On July 2, I post my thoughts on the 2007 Supreme Court ruling on schools using quotas to make schools "diverse". I think racial quotas are silly, and that people can figure out on their own how to deal with diversity.
UH history professor Marcus Daniel wrote an editorial criticizing the Supreme Court decision.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jul/03/op/FP707030304.html
I sent him my July 2, 2007 post http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (scroll down to July 2, 2007 post)
Here is his silly email to me
---
Hiya Pablo,Thanks for your friendly email! I won't bother to go into all this with you as you clearly have opinions that brook no disagreement. The situation in Hawaii is different, mainly because of a history of US colonial occupation, although the "color-blind" approach of the Supreme Court represents a real threat to Hawaiians as well, hence the Akaka Bill. Unlike you I'm interested less in the issues of abstract principle than I am in the creation of a fair and just society. This is not the same as the "color-blind" legalism which has been used in the past (ie in Plessy) to justify profound racial abuses and the trampling of the 14th Amendment. Democracy and Justice are sometimes uneasy bedfellows, and letting people do what they want does not always produce justice viz, in the Jim Crow south which always had a white majority. According to your political principles, the south should be still be segregated. The assumption that animates the recent court decision, that the courts have nothing to say about the existing, and long-standing patterns of residential and racial segregation in our society, I find repellent. I often wonder whether people like you (and our beloved Supreme Court majority) would have been quite as keen advocates of "equality" for all in the period before Brown v. Board...personally I suspect your strident views would not have propelled you into the front lines of the civil rights movement. In fact, your arguments are exactly the same as those used by segregationists in the South, who always dressed white supremacy up in the garb of "equality" and "democracy." The point of my column was to show how this kind of simple-minded thinking will take us right back to a society of racial division and segregation. And the assumption of your message is that everybody prefers it that way anyway...except apparently the whites families clamoring to knock down the walls of "racial segregation" that keep them out of Kamehameha! If only they were as keen to send their kids to Farrington High or Waipahu (instead of maintaining their own exclusive residential/public school enclaves or sending their kids to Punahou and Iolani or one of the other all too numerous private schools in Hawaii) then none of this would be such a problem. Wonder why they aren't?
Aloha,Marcus
---
Here is my response to that silly e-mail
----
Your debate tactics is just inidirectly stating that "anyone who disagrees with the Radical Left is automatically is a Jim Crow Segregationist" You use those tactics to intimidate those who disagree with you from speaking out! That won't work with me!
The problem with Jim Crow was that Big Government told people where they could live, where they could go to school, where they could sit on the bus, who they could marry, etc. Big Government was interferring with people's choices in the Jim Crow era!
For the Brown vs Board of Ed, the African American family lived closer to the "white school" than the "black school". They argued they had the right to go to the school closer to them. And I agree with them!
And any African-American that wants to live in a mostly European-American suburb in the South should have the right to do that!
If you bothered to read my blogs, I am strong defender of immigration. (risking the strong hatred from the Radical Right) But you'll delibrately ignore that just because I believe government shouldn't chose the race of the school's demographics!
If you really believe I'm a segregationist, then answer the following questions
1) Why is that I (a Mexican/PuertoRican/German/Portuguse) am not living in East LA or South Bronx?
2) Why do I continue to live in areas dominated by Asians and Pacific Islanders?
I like living in Hawaii. If other Latinos want to come, I'll embrace that! If they rather stay in California instead of coming to Hawaii, who am I to tell them no? People have choices!
I've always been a minority in my neighborhood and I dont have any problem with that!
And if an African-American wants to live in Kahala, or a European-American wants to live in Waianae, that's fine with me! If a Guatemalan wants to live in Pearl City, that's fine with me! If a Samoan or a Micronesian wants to move to Hawaii Kai, that's fine with me.People have choices.
If a Filipino CHOOSES to live his whole life in Kalihi with other Filipinos, who is anyone to tell him no? If a Filipino CHOOSES to move to a Manoa or Kahala (areas with mostly Japanese and Euro-Americans) who is anyone to tell him no? (see, I'm being consistent)
You ask why aren't more white families aren't choosing Farrington or Waipahu high schools? Any white family that live in Kalihi or Waipahu would be able to go to those schools! And you will a find a few white kids in those schools. Yes, those families choose to be in a situation where they're a minority, but that's their choice!
Pablo Wegesend
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
I call for security too much?
I've worked at Central Middle School as a substitute teacher starting from Fall 2005 to Fall 2006. During the 2005-2006 school year, the principal was Ms Trew and the VP was Mr Ogawa. I got along with them, and they were very helpful.
However, they got replaced by Brian Mizuguchi and Cindy Yun-Kim, and things went sour in Fall 2006.
Last week, on July 19, 2007, I talked to the Hawaii Board of Education (BOE) about what goes on there. Ms Fisher was also there to talk about the corruption at CMS.
I know there's a risk in putting stuff on the Internet, but since I already testified in front of the BOE, it's already a matter of public record, so I might as well mention it on the blog.
Here's an outline of what I said. It's NOT word-for-word, just an outline
-----------
I am a substitute teacher working in the Honolulu District.
While working at Central Middle School during the fall 2006 semester, the principal told me that I was blocked from working at the school and he claimed that I "call sceurity too much".
Call security too much?
If a student is disruptive, disrespectful, and commiting repeat offenses, I have them sent to the office. (which is what I was told to do by substitute training course, and various school officials) If they refuse to go to the office, what am I supposed to. I can't drag them to the office. So I call security to get them out.
Teachers don't have time to counsel misbehaving students during classtime. We have to help the rest of students understand their lessons.
If an argument breaks out, I call security because it could turn violent. Even if I get the students to settle down temporarily, that won't stop them from retaliation after-school or off-campus. To prevent those things, I call security to get them out of class and send them to the counselor or vice-principal. It's their jobs to settle disputes.
I was told in substitute training course, that if I suspect a fight could occur, (even later in the day), I need to notify the office.
Yet the principal of Central Middle School says I "call security too much." His philosophy is dnagerous, in that it let problems fester until it gets worse.
Even when i question the principal on the issue, his reply was "want me to block you from the district?" That's not his job!
While the complex supervisor listened respectfully when I talked to her, she seemed to indirectly defend the principal's thought process on the security issue, and I should've been more clear on it with her.
The irony of all this was that the former vice-principal of Central Middle School (Mr Ogawa, in 2005-2006 year) told me to call security if a student is defiant. (Ogawa was no longer VP when CMS principal Mizuguchi said I "call security too much")
Other substitutes and former school officials thought what Mizuguchi said was "ridiculous"
I decide to talk the Board of Education, not so much for myself, but for the other teachers, the students and anyone else involved in Hawaii's public school system.
This isn't just about Central Middle School, it's about how all schools deal with student crisis.
----
After me and Ms Fisher testified, BOE member Mr Pennebacker asked DOE superintendent Ms Hamamoto (who was McKinley's principal when I was a student) to investigate this matter.
However, they got replaced by Brian Mizuguchi and Cindy Yun-Kim, and things went sour in Fall 2006.
Last week, on July 19, 2007, I talked to the Hawaii Board of Education (BOE) about what goes on there. Ms Fisher was also there to talk about the corruption at CMS.
I know there's a risk in putting stuff on the Internet, but since I already testified in front of the BOE, it's already a matter of public record, so I might as well mention it on the blog.
Here's an outline of what I said. It's NOT word-for-word, just an outline
-----------
I am a substitute teacher working in the Honolulu District.
While working at Central Middle School during the fall 2006 semester, the principal told me that I was blocked from working at the school and he claimed that I "call sceurity too much".
Call security too much?
If a student is disruptive, disrespectful, and commiting repeat offenses, I have them sent to the office. (which is what I was told to do by substitute training course, and various school officials) If they refuse to go to the office, what am I supposed to. I can't drag them to the office. So I call security to get them out.
Teachers don't have time to counsel misbehaving students during classtime. We have to help the rest of students understand their lessons.
If an argument breaks out, I call security because it could turn violent. Even if I get the students to settle down temporarily, that won't stop them from retaliation after-school or off-campus. To prevent those things, I call security to get them out of class and send them to the counselor or vice-principal. It's their jobs to settle disputes.
I was told in substitute training course, that if I suspect a fight could occur, (even later in the day), I need to notify the office.
Yet the principal of Central Middle School says I "call security too much." His philosophy is dnagerous, in that it let problems fester until it gets worse.
Even when i question the principal on the issue, his reply was "want me to block you from the district?" That's not his job!
While the complex supervisor listened respectfully when I talked to her, she seemed to indirectly defend the principal's thought process on the security issue, and I should've been more clear on it with her.
The irony of all this was that the former vice-principal of Central Middle School (Mr Ogawa, in 2005-2006 year) told me to call security if a student is defiant. (Ogawa was no longer VP when CMS principal Mizuguchi said I "call security too much")
Other substitutes and former school officials thought what Mizuguchi said was "ridiculous"
I decide to talk the Board of Education, not so much for myself, but for the other teachers, the students and anyone else involved in Hawaii's public school system.
This isn't just about Central Middle School, it's about how all schools deal with student crisis.
----
After me and Ms Fisher testified, BOE member Mr Pennebacker asked DOE superintendent Ms Hamamoto (who was McKinley's principal when I was a student) to investigate this matter.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Supreme Court, Schools & Diversity
On the recent Supreme Court decision on race & diversity in government (public) schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=print
With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.
Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.
Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
I commented on this issue last year. Here is what I wrote!
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
The idea that schools choose the race of it's students, for any reason, is ridiculous. Especially if it's a government school.
Our state of Hawaii is more racially integrated than most of the mainland. This state has the largest rate of inter-racial marriages and multi-racial people.
And we didn't get that way by having government schools choosing the race of it's students.
The real reason people had problems with segregated schools in the South pre-1960's, was because the government schools chose the race of it's students. Now, forcing schools to have a certain percentage of whites. blacks, etc for the sake of "diversity" is just as crazy!
Let the people figure out their own way of dealing with diversity.
That's what we in Hawaii have done.
Yes, a school like Waipahu High would have a lot of Filipinos, but anyone living in that school's district can go to that school. A school like Waianae High would have mostly Native Hawaiians, but anyone living in the district can go there. Hardly anyone in Hawaii has a problem with Waipahu High being mostly Filipino or Waianae High being mostly Native Hawaiian, because people can choose where they live.
Other schools have very different combinations of people, with Kahuku High having a lot of Polynesians and Caucasians; Roosevelt High having a lot of local Japanese and Native Hawaiians, or McKinley High having a large of number of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific (which, by the way, is where I, a Mexican/PuertoRican/Portuguese//German, graduated from). The people in those district choose to live among such diversity.
Yes, Hawaii has Kamehameha Schools, which admits only Native Hawaiians, but it's a private school. And even that has caused controversy. A person with 99% European/1% Hawaiian ancestry can go to Kamehameha School, but a 100% Samoan or a 100% Tongan can't go there, all because their ancestors landed on the wrong island.
On the recent Supreme Court decision on race & diversity in government (public) schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=print
With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.
Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.
Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
I commented on this issue last year. Here is what I wrote!
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
The idea that schools choose the race of it's students, for any reason, is ridiculous. Especially if it's a government school.
Our state of Hawaii is more racially integrated than most of the mainland. This state has the largest rate of inter-racial marriages and multi-racial people.
And we didn't get that way by having government schools choosing the race of it's students.
The real reason people had problems with segregated schools in the South pre-1960's, was because the government schools chose the race of it's students. Now, forcing schools to have a certain percentage of whites. blacks, etc for the sake of "diversity" is just as crazy!
Let the people figure out their own way of dealing with diversity.
That's what we in Hawaii have done.
Yes, a school like Waipahu High would have a lot of Filipinos, but anyone living in that school's district can go to that school. A school like Waianae High would have mostly Native Hawaiians, but anyone living in the district can go there. Hardly anyone in Hawaii has a problem with Waipahu High being mostly Filipino or Waianae High being mostly Native Hawaiian, because people can choose where they live.
Other schools have very different combinations of people, with Kahuku High having a lot of Polynesians and Caucasians; Roosevelt High having a lot of local Japanese and Native Hawaiians, or McKinley High having a large of number of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific (which, by the way, is where I, a Mexican/PuertoRican/Portuguese//German, graduated from). The people in those district choose to live among such diversity.
Yes, Hawaii has Kamehameha Schools, which admits only Native Hawaiians, but it's a private school. And even that has caused controversy. A person with 99% European/1% Hawaiian ancestry can go to Kamehameha School, but a 100% Samoan or a 100% Tongan can't go there, all because their ancestors landed on the wrong island.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Hypocracy of the anti-immigration fascists
The anti-immigration fascists love to talk about heinous crimes that immigrants have committed. But even when they do that, they only talk about crimes committed by NON-WHITE immigrants.
Earlier this week, a French-Canadian immigrant wrestler who goes by the name of Chris Benoit killed his wife and son at his home near Atlanta. Benoit later killed himself.
Here is the grisly details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/
Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with a weight-machine pulley, authorities said Tuesday.
[paragraphs skipped]
Benoit’s 43-year-old wife was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said. Daniel was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, the district attorney said.
Benoit, 40, apparently hanged himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.
A closed Bible was placed next to the bodies of the wife and son, authorities said.
If that was committed by an immigrant from Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, or any other non-white nation, the anti-immigration fascists like Pat Buchanan, Debbie Schussell, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc would say "these are people from a savage culture! why do you want more of these people coming to our country?"
To the anti-immigration fascists, heinous crimes committed by white people (like Chris Benoit) are considered "isolated incidents". However, if committed by non-whites, they'll yell out "see, I told you those people are like that? what, you want more of them in your neighborhood?"
The anti-immigration fascists dont want to talk about acts of kindness from non-white immigrants. They don't want to talk about the white American lives saved by non-white immigrant doctors, nurses, firefighters, lifeguards, etc. They don't want to talk about good customer service from non-white immigrant workers! They don't want to talk about non-white immigrant teachers, counselors, coaches, etc who inspire our young people!
The anti-immigration fascists don't care about the facts. They want an all-white America that they once knew, and they are uncomfortable around those with different skin colors, different accents, different cultures.
If a non-white immigrant commits a heinous crime, that scares the anti-immigrant a lot more than a Chris Benoit commiting a heinous crime. The anti-immigrant fascist would see Benoit (though a French-Canadian immigrant) as someone who reminds them of their brother, uncle, childhood friend, or boyfriend!
They dont have the same familiarity with non-white immigrants, so they freak out anytime a non-white immigrant commits even a minor moral violation!
The anti-immigration fascists love to talk about heinous crimes that immigrants have committed. But even when they do that, they only talk about crimes committed by NON-WHITE immigrants.
Earlier this week, a French-Canadian immigrant wrestler who goes by the name of Chris Benoit killed his wife and son at his home near Atlanta. Benoit later killed himself.
Here is the grisly details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/
Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with a weight-machine pulley, authorities said Tuesday.
[paragraphs skipped]
Benoit’s 43-year-old wife was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said. Daniel was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, the district attorney said.
Benoit, 40, apparently hanged himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.
A closed Bible was placed next to the bodies of the wife and son, authorities said.
If that was committed by an immigrant from Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, or any other non-white nation, the anti-immigration fascists like Pat Buchanan, Debbie Schussell, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc would say "these are people from a savage culture! why do you want more of these people coming to our country?"
To the anti-immigration fascists, heinous crimes committed by white people (like Chris Benoit) are considered "isolated incidents". However, if committed by non-whites, they'll yell out "see, I told you those people are like that? what, you want more of them in your neighborhood?"
The anti-immigration fascists dont want to talk about acts of kindness from non-white immigrants. They don't want to talk about the white American lives saved by non-white immigrant doctors, nurses, firefighters, lifeguards, etc. They don't want to talk about good customer service from non-white immigrant workers! They don't want to talk about non-white immigrant teachers, counselors, coaches, etc who inspire our young people!
The anti-immigration fascists don't care about the facts. They want an all-white America that they once knew, and they are uncomfortable around those with different skin colors, different accents, different cultures.
If a non-white immigrant commits a heinous crime, that scares the anti-immigrant a lot more than a Chris Benoit commiting a heinous crime. The anti-immigrant fascist would see Benoit (though a French-Canadian immigrant) as someone who reminds them of their brother, uncle, childhood friend, or boyfriend!
They dont have the same familiarity with non-white immigrants, so they freak out anytime a non-white immigrant commits even a minor moral violation!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Ron Paul on immigration
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Kam Bowl
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kamehameha Day
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)