusing on those lawbreakers.

i want a dog!

Oh, how I wish that I can keep a dog! The other day I dreamt that I was playing with a cute little puppy, and after having that sweet dream, I just can’t stop thinking about that dog! I can even remember the feeling of touching his fluffy fur now. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to keep a dog, since my mom is kind of “allergic” to dogs. She hates the smell of dogs, the noisy barking, and, of course, the constantly flying around fur. My mom is very fussy about cleanness. For example, after I dry my hair, I have to crouch on the floor to pick all my hairs, otherwise she’ll get insanely angry about the whole “mess”. I always complain to her, “It’s only a few hairs, why are you so irritated?” She just said that she likes floor to be spotless, with “nothing” on it, if there’s any tiny little dirt, she’ll feel uncomfortable and will want to sweep the floor again and again and again. What more can I say? Tine dirt can annoy her that much, let alone my long, long, long hairs. Anyway, when I asked her if I can have a dog as pet, she coldly responded this to me: “Having your hairs all over the house is enough, I cannot stand another creature that walks around and leaves his fur everywhere he goes.” Well, as you can see, my mom is quite firm about it, I can never keep a dog, if I still live with her. Guess I’ll just have to wait a few years, when I got my own house, I can keep as many dogs or cats that I like. For now, the only pet that I can keep is probably fish. After all, fish doesn’t have any hairs to freak my mom out.

* The song is from Oasis(one of my favourite bands), it’s called Songbird.
Enjoy it : )