More on Cell Phones on Buses
The City Council, some bus drivers and bus riders want to ban cell-phone ringtones on the bus.
This is what I wrote to the Honolulu Advertiser.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Dec/25/op/FP612250301.html
BUS BAN ON CELL-PHONE RINGTONES IS RIDICULOUS
The City Council passed Bill 71, which bans cell-phone ringtones on the bus. It has yet to be signed by the mayor.
The idea of banning cell-phone ringtones on the bus is ridiculous, and is an overreaction to something that is extremely minor.
The bus isn't a library, a classroom or a private space for meditation.
If we ban cell-phone rings, what next? Do we ban all conversations between passengers?
Also, if someone who is in a hurry to go to work (or another appointment) and forgot to put the phone on vibrate, that person will suffer the humiliation of being expelled from the bus.
And that person will suffer just for the sake of petty tyrants who complain about extremely minor issues!
We need to encourage Mayor Mufi Hanneman to veto Bill 71.
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu
Friday, December 01, 2006
The End of an Era
Tower Records will soon be going out of business.
Part of this is due to the popularity of downloading songs off the Internet. The younger generation prefers to downloads songs from iTunes instead of buying a CD (which might have 2 good songs, and 8 songs to take up space)
Still, I'll really miss going to Tower's!
I remember when I was attending McKinley High School, I would sometimes walk to Tower's after-school! (side note: being able to walk to Tower's was one of the great benefits of attending McKinley High School)
I would go to Tower's and usually stay there for at least an hour. I can look at the new CD's, read the magazines, and sometimes buy the CD's.
But the BEST THING ABOUT Tower's was the listening stations. Listening stations had a group of CDs you can listen to before you buy them.
Sometimes, the listening stations had the really popular albums. Other times, they had albums that have been over-looked by the mainstream media!
The listening stations were separated by categories, so that there were listening stations for hip-hop, reggae, heavy metal/hard rock, jazz, techno, Hawaiian, etc. There were also listening stations reserved for musicians who were ignored by radio & MTV!
With listening stations, I could find out which CD was worth spending my limited funds.
Sometimes, I hear a good song on the radio, and I find out from the listening stations that the rest of that musician's albums is just junk!
Other times, the listening stations had albums that from musicians that have been over-looked by radio stations & MTV! However, when listening to the album, I loved it so much, I bought it!
Many of the other record stores, like Sam Goody's, either DONT have those listening stations or dont have as many as Tower's did!
I used to go to Tower's every week, but time limits have reduced how often I went to Tower's. Soon, I would no longer able to go there!
I would be really saddenned when Tower's is closed forever! It was such a big part of my teenage and young adult years! It was where I would sometimes run into my friends and acquaintances! It was a place which my family know I love! The staff members there recognized me when I went there! It was one of my favorite places!
To the folks at Tower Records, thank you for so many good years of service! I will forever miss you!
Tower Records will soon be going out of business.
Part of this is due to the popularity of downloading songs off the Internet. The younger generation prefers to downloads songs from iTunes instead of buying a CD (which might have 2 good songs, and 8 songs to take up space)
Still, I'll really miss going to Tower's!
I remember when I was attending McKinley High School, I would sometimes walk to Tower's after-school! (side note: being able to walk to Tower's was one of the great benefits of attending McKinley High School)
I would go to Tower's and usually stay there for at least an hour. I can look at the new CD's, read the magazines, and sometimes buy the CD's.
But the BEST THING ABOUT Tower's was the listening stations. Listening stations had a group of CDs you can listen to before you buy them.
Sometimes, the listening stations had the really popular albums. Other times, they had albums that have been over-looked by the mainstream media!
The listening stations were separated by categories, so that there were listening stations for hip-hop, reggae, heavy metal/hard rock, jazz, techno, Hawaiian, etc. There were also listening stations reserved for musicians who were ignored by radio & MTV!
With listening stations, I could find out which CD was worth spending my limited funds.
Sometimes, I hear a good song on the radio, and I find out from the listening stations that the rest of that musician's albums is just junk!
Other times, the listening stations had albums that from musicians that have been over-looked by radio stations & MTV! However, when listening to the album, I loved it so much, I bought it!
Many of the other record stores, like Sam Goody's, either DONT have those listening stations or dont have as many as Tower's did!
I used to go to Tower's every week, but time limits have reduced how often I went to Tower's. Soon, I would no longer able to go there!
I would be really saddenned when Tower's is closed forever! It was such a big part of my teenage and young adult years! It was where I would sometimes run into my friends and acquaintances! It was a place which my family know I love! The staff members there recognized me when I went there! It was one of my favorite places!
To the folks at Tower Records, thank you for so many good years of service! I will forever miss you!
Cell phones on the bus
Here is my letter to the Star Bulletin on the idea of regulating cell phone use on the bus
http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/22/editorial/letters.html
Don't ban cell phones on city buses
There is a bill in the City Council to regulate the use of cell phones on TheBus. That is a step in the wrong direction, and is out of touch with the lives of average bus riders.
If I'm riding the bus and there is a traffic jam, I'll be late for wherever I'm going. I'll need to notify those who I need to meet. I'll need to use my cell phone!
Another scenario: I am almost never home in daytime. But someone might need to contact me during the daytime. That is why I carry a cell phone. If I'm on the bus, I'll need to speak to that person on the cell phone!
I might need to get important information out to someone. But the only time I could do so is when I'm not busy. And when I'm on the bus, I'm not busy, so that's the time to call!
I don't use the cell phone every single minute while I'm on the bus. I also understand common courtesy and will not discuss certain subjects in a public space.
But I also believe bus riders need to understand that the bus is not a private space, nor should they feel entitled to having every single moment on the bus as a silent moment.
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu
And here's a response to my letter
http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/25/editorial/letters.html
We do need ban on cell phones in buses
In reference to the Nov. 22 letter by Pablo Wegesend about cell phones on city buses: It is about time a cell-phone ban takes place. I have been a bus rider for 20 years -- 10 years with the presence of cell phones. It is hell riding on the bus with someone sitting next to you chattering about personal business for more than one hour at 7 o'clock in the morning or going home late in the afternoon. God help you when that person is using a walkie-talkie type cell phone! And imagine if you have someone next to you and behind you talking on cell phones at the same time. When that happens, I usually find another seat and move. Why should I be forced to do that?
I understand the need for cell phones in emergencies. Other than that, people should shut them off. Business can wait. Unless you commute to the countryside, bus rides usually are short.
So shut off those cell phones, and meditate or read. This applies to bus drivers as well. This is the very same reason why radios are not permitted in the bus. Imagine if everyone turned their radios on?
Rosita Sipirok-Siregar
Makakilo
---
My response:
Listening to a fellow bus passenger talk on the cell phone is just like listening to 2 friends on the bus talking to each other!
What, we cannot talk while we're in the bus?
Here is my letter to the Star Bulletin on the idea of regulating cell phone use on the bus
http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/22/editorial/letters.html
Don't ban cell phones on city buses
There is a bill in the City Council to regulate the use of cell phones on TheBus. That is a step in the wrong direction, and is out of touch with the lives of average bus riders.
If I'm riding the bus and there is a traffic jam, I'll be late for wherever I'm going. I'll need to notify those who I need to meet. I'll need to use my cell phone!
Another scenario: I am almost never home in daytime. But someone might need to contact me during the daytime. That is why I carry a cell phone. If I'm on the bus, I'll need to speak to that person on the cell phone!
I might need to get important information out to someone. But the only time I could do so is when I'm not busy. And when I'm on the bus, I'm not busy, so that's the time to call!
I don't use the cell phone every single minute while I'm on the bus. I also understand common courtesy and will not discuss certain subjects in a public space.
But I also believe bus riders need to understand that the bus is not a private space, nor should they feel entitled to having every single moment on the bus as a silent moment.
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu
And here's a response to my letter
http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/25/editorial/letters.html
We do need ban on cell phones in buses
In reference to the Nov. 22 letter by Pablo Wegesend about cell phones on city buses: It is about time a cell-phone ban takes place. I have been a bus rider for 20 years -- 10 years with the presence of cell phones. It is hell riding on the bus with someone sitting next to you chattering about personal business for more than one hour at 7 o'clock in the morning or going home late in the afternoon. God help you when that person is using a walkie-talkie type cell phone! And imagine if you have someone next to you and behind you talking on cell phones at the same time. When that happens, I usually find another seat and move. Why should I be forced to do that?
I understand the need for cell phones in emergencies. Other than that, people should shut them off. Business can wait. Unless you commute to the countryside, bus rides usually are short.
So shut off those cell phones, and meditate or read. This applies to bus drivers as well. This is the very same reason why radios are not permitted in the bus. Imagine if everyone turned their radios on?
Rosita Sipirok-Siregar
Makakilo
---
My response:
Listening to a fellow bus passenger talk on the cell phone is just like listening to 2 friends on the bus talking to each other!
What, we cannot talk while we're in the bus?
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Election Results
Hawaii Results
1) Linda Lingle got re-elected as governor of Hawaii. However, the Democrats kept control of the state legislature, as well as Hawaii's entire US congressional delegation. So it means that Hawaii is still mostly Democrat, though a moderate Republican can win if the Democrat candidate is really weak.
National Results
Democrats took over Congress. That means several things!
1) The US will probably withdraw from Iraq before the 2008 elections.
2) Remember when Rush Limbaugh was mocking Micheal J Fox's ads for several Democrat candidates? Fox was supporting the Democrat candidates who supported federally funding stem cell research! Limbaugh said Fox's Parkinson's symptoms shown in the video was fake! Those comments from Limbaugh got a lot of controversy.
One of the candidates supported by Micheal J Fox was Claire Caskill who was running for Missouri's seat in the US Senate! She won, and she said Limbaugh's comment s indirectly helped Fox's cause and her candidacy.
3) Some Republican candidates made anti-immigration ads in hope it will make Democrats be on the defensive for their pro-immigration views.
One of those candidates was Vernon Robinson, a Republican from North Carolina. He calls himself the "black Jesse Helms". His ads portrayed Mexican immigrants as criminals, illegal aliens, flag burners and said they'll take American jobs. Robinson was encouraging people to be afraid of immigration!
Those ads didn't work! He lost!
Some Republicans haven't learned the lesson of the 1990's. Republicans in California were promoting anti-immigration laws in the early 1990's. Many Latinos who didn't vote before, woke up and started voting. They helped the Democrats win in California in the late 1990s. Then-Texas governor George W. Bush took notice, and thought that the Republicans need to be more pro-immigration. Bush won the Presidency TWICE without hating on immigrants.
Meanwhile, the Republican senator from Virginia, George Allen was mocking the Democrat campaign volunteer who happened to be of Indian descent as a "macaca", and told him "Welcome to America". Ironically, that Indian guy was born in Virginia. It was Allen who migrated from California to Virginia!
The Democrat running for the same position, James Webb, was falling behind until Allen mocked the Indian guy. Then Webb gained momentum because of Allen's comments! Webb ended up winning the Senate seat in what was once a mostly Republican state!
Racism doesn't help you win elections anymore. It didn't even help those 2 Republicans running in the former Confederate states!
The Latino and Asian population in America is growing. And they're no longer just confined to the coastal areas or the Southwest. Some whites and blacks still fear them coming! But as time goes by, more people get used to the larger presence of Latinos and Asians. Politicians can no longer mock them with impunity.
4) Some of the Democrats who won were culturally conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Many of them were from the usually Republican Southeast and Rocky Mountain areas. So the liberal Democrats will have to acknowledge that!
However, some of the newly elected Democrat representatives were also left-wing liberals. So the conservatives pundits should acknowledge that too!
For more info, check out this article by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139093
Hawaii Results
1) Linda Lingle got re-elected as governor of Hawaii. However, the Democrats kept control of the state legislature, as well as Hawaii's entire US congressional delegation. So it means that Hawaii is still mostly Democrat, though a moderate Republican can win if the Democrat candidate is really weak.
National Results
Democrats took over Congress. That means several things!
1) The US will probably withdraw from Iraq before the 2008 elections.
2) Remember when Rush Limbaugh was mocking Micheal J Fox's ads for several Democrat candidates? Fox was supporting the Democrat candidates who supported federally funding stem cell research! Limbaugh said Fox's Parkinson's symptoms shown in the video was fake! Those comments from Limbaugh got a lot of controversy.
One of the candidates supported by Micheal J Fox was Claire Caskill who was running for Missouri's seat in the US Senate! She won, and she said Limbaugh's comment s indirectly helped Fox's cause and her candidacy.
3) Some Republican candidates made anti-immigration ads in hope it will make Democrats be on the defensive for their pro-immigration views.
One of those candidates was Vernon Robinson, a Republican from North Carolina. He calls himself the "black Jesse Helms". His ads portrayed Mexican immigrants as criminals, illegal aliens, flag burners and said they'll take American jobs. Robinson was encouraging people to be afraid of immigration!
Those ads didn't work! He lost!
Some Republicans haven't learned the lesson of the 1990's. Republicans in California were promoting anti-immigration laws in the early 1990's. Many Latinos who didn't vote before, woke up and started voting. They helped the Democrats win in California in the late 1990s. Then-Texas governor George W. Bush took notice, and thought that the Republicans need to be more pro-immigration. Bush won the Presidency TWICE without hating on immigrants.
Meanwhile, the Republican senator from Virginia, George Allen was mocking the Democrat campaign volunteer who happened to be of Indian descent as a "macaca", and told him "Welcome to America". Ironically, that Indian guy was born in Virginia. It was Allen who migrated from California to Virginia!
The Democrat running for the same position, James Webb, was falling behind until Allen mocked the Indian guy. Then Webb gained momentum because of Allen's comments! Webb ended up winning the Senate seat in what was once a mostly Republican state!
Racism doesn't help you win elections anymore. It didn't even help those 2 Republicans running in the former Confederate states!
The Latino and Asian population in America is growing. And they're no longer just confined to the coastal areas or the Southwest. Some whites and blacks still fear them coming! But as time goes by, more people get used to the larger presence of Latinos and Asians. Politicians can no longer mock them with impunity.
4) Some of the Democrats who won were culturally conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Many of them were from the usually Republican Southeast and Rocky Mountain areas. So the liberal Democrats will have to acknowledge that!
However, some of the newly elected Democrat representatives were also left-wing liberals. So the conservatives pundits should acknowledge that too!
For more info, check out this article by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139093
Monday, November 06, 2006
Elections Tommorrow
Because I am working at one of the voting places tommorrow, I did a walk-in vote last week.
1) I already re-elected Linda Lingle for governor. Hawaii's economy is a lot better under Lingle than it was under Ben Cayetano
2) There's thousands of people who say "why should I vote, it's not like it's gonna matter!"
If those thousands of people voted, it could make a BIG difference. You got to be part of a collective sometimes. People got to pull together. Just like us spending money affects the economy. I dont hear anyone say "why should I spend money, not like it's gonna matter!"
In a democracy, people get to choose their leaders. Do you want someone to chose the leaders for you?
If you are eligible to vote, but don't, then don't complain when there's a new law that you don't like! You had your chance to choose your leaders, but you didn't! You let others chose the leaders! You let others tell you what to do!
3) Some liberal Democrats say that the voter ID laws passed by many states is discriminatory because lower-income people & non-whites are less likely to have an ID.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/06/arizona_voters/
This is how I responded to that article!
Here in Hawaii, ( a mostly Democrat state) people need an ID to vote and no one is complaining.
Democrats shouldn't be complaining about the ID requirement, they should just encourage their fans to get their IDs. They should've done this MONTHS AGO!
And stop this race crad, class card stuff already.
I am part Latino and I dont make much money, but I got my ID a long time ago. Everyone should get one! It's not a race or class thing! It's a common sense thing!
4) Michael J Fox made a few ads supporting Democrat candidates, citing their support of federally-funded stem-cell research!
Rush Limbaugh was mocking Michael J Fox, saying that his symptons shown on camera was faked, and claimed it was politically motivated.
If Limbaugh believes that medical research ought to be done in the private sector instead of by government, why didn't he just say that? Why did he pick on Michael J Fox?
5) John Kerry said to an audience at a California college, that if you don't study, you could end up stuck in Iraq. Kerry was implying that those who don't do well in school, end up with less options and more likely to resort to joining the military.
But many military officers had a college education!
John Kerry said he was saying a "botched joke" about President Bush! I think Kerry should stop trying to be funny, since that's not his main strength!
Because I am working at one of the voting places tommorrow, I did a walk-in vote last week.
1) I already re-elected Linda Lingle for governor. Hawaii's economy is a lot better under Lingle than it was under Ben Cayetano
2) There's thousands of people who say "why should I vote, it's not like it's gonna matter!"
If those thousands of people voted, it could make a BIG difference. You got to be part of a collective sometimes. People got to pull together. Just like us spending money affects the economy. I dont hear anyone say "why should I spend money, not like it's gonna matter!"
In a democracy, people get to choose their leaders. Do you want someone to chose the leaders for you?
If you are eligible to vote, but don't, then don't complain when there's a new law that you don't like! You had your chance to choose your leaders, but you didn't! You let others chose the leaders! You let others tell you what to do!
3) Some liberal Democrats say that the voter ID laws passed by many states is discriminatory because lower-income people & non-whites are less likely to have an ID.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/06/arizona_voters/
This is how I responded to that article!
Here in Hawaii, ( a mostly Democrat state) people need an ID to vote and no one is complaining.
Democrats shouldn't be complaining about the ID requirement, they should just encourage their fans to get their IDs. They should've done this MONTHS AGO!
And stop this race crad, class card stuff already.
I am part Latino and I dont make much money, but I got my ID a long time ago. Everyone should get one! It's not a race or class thing! It's a common sense thing!
4) Michael J Fox made a few ads supporting Democrat candidates, citing their support of federally-funded stem-cell research!
Rush Limbaugh was mocking Michael J Fox, saying that his symptons shown on camera was faked, and claimed it was politically motivated.
If Limbaugh believes that medical research ought to be done in the private sector instead of by government, why didn't he just say that? Why did he pick on Michael J Fox?
5) John Kerry said to an audience at a California college, that if you don't study, you could end up stuck in Iraq. Kerry was implying that those who don't do well in school, end up with less options and more likely to resort to joining the military.
But many military officers had a college education!
John Kerry said he was saying a "botched joke" about President Bush! I think Kerry should stop trying to be funny, since that's not his main strength!
Monday, October 16, 2006
Earthquakes on my Birthday
Yesterday was my birthday. I became 26 years old.
My plans yesterday was to go to Kam Bowl's in Kalihi to have my usual birthday breakfast. Kam Bowl's make the best fried rice and scrambled eggs. I was gonna go there with my parents and my grandma.
At 7am yesterday, I was about to take a shower, when the building started to shake!
At first, I just thought the noise was coming from a car blasting it's bass really loud. But the building was shaking so hard, that I then knew it was an earthquake!
It was the 1st time in my life I experienced an earthquake!
Obviously, I was nervous! The earthquake lasted last less than a minute! The earthquake didn't destroy anything around me! After a few minutes, I just did what I was going to do anyways.
Few minutes after the earthquake, all the electricity went off!
Then I got a call from my parents. The breakfast at Kam Bowl's would be cancelled since the restaurants wouldn't be able to operate without electricity!
It was a good thing I had batteries for my radio. It was also a good thing I didn't throw away my old stereo. I didn't like my old stereo because the CD player didn't work anymore, it had no bass, and it only catches a few radio stations. However, the new stereo (which has better bass, can play CDs and catches all the radio stations) COULDN'T operate on batteries. The small old stereo did! It could still catch a few stations to follow the news!
Outside was so hot & humid, and the fans and air condition couldn't work! I just stayed home and read newspapers!
At least I had some food available!
Showers didn't have warm water. I'm not used to cold water, but it's better than not taking a bath at all!
I usually shave on Sunday nights, but I decided to shave in the afternoon, because I wasn't going to shave in the dark! (I use a razor that can be recharged, so it doesn't need to be plugged in when I use it!)
In the early evenings, I talked with my neighbors. When night fell, I was thinking about sleeping early since there's no light!
I was talking to some neighbors at around 7:20 p.m. when the light finally came on. Everyone was celebrating and life came back to normal!
This was a reminder that every good thing you have can be lost in a few minutes!
Lucky for us on Oahu, we got our electricity back and the buildings weren't destroyed! Those on the Big Island of Hawaii weren't so lucky! Roads and buildings were destroyed!
There's people worldwide who don't have electricity or running water available. There's people who lives been recently been ruined by natural disasters or wars! There's people who don't have easy access to food, water or health care! There's people who don't have any shelter!
I am one of the fortunate ones yesterday! While I didn't have my ideal birthday, I understand that things can be a lot worse! I hope that never happens!
Yesterday was my birthday. I became 26 years old.
My plans yesterday was to go to Kam Bowl's in Kalihi to have my usual birthday breakfast. Kam Bowl's make the best fried rice and scrambled eggs. I was gonna go there with my parents and my grandma.
At 7am yesterday, I was about to take a shower, when the building started to shake!
At first, I just thought the noise was coming from a car blasting it's bass really loud. But the building was shaking so hard, that I then knew it was an earthquake!
It was the 1st time in my life I experienced an earthquake!
Obviously, I was nervous! The earthquake lasted last less than a minute! The earthquake didn't destroy anything around me! After a few minutes, I just did what I was going to do anyways.
Few minutes after the earthquake, all the electricity went off!
Then I got a call from my parents. The breakfast at Kam Bowl's would be cancelled since the restaurants wouldn't be able to operate without electricity!
It was a good thing I had batteries for my radio. It was also a good thing I didn't throw away my old stereo. I didn't like my old stereo because the CD player didn't work anymore, it had no bass, and it only catches a few radio stations. However, the new stereo (which has better bass, can play CDs and catches all the radio stations) COULDN'T operate on batteries. The small old stereo did! It could still catch a few stations to follow the news!
Outside was so hot & humid, and the fans and air condition couldn't work! I just stayed home and read newspapers!
At least I had some food available!
Showers didn't have warm water. I'm not used to cold water, but it's better than not taking a bath at all!
I usually shave on Sunday nights, but I decided to shave in the afternoon, because I wasn't going to shave in the dark! (I use a razor that can be recharged, so it doesn't need to be plugged in when I use it!)
In the early evenings, I talked with my neighbors. When night fell, I was thinking about sleeping early since there's no light!
I was talking to some neighbors at around 7:20 p.m. when the light finally came on. Everyone was celebrating and life came back to normal!
This was a reminder that every good thing you have can be lost in a few minutes!
Lucky for us on Oahu, we got our electricity back and the buildings weren't destroyed! Those on the Big Island of Hawaii weren't so lucky! Roads and buildings were destroyed!
There's people worldwide who don't have electricity or running water available. There's people who lives been recently been ruined by natural disasters or wars! There's people who don't have easy access to food, water or health care! There's people who don't have any shelter!
I am one of the fortunate ones yesterday! While I didn't have my ideal birthday, I understand that things can be a lot worse! I hope that never happens!
Friday, September 15, 2006
Race, Celebrities and Double Standards
In my previous post, I mention about 2 white guys who hated 2pac because of "his attitude". Then I mentioned that those white guys liked heavy metal and punk rock, which promotes the same exact attitude as gangsta rap! After all, those 2 white guys didn't make insulting remarks about Axl Rose, Phil Anselmo, Marrolyn Manson, or that guy from Oasis, all of whom gotten into serious trouble with the law.
One of my friends, Stuart Hayashi, had the following to say about my previous post.
-------------------------
I think there is this big double-standard that people have between black rappers and famous white actors.
Do you know who I think is a REAL bad influence on little boys? Russell Crowe!
Russell Crowe does not merely create artwork that is violent, orcreate art to show how violent his youth was. He, as a grown,middle-aged man, has behaved violently IN RECENT YEARS! The big lug threatened a TV director for cutting his long,self-indulgent poem-reading during his award speech.
Then he gets into a bar fight with his security guard and rips his ear.
Then Russell Crowe throws an entire telephone at a man.
So wouln't it be logical to conclude that Russell Crowe is a far worse role model for kids than any rapper who merely *RAPS* about violence but who lives peacefully as an adult? Russell Crowe is an OLD MAN who behaves violently in real life.
-----
Pablo: That's a good point. Most of the gangsta rappers of the 90's have already grown out of the gangsta lifestyle by now. You rarely hear about Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube or Ice T getting into trouble these days.
They might still rap about the gangsta life, but they're not living it anymore. They don't even live in the ghetto where they grew up.
Anyways, back to Stuart Hayashi's words
------------------------------------
What is the consequence of that? Do we hear Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel scolding him for being such a brazen thug? Not as much as we read in *Entertainment Weekly* about what a talented actor Russell Crowe is and about how "sexy" he is for being such a "badboy."
But God forbid that Bill O'Reilly might invite Russell Crowe onto this show to castigate him for the negative message he sends toAmerica's youth.
Russell Crowe, after all, won the Best Actor OSCAR. Perhaps O'Reilly did scold Russell Crowe on his show when the stories of those incidents broke out. Even if that is the case, we still don't see O'Reilly running the same long-term campaign against Crowe on his show -- for Crowe's actual acts of violence! -- that we see O'Reilly running against certain musicians whose art *portrays*violence.
---------------
This reminds me of Bill O'Reilly's campaign against Ludacris because of his lyrics. But I rarely ever hear about Ludacris getting into trouble with the law.
------------------------------------------
And what about Mark Wahlberg? He gets into fights. And he's made racist slurs about Koreans.
------
This does remind me of a time when Ice Cube made the song "Black Korea" in which he accused Korean store-owners of mis-treating African-American customers and said he wanted to burn their stores. He also made fun of their language. That was back in 1991, the year before a riot occured in LA, when African-American looters burned down Korean-owned stores!
When Mark Wahlberg ( an Irish-American actor who was once a rapper named Marky Mark) was a teenager, he racially insulted and then violently assaulted a Vietnamese boy. He also commited a similar crime against an African American boy.
So both of those rapper/actors ought to be condemned. You shouldn't condemn one without condemning the other.
-------------
Back in 1990, Johnny Depp trashed his hotel rooms. But instead of portraying him as an immature troublemaker, the press cheered that this showed how much of an amusing, eccentric ARTISTE he was.
When was the last time we heard somebody chastise Winona Ryder for being a thief?
And Tom Sizemore has reportedly beat up women. Charges were even filed against him for beating up Heidi Fleiss. And yet, with the exception of *People* magazine, I hardly see any publications condemn Sizemore for his REAL-LIFE abusive behavior.
While black rappers get a bad rap (no pun intended), supposedly grown-up white actors get a free pass when they violate people's rights in REAL LIFE.
In my previous post, I mention about 2 white guys who hated 2pac because of "his attitude". Then I mentioned that those white guys liked heavy metal and punk rock, which promotes the same exact attitude as gangsta rap! After all, those 2 white guys didn't make insulting remarks about Axl Rose, Phil Anselmo, Marrolyn Manson, or that guy from Oasis, all of whom gotten into serious trouble with the law.
One of my friends, Stuart Hayashi, had the following to say about my previous post.
-------------------------
I think there is this big double-standard that people have between black rappers and famous white actors.
Do you know who I think is a REAL bad influence on little boys? Russell Crowe!
Russell Crowe does not merely create artwork that is violent, orcreate art to show how violent his youth was. He, as a grown,middle-aged man, has behaved violently IN RECENT YEARS! The big lug threatened a TV director for cutting his long,self-indulgent poem-reading during his award speech.
Then he gets into a bar fight with his security guard and rips his ear.
Then Russell Crowe throws an entire telephone at a man.
So wouln't it be logical to conclude that Russell Crowe is a far worse role model for kids than any rapper who merely *RAPS* about violence but who lives peacefully as an adult? Russell Crowe is an OLD MAN who behaves violently in real life.
-----
Pablo: That's a good point. Most of the gangsta rappers of the 90's have already grown out of the gangsta lifestyle by now. You rarely hear about Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube or Ice T getting into trouble these days.
They might still rap about the gangsta life, but they're not living it anymore. They don't even live in the ghetto where they grew up.
Anyways, back to Stuart Hayashi's words
------------------------------------
What is the consequence of that? Do we hear Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel scolding him for being such a brazen thug? Not as much as we read in *Entertainment Weekly* about what a talented actor Russell Crowe is and about how "sexy" he is for being such a "badboy."
But God forbid that Bill O'Reilly might invite Russell Crowe onto this show to castigate him for the negative message he sends toAmerica's youth.
Russell Crowe, after all, won the Best Actor OSCAR. Perhaps O'Reilly did scold Russell Crowe on his show when the stories of those incidents broke out. Even if that is the case, we still don't see O'Reilly running the same long-term campaign against Crowe on his show -- for Crowe's actual acts of violence! -- that we see O'Reilly running against certain musicians whose art *portrays*violence.
---------------
This reminds me of Bill O'Reilly's campaign against Ludacris because of his lyrics. But I rarely ever hear about Ludacris getting into trouble with the law.
------------------------------------------
And what about Mark Wahlberg? He gets into fights. And he's made racist slurs about Koreans.
------
This does remind me of a time when Ice Cube made the song "Black Korea" in which he accused Korean store-owners of mis-treating African-American customers and said he wanted to burn their stores. He also made fun of their language. That was back in 1991, the year before a riot occured in LA, when African-American looters burned down Korean-owned stores!
When Mark Wahlberg ( an Irish-American actor who was once a rapper named Marky Mark) was a teenager, he racially insulted and then violently assaulted a Vietnamese boy. He also commited a similar crime against an African American boy.
So both of those rapper/actors ought to be condemned. You shouldn't condemn one without condemning the other.
-------------
Back in 1990, Johnny Depp trashed his hotel rooms. But instead of portraying him as an immature troublemaker, the press cheered that this showed how much of an amusing, eccentric ARTISTE he was.
When was the last time we heard somebody chastise Winona Ryder for being a thief?
And Tom Sizemore has reportedly beat up women. Charges were even filed against him for beating up Heidi Fleiss. And yet, with the exception of *People* magazine, I hardly see any publications condemn Sizemore for his REAL-LIFE abusive behavior.
While black rappers get a bad rap (no pun intended), supposedly grown-up white actors get a free pass when they violate people's rights in REAL LIFE.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Life and Death of 2pac
10 years ago today, the legendary rapper Tupac Shakur (aka 2pac) passed away. He died almost a week after being shot several times. Tupac was riding with Suge Knight (head of Death Row Records) around Las Vegas when he was shot.
1) I was a teenager when 2pac was alive and popular! I was in high school when he died! His music brings me back memories of those times! Those of my generation feel the same way. To my generation, 2pac is a legend, just like how Elvis was a legend for the teenagers of the 1950's,!
2) Some people thought Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death. That is ridiculous!
If you want someone dead, would you want to be right next to him when the bullets start flying?
Plus, Suge Knight was shot too, though he didn't recieve as many bullets as 2pac.
Some might think I'm just saying that because I'm afraid of Suge Knight. Obviously, I wouldn't want to mess with that guy!
But the main reason why I don't think Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death is because he was sitting next to 2pac when the bullets were flying, and Knight got hit by bullets too!
Plus, Suge Knight and 2pac seemed to good friends who always hang out together. So I don't think Knight would ever want 2pac dead.
3) I remember this one white guy I was talking to was saying "2pac was just another black dude with a bad attitude". And another told me that one porno book store employee (who was also white) was saying he was happy when 2pac died.
What a bunch of morons!
Those white guys embrace heavy metal and punk rock, with some of it's musicians getting to trouble with the law too! But they don't have a problem with white guys getting into trouble, it's only when black guys get into trouble, that they start hating!
What's with white guys liking heavy metal or punk rock, but hating on gangsta rap?
Heavy metal/punk rock and gangsta rap is almost the same thing! Yeah, I know, they use different beats, and the musicians tend to be of different races, and they dress differently! But those musical genres represent the same thing - hardcore attitude, being angry at the world, being from dysfunctional families and dysfunctional communities!
I see Fred Durst and 2pac as being very similar! They may be from different races and use different beats in their music, but people embrace them for similar reasons. Both made "angry at the world" songs, but they also made "party songs" as well. They also had some slow songs as well! They have a hardcore side to them, but they also have a mellow side as well!
Those are the reasons why I really embraced the music of Limp Bizkit (Fred Durst's band) and 2pac. And they're embraced by people of all different races, not just whites and blacks.
4) Those who hate on 2pac need to know these following songs
"Dear Mama"
"Keep Ya Head Up"
"I Aint Mad at Ya""Do for Love"
"Brenda's Got A Baby"
"Life Goes On""
To Live and Die in LA"
"So Many Tears"
These songs show a more mellow side of 2pac. Not all of 2pac's songs are "thuggish songs" or "party with the h-s" songs. I know there's more mellow 2pac songs, but I dont have time to list them all. The ones I listed were his more popular mellow songs.
5) Yes, I am defending 2pac, but that doesn't neccessarily mean I would agree with everything he does.
He did get into trouble with the law! However, most of those times, it seems that 2pac didn't even start the incidents, he just lost control of his anger!
Let's face it, a lot of us have lost control of our anger, even the more conservative and the more pacifist among us! We just got to figure out ways to deal with stuff that angers us without lashing out! I'm not perfect on this either, though I am learning ways to deal with idiots without lashing out!
6) Tupac was 25 when he died (1971-1996). I am 25 years old, ten years after his death. So I'm at the same stage of life 2pac was when he died!
We've been able to see his peers like Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube mature over the last decade.
We all wonder how much 2pac would've matured if he still alive today. Too bad we never got the chance to see it!
10 years ago today, the legendary rapper Tupac Shakur (aka 2pac) passed away. He died almost a week after being shot several times. Tupac was riding with Suge Knight (head of Death Row Records) around Las Vegas when he was shot.
1) I was a teenager when 2pac was alive and popular! I was in high school when he died! His music brings me back memories of those times! Those of my generation feel the same way. To my generation, 2pac is a legend, just like how Elvis was a legend for the teenagers of the 1950's,!
2) Some people thought Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death. That is ridiculous!
If you want someone dead, would you want to be right next to him when the bullets start flying?
Plus, Suge Knight was shot too, though he didn't recieve as many bullets as 2pac.
Some might think I'm just saying that because I'm afraid of Suge Knight. Obviously, I wouldn't want to mess with that guy!
But the main reason why I don't think Suge Knight was responsible for 2pac's death is because he was sitting next to 2pac when the bullets were flying, and Knight got hit by bullets too!
Plus, Suge Knight and 2pac seemed to good friends who always hang out together. So I don't think Knight would ever want 2pac dead.
3) I remember this one white guy I was talking to was saying "2pac was just another black dude with a bad attitude". And another told me that one porno book store employee (who was also white) was saying he was happy when 2pac died.
What a bunch of morons!
Those white guys embrace heavy metal and punk rock, with some of it's musicians getting to trouble with the law too! But they don't have a problem with white guys getting into trouble, it's only when black guys get into trouble, that they start hating!
What's with white guys liking heavy metal or punk rock, but hating on gangsta rap?
Heavy metal/punk rock and gangsta rap is almost the same thing! Yeah, I know, they use different beats, and the musicians tend to be of different races, and they dress differently! But those musical genres represent the same thing - hardcore attitude, being angry at the world, being from dysfunctional families and dysfunctional communities!
I see Fred Durst and 2pac as being very similar! They may be from different races and use different beats in their music, but people embrace them for similar reasons. Both made "angry at the world" songs, but they also made "party songs" as well. They also had some slow songs as well! They have a hardcore side to them, but they also have a mellow side as well!
Those are the reasons why I really embraced the music of Limp Bizkit (Fred Durst's band) and 2pac. And they're embraced by people of all different races, not just whites and blacks.
4) Those who hate on 2pac need to know these following songs
"Dear Mama"
"Keep Ya Head Up"
"I Aint Mad at Ya""Do for Love"
"Brenda's Got A Baby"
"Life Goes On""
To Live and Die in LA"
"So Many Tears"
These songs show a more mellow side of 2pac. Not all of 2pac's songs are "thuggish songs" or "party with the h-s" songs. I know there's more mellow 2pac songs, but I dont have time to list them all. The ones I listed were his more popular mellow songs.
5) Yes, I am defending 2pac, but that doesn't neccessarily mean I would agree with everything he does.
He did get into trouble with the law! However, most of those times, it seems that 2pac didn't even start the incidents, he just lost control of his anger!
Let's face it, a lot of us have lost control of our anger, even the more conservative and the more pacifist among us! We just got to figure out ways to deal with stuff that angers us without lashing out! I'm not perfect on this either, though I am learning ways to deal with idiots without lashing out!
6) Tupac was 25 when he died (1971-1996). I am 25 years old, ten years after his death. So I'm at the same stage of life 2pac was when he died!
We've been able to see his peers like Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube mature over the last decade.
We all wonder how much 2pac would've matured if he still alive today. Too bad we never got the chance to see it!
Monday, September 11, 2006
9/11 - 5 years later
Five years ago today, terrorists associated with Al Quaida hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and one crashed onto a field in Pennsylvania.
1) I remember in the few days after 9/11/01, people who were usually cynical had put their trust in government to protect.
I remember within the 2 year span before 9/11, my political ideology was shifting toward libertarianism, which didn't trust government much. I was turning in that direction because I wanted an alternative to the Democrats ( who usually wanted to ban guns, raise taxes, and over-regulate entrepreneurship, and promoted affirmative discrimination ) and the Republicans ( who usually wanted to ban abortion, adult entertainment, put non-violent weed smokers in the same prison space as violent thugs, and wanted to force Christianity on public school students ). I also remember being skeptical about both Democrats and Republicans who always wanted to send US troops to fight foreign battles.
Also, within that 2-year span before 9/11, there was a controversial 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. I voted Harry Browne for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Right after that election, there was a recount controversy. It was earlier declared Bush was the winner, but Al Gore refused to admit defeat. I was so tired of this controversy, I wrote an editorial on Ka Leo, saying that Al Gore should just move on. Because of that editorial, I was demonized and forever considered a "Bush lover" by Tobin Jones.
Anyways, after 9/11, I sided with Bush in sending troops to the Middle East to fight the terrorists! I was no longer against sending US troops to fight foreign battles.
2) Though most Democrat politicians (including left-wing liberals like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Neil Abercombie) supported the US invasion of Afghanistan, some Radical Leftists objected, and blamed America for 9/11. I was irritated by those Radical Leftists, and I wrote several editorials on Ka Leo criticizing them. I was then known by Ka Leo readers as the "campus conservative" even though I was NEVER conservative on issues like abortion, sex ed and other related issues.
In the last few years, I was also irriated by Radical Right-wingers who used 9/11 as an excuse to hate on immigrants! Ironic, they still haven't demanded on a ban on NY residents from moving to Oklahoma, even Bufallo NY raised Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma.
3) As for the war on Iraq, Collin Powell was right -- the US should've used over-powering force when it first invaded Iraq! That way, we could've easily defeated the Iraqi insurgents before it gotten worse! Though I would've preffered to have Saddam Hussein assassinated instead of an invasion.
Hopefully, the new Iraqi government can handle it's own defense. The longer we're there, the more the Radical Muslims would use that as an excuse to promote anti-American hatred!
4) I remember the few days after 9/11, Bush was a popular President. He said all the right words, America wanted revenge, and people wanted to trust the government.
Now Bush isn't popular. This came after the war on Iraq (which some felt was a distraction on the war against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan), as well as the mismanaged recovery after Hurricane Katrina. (which Bush made worse by hiring inexperienced people to head FEMA.) But some blame also ought to be placed on Democrat politicians running the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans.
People no longer trusted the government like they did right after 9/11/01. Even I went to back to being skeptical of the government like I was before 9/11/01.
5) As for my political views, I still don't support Democrats or Republicans, though I do think Libertarians are too impractical. Which is why I call myself a centrist!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Female Athletics
There is this Extreme Right Wing wesbite called http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ and it has a REALLY STUPID article that is against females participation in sports
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_1574.shtml
1) Why should girls who like to play sports not play them? Let them enjoy sports!
2) This article, printed by fundamental Christians promotes the same mentality as those Islamic Fascists we're supposed to be fighting. This goes to show that the main difference between Christian Fascists and Islamic Fascists is the languages they speak and the clothes they wear.
3) This is what I wrote to those "ladies against feminism"
Conservatives complain about teenage pregnancy, but female athletes ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY! Also, girls who do well in academics are also ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY!
INCENTIVES MATTER! You can quote all the holy verses you want, but most teenage minds will just tune out! YOU NEED TO HAVE PRAGMATIC INCENTIVES!
Most of the girls who get pregnant early are the ones who 1) are don't doing good in academics OR 2) not playing any sports. Those who fit both those categories see no real incentive to remain abstinent, because they have no plans for the future. Their mentality is "ANYTHING GOES!"
And that is true, even among girls from extremely conservative families! My grandma grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family in the World War 2 era, (in other words BEFORE the era of Elvis, the "decadent 1960's", 2 Live Crew, or the Pussycat Dolls) and she still got pregnant at 14. If she was more focused on academics or athletics, she would've stayed abstinent during her teenage years!
Plus, why do some people care so much if someone isn't 100% masculine or 100% feminine! It's supposed to be a non-issue in a place that emphasizes freedom. Let people figure it out for themselves how masculine or feminine they want to be!
But to the Conservative Correctness Crowd, the only freedom that matters is 1) low tax rates and 2) the right to make the most bigoted comments. Nothing else matters!
4) The Radical Feminists are whining because some female athletes are posing nude in magazines.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0035,cagan,17748,3.html
"There are just a lot of men there, including, I'm sure, in the newsroom, who just kind of resent women's success," says Linda Steiner, associate professor and chair of the department of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. "And so to sexualize her and sort of treat her as a pinup is a way of cutting women down to size."
The women who've posed, and their supporters, argue that the pictures are part of a revolution in women's sports. They say that the photos aren't mostly about sex, they're mostly about strength and confidence. They parry with the non sequitur, emphasizing the intelligence and independent thought of the bare-naked ladies. And, surprise surprise, some say that critics are a bunch of moralistic, uptight, you guessed it, feminists. "This is not a calendar of bimbos," Acuff has repeatedly said. "These are intelligent, world-class athletes. One of them is a Rhodes scholar." Acuff hasn't since explained the correlation -- hasn't she ever heard of smart women, foolish choices? -- but others have echoed her contention.
In a *Washington Post* column defending Thompson's pose, sportswriter Sally Jenkins argued that Thompson is "a 27-year-old of serious intellect, a Stanford graduate on her way to medical school." She also took critics to task as "sports prudes and creaking, old-school feminists."
Those Radical Feminists need to spend more time fighting against those already-mentioned "Ladies Against Feminism" instead of whining about female athletes posing nude! After all, Dennis Rodman posed nude in his book cover, and the feminists weren't complaining
So why are female athletes posing nude? Females have non-conscious, natural desire to attract males! If it means exposing a few body parts, they'll do it. That's nature. It doesn't matter if the female is an athlete, artist, entertainer, librarian, doctor, etc. They're just doing what females do naturally.
It's just like how guys like boast about how much muscle and strength he has. And it's not just the 6 foot 5in. athletes, even the short guys try to emphasize their muscle strength to make up for their lack of height. Even guys who work in the office (which usually requires NO MUSCLE STRENGTH AT ALL), try to emphasize their toughness and masculinity when their job doesn't require it. But the biological-male-in-them "has to" emphasize their toughness, in order to command respect and (drumroll please) attract the females.
There is this Extreme Right Wing wesbite called http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ and it has a REALLY STUPID article that is against females participation in sports
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_1574.shtml
1) Why should girls who like to play sports not play them? Let them enjoy sports!
2) This article, printed by fundamental Christians promotes the same mentality as those Islamic Fascists we're supposed to be fighting. This goes to show that the main difference between Christian Fascists and Islamic Fascists is the languages they speak and the clothes they wear.
3) This is what I wrote to those "ladies against feminism"
Conservatives complain about teenage pregnancy, but female athletes ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY! Also, girls who do well in academics are also ARE A LOT LESS LIKELY to get pregnant early than other women. Why? THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE NOT TO GET PREGNANT EARLY!
INCENTIVES MATTER! You can quote all the holy verses you want, but most teenage minds will just tune out! YOU NEED TO HAVE PRAGMATIC INCENTIVES!
Most of the girls who get pregnant early are the ones who 1) are don't doing good in academics OR 2) not playing any sports. Those who fit both those categories see no real incentive to remain abstinent, because they have no plans for the future. Their mentality is "ANYTHING GOES!"
And that is true, even among girls from extremely conservative families! My grandma grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family in the World War 2 era, (in other words BEFORE the era of Elvis, the "decadent 1960's", 2 Live Crew, or the Pussycat Dolls) and she still got pregnant at 14. If she was more focused on academics or athletics, she would've stayed abstinent during her teenage years!
Plus, why do some people care so much if someone isn't 100% masculine or 100% feminine! It's supposed to be a non-issue in a place that emphasizes freedom. Let people figure it out for themselves how masculine or feminine they want to be!
But to the Conservative Correctness Crowd, the only freedom that matters is 1) low tax rates and 2) the right to make the most bigoted comments. Nothing else matters!
4) The Radical Feminists are whining because some female athletes are posing nude in magazines.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0035,cagan,17748,3.html
"There are just a lot of men there, including, I'm sure, in the newsroom, who just kind of resent women's success," says Linda Steiner, associate professor and chair of the department of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. "And so to sexualize her and sort of treat her as a pinup is a way of cutting women down to size."
The women who've posed, and their supporters, argue that the pictures are part of a revolution in women's sports. They say that the photos aren't mostly about sex, they're mostly about strength and confidence. They parry with the non sequitur, emphasizing the intelligence and independent thought of the bare-naked ladies. And, surprise surprise, some say that critics are a bunch of moralistic, uptight, you guessed it, feminists. "This is not a calendar of bimbos," Acuff has repeatedly said. "These are intelligent, world-class athletes. One of them is a Rhodes scholar." Acuff hasn't since explained the correlation -- hasn't she ever heard of smart women, foolish choices? -- but others have echoed her contention.
In a *Washington Post* column defending Thompson's pose, sportswriter Sally Jenkins argued that Thompson is "a 27-year-old of serious intellect, a Stanford graduate on her way to medical school." She also took critics to task as "sports prudes and creaking, old-school feminists."
Those Radical Feminists need to spend more time fighting against those already-mentioned "Ladies Against Feminism" instead of whining about female athletes posing nude! After all, Dennis Rodman posed nude in his book cover, and the feminists weren't complaining
So why are female athletes posing nude? Females have non-conscious, natural desire to attract males! If it means exposing a few body parts, they'll do it. That's nature. It doesn't matter if the female is an athlete, artist, entertainer, librarian, doctor, etc. They're just doing what females do naturally.
It's just like how guys like boast about how much muscle and strength he has. And it's not just the 6 foot 5in. athletes, even the short guys try to emphasize their muscle strength to make up for their lack of height. Even guys who work in the office (which usually requires NO MUSCLE STRENGTH AT ALL), try to emphasize their toughness and masculinity when their job doesn't require it. But the biological-male-in-them "has to" emphasize their toughness, in order to command respect and (drumroll please) attract the females.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Hyphenated-Americans
Anti-immigration fascists love to quote 26th president Theodore Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
The term "hyphenated American" was popularized in the 1910s by President Theodore Roosevelt, responding to the increasing fractionalization within the nation along ethnic lines. In an October 12, 1915 speech to the Knights of Columbus,
Roosevelt said,"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. ... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. ... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
--------------------
What Roosevelt said was VERY STUPID!
Let's say someone calls themselves "Irish-American", "Mexican-American", "African-American" or "Korean-American", etc.
That person is
1) acknowledging the heritage of their ancestors
AND
2) also acknowledging their participating in American culture.
----
The idea that" someone who is paying respect to their ancestor's culture isn't a real American" is a stupid idea!
The idea of being an American is celebrating freedom and individuality. So that means someone can embrace parts of their ancestor's culture AND parts of mainstream American culture!
---
There's this worry about immigrants settling in communities where everyone is from the same country, and therefore not a real American. LIGHTEN UP!
I spend a lot of time in Kalihi, which is a mostly Filipino community in Honolulu. One can live a whole life there, and only have Filipino friends. But I can tell you with great honesty that a Filipino person who was born in Kalihi is VERY DIFFERENT from a Filipino who just arrived from the Phillipines. You can walk by Farrington High School and be able to tell which of the students is a "local Filipino" and an "immigrant Filipino" Even in Kalihi, you're not isolated from the culture of the rest of Hawaii or the US.
It's just like the time I was visiting my uncle in LA. He lived in a mostly Mexican neighborhood. Still, his kids are able to understand English VERY WELL. I didn't even talk to them in Spanish (which I can't speak fluently). However, the anti-immigration fanatics don't want to think about that!
Editing Films for Content
Some conservatives who are disgusted by movies with lots of violence and sex have re-edited films to delete such scenes without permission!
So ironic, since conservatives (who supposedly hate the entitlement mentality) start claiming that they're entitled to "cleaned-up edited" version of popular films!
1) don't like it? Don't watch it!
2) you can't always escape ideas you don't like anyways! What next, avoiding anyone who thinks differently from you?
3) I make my art the way I want to! If you don't like it, make your own art!
4) Maybe I should edit those conservative films so as to not offend the liberal sensibilities of the Blue States. You know, take out scenes critical of affirmative action, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Take out scenes promoting abstinence and resisting drug use. Then we'll see how conservatives feel about editing (censoring) films.
Maybe we could re-edit "Passion of the Christ" with it's violent scenes.
5) Or just go along with #1 "don't like it? Dont watch it!"
Some conservatives who are disgusted by movies with lots of violence and sex have re-edited films to delete such scenes without permission!
So ironic, since conservatives (who supposedly hate the entitlement mentality) start claiming that they're entitled to "cleaned-up edited" version of popular films!
1) don't like it? Don't watch it!
2) you can't always escape ideas you don't like anyways! What next, avoiding anyone who thinks differently from you?
3) I make my art the way I want to! If you don't like it, make your own art!
4) Maybe I should edit those conservative films so as to not offend the liberal sensibilities of the Blue States. You know, take out scenes critical of affirmative action, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Take out scenes promoting abstinence and resisting drug use. Then we'll see how conservatives feel about editing (censoring) films.
Maybe we could re-edit "Passion of the Christ" with it's violent scenes.
5) Or just go along with #1 "don't like it? Dont watch it!"
Aborted/Unaborted
Right-wing columnist Julia Gorin wrote one of those columns with a few wise-ass remarks against abortion.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008802
Gorin: If Ms. (a feminst magazine) readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: "I wasn't aborted."
Pablo: Yeah, and if my parents didn't have sex about 9 months before I was born, I wouldn't be here either. I am so glad my parents didn't practice abstinence at that moment.
--------
Gorin: Rather than debate what it is we're killing, we should consider what we may be saving--for our sakes as much as for "its" own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.
Pablo: And maybe we should just put a stop to abstinence too. So if you and your lover don't have sex tonight, that means that you miss a chance to produce the next Einstein, the next Tiger Woods, the next Bill Gates or some hero who cures cancer, ends all wars, and save the world from global warming!
------
Gorin: The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: "I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."Well, so much for the right to privacy.
Pablo: The right to privacy is so that those who had abortions (for whatever reason) can have it without worrying about right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin finding out and persecuting them.
The Ms Magazine is trying to get those who had abortions to become brave enough to stand up to right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin.
Right-wing columnist Julia Gorin wrote one of those columns with a few wise-ass remarks against abortion.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008802
Gorin: If Ms. (a feminst magazine) readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: "I wasn't aborted."
Pablo: Yeah, and if my parents didn't have sex about 9 months before I was born, I wouldn't be here either. I am so glad my parents didn't practice abstinence at that moment.
--------
Gorin: Rather than debate what it is we're killing, we should consider what we may be saving--for our sakes as much as for "its" own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.
Pablo: And maybe we should just put a stop to abstinence too. So if you and your lover don't have sex tonight, that means that you miss a chance to produce the next Einstein, the next Tiger Woods, the next Bill Gates or some hero who cures cancer, ends all wars, and save the world from global warming!
------
Gorin: The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: "I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."Well, so much for the right to privacy.
Pablo: The right to privacy is so that those who had abortions (for whatever reason) can have it without worrying about right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin finding out and persecuting them.
The Ms Magazine is trying to get those who had abortions to become brave enough to stand up to right-wing bullies like Julia Gorin.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Single Gender Schools
Brother Greg O'Donnell, the principal of Damien Memorial School (an all boys school in Honolulu) wrote an article that says that boys and girls ought to be segregated in schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/25/editorial/special.html
O'Donnell: For starters, the natural thing for boys and girls is to be extremely different, including the ways in which they learn.
Pablo: An average boy might learn and act differently from an average girl. But not everyone is average! Take a group of boys -- you'll find that the boys have different learning styles from each other! Same is true if you take a group of girls!
This isn't being politically correct. This is from observing my fellow students when I was a student, AND observing the students as I was a teacher!
------
O'Donnell :From a classroom management standpoint, girls are easier to teach. There are, of course, other considerations, but the energy level of boys can overwhelm a teacher who's already tired.
Pablo: In the elementary level, boys do tend to be more rascal!
However, my observations in the middle school level shows both the boys and girls to be rascal.
There were even cases, when I was working 2 different middle schools, I could have a class of mostly boys, in which the class environment was laid back. However, in the same day, in the same school, with the same lesson plans, a class of mostly girls was worse. A lot of the girls were rude and sassy!
This doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough to show a pattern!
---
Some say that one-gender schools are good, in that students don't get distracted by the opposite sex. I say it's better that they learn to deal with those distractions early in life!
However, if the student was homosexual, the student would be distracted no matter what school he/she attends!
Brother Greg O'Donnell, the principal of Damien Memorial School (an all boys school in Honolulu) wrote an article that says that boys and girls ought to be segregated in schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/25/editorial/special.html
O'Donnell: For starters, the natural thing for boys and girls is to be extremely different, including the ways in which they learn.
Pablo: An average boy might learn and act differently from an average girl. But not everyone is average! Take a group of boys -- you'll find that the boys have different learning styles from each other! Same is true if you take a group of girls!
This isn't being politically correct. This is from observing my fellow students when I was a student, AND observing the students as I was a teacher!
------
O'Donnell :From a classroom management standpoint, girls are easier to teach. There are, of course, other considerations, but the energy level of boys can overwhelm a teacher who's already tired.
Pablo: In the elementary level, boys do tend to be more rascal!
However, my observations in the middle school level shows both the boys and girls to be rascal.
There were even cases, when I was working 2 different middle schools, I could have a class of mostly boys, in which the class environment was laid back. However, in the same day, in the same school, with the same lesson plans, a class of mostly girls was worse. A lot of the girls were rude and sassy!
This doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough to show a pattern!
---
Some say that one-gender schools are good, in that students don't get distracted by the opposite sex. I say it's better that they learn to deal with those distractions early in life!
However, if the student was homosexual, the student would be distracted no matter what school he/she attends!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Schools and Diversity
The US Supreme Court is going to soon hear 2 cases, one from Seattle, and one from Louisville about public schools that admit only a certain percentage from each racial group for the sake of "diversity".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/washington/05cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1149566400&en=a57b596a5d121bdd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
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.
The US Supreme Court is going to soon hear 2 cases, one from Seattle, and one from Louisville about public schools that admit only a certain percentage from each racial group for the sake of "diversity".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/washington/05cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1149566400&en=a57b596a5d121bdd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
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.
The Change in Priorities
So odd, a few years back, some mistaken me for a conservative because I criticized Haunani-Kay Trask, Al Gore, and the Radical Leftists at UH. For that I got vicious smears from people like Tobin Jones.
However, if you read my blog posts the last few months, it is something that would give me vicious smears from the Radical Right.
Most of my political opinions haven't changed, but my priorities on my top topics did. Since I graduated from UH, and after the Churchill/Horowitz appearances at UH, I have paid less attention to the campus leftists.
Now, the extreme right-wing of the GOP wants to reduce or even ban immigration. And this goes along with idiotic, bullshit editorials from conservative writers like Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, etc.
I give President Geroge W. Bush and Senator John McCain for being pro-immigration, unlike other members of the GOP
I know A LOT MORE about immigrants than most right-wing conservatives. My family includes immigrants, my school classmates includes immigrants, and a large # of students I currently work with are immigrants. I am not going to be silent when someone writes bullshit editorials about people I love and respect.
Tobin Jones would be tempted to tell me "I told you so, that the Left-Wings are angels and Right-Wing are devils".
I'll tell him
1)Bush is defying the right-wingers on the immigration issue,
2) I still think Dr. Foltz and the other leftist profs need to stick to the frickin topic of the class instead of making political rants,
3) I dont care much about the 2000 election controversy anymore, since that's old news,
4) I was never a right-winger in the first place,
5) I spent more time criticizing the left-wingers on Ka Leo (www.kaleo.org) because the left-wingers dominated UH
The Dixie Chicks started their war on Bush in London instead of Texas. That's not bravery! I'd rather criticize the Left on their territory (UH) instead of doing it outside (ie, BYU). If I was a student @ BYU or Liberty University, I would've spent more time criticizing the Right Wing since most students there are conservatives.
If you are wondering whether I'm Right or Left on certain issues, just explore this blog. You'd have a very adventurous time doing so.
The Dixie Chicks started their war on Bush in London instead of Texas. That's not bravery! I'd rather criticize the Left on their territory (UH) instead of doing it outside (ie, BYU). If I was a student @ BYU or Liberty University, I would've spent more time criticizing the Right Wing since most students there are conservatives.
If you are wondering whether I'm Right or Left on certain issues, just explore this blog. You'd have a very adventurous time doing so.
Friday, May 12, 2006
P.E. classes
As I think about my experiences with P.E. classes as a student, my middle school and my high school had different approaches.
At my middle school, all students had to participate in the same team sports as everyone else. The P.E. curriculum is only team sports (ie basketball, flag football, soccer, volleyball, baseball).
At my high school, there was a very different approach. Every other week, the students get to choose from 3 different sports. The choices include basketball, football, soccer, badmintion, lawn bowling, indoor hockey, aerobics, weight training, archery, frisbee, bowling, and even fishing and billiards (I'm not making that up :)!
McKinley High School gave the students more options, and obviously, I liked that school's approach to PE a lot better than my middle school's lame approach to P.E.
I sucked at most team sports, so I didn't like being stuck with playing them at middle school. Plus, the other students are such sore losers, getting mad if I made a bad play, or even blaming me if the team lost the game. However, NONE of them made it to the pros, in fact most of them weren't even high school all-stars! So, if I see them again, I will tell that to their faces!
If I ran my own school, students would fulfill their PE choices, by choosing from different courses. They choose courses like 1) team sports, 2) martial arts, 3) bike riding, 4) weight lifting, 5) aerobics, 6) cultural dances (ie. Polynesian, Latin, Asian, and from the rest of the world), 7) hip-hop dance, 8) etc.
That way, students can get their fitness from whatever they enjoy, instead of being forced into activities that they hate!
That is an approach Mililani Middle School takes in their PE curriculum. Their PE teacher even won an award recently. Check out the article at http://www.midweek.com/content/story/Print_Story/the_best_pe_teacher_in_america/
One more thing, the students need to have their own private stalls to change clothes and showering. I hated changing and showering in front of others!
As I think about my experiences with P.E. classes as a student, my middle school and my high school had different approaches.
At my middle school, all students had to participate in the same team sports as everyone else. The P.E. curriculum is only team sports (ie basketball, flag football, soccer, volleyball, baseball).
At my high school, there was a very different approach. Every other week, the students get to choose from 3 different sports. The choices include basketball, football, soccer, badmintion, lawn bowling, indoor hockey, aerobics, weight training, archery, frisbee, bowling, and even fishing and billiards (I'm not making that up :)!
McKinley High School gave the students more options, and obviously, I liked that school's approach to PE a lot better than my middle school's lame approach to P.E.
I sucked at most team sports, so I didn't like being stuck with playing them at middle school. Plus, the other students are such sore losers, getting mad if I made a bad play, or even blaming me if the team lost the game. However, NONE of them made it to the pros, in fact most of them weren't even high school all-stars! So, if I see them again, I will tell that to their faces!
If I ran my own school, students would fulfill their PE choices, by choosing from different courses. They choose courses like 1) team sports, 2) martial arts, 3) bike riding, 4) weight lifting, 5) aerobics, 6) cultural dances (ie. Polynesian, Latin, Asian, and from the rest of the world), 7) hip-hop dance, 8) etc.
That way, students can get their fitness from whatever they enjoy, instead of being forced into activities that they hate!
That is an approach Mililani Middle School takes in their PE curriculum. Their PE teacher even won an award recently. Check out the article at http://www.midweek.com/content/story/Print_Story/the_best_pe_teacher_in_america/
One more thing, the students need to have their own private stalls to change clothes and showering. I hated changing and showering in front of others!
Monday, May 01, 2006
Development in Hawaii
Here's my editorial published in yesterday's Honolulu Star Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/30/editorial/commentary.html
Gathering Place
Pablo Wegesend
Time doesn't stand still and neither can Hawaii
IT IS natural for people to reminisce about the old days. I'm only 25 years old, and I already feel nostalgic about the good times of the past.
That's totally OK when you're sitting alone at home or when talking story to longtime friends.
However, some people use nostalgia as an excuse to oppose any development, whether it's a condo building, a neighborhood or a Wal-Mart being built.
Many of these opponents grew up in Hawaii in the 1950s and 1960s, and they want Hawaii to stay the way they remember it.
How ironic, since when they were children, the adults (who grew up in the 1920s) already wished things were the way they were when they were young.
People just assume that the way things were when they grew up was how it was before they were born.
If those people were living in caveman times, they would oppose the idea of building homes outside of caves, not to mention basic sanitation, electric systems and other things we take for granted today.
THINGS CHANGE, and it happens everywhere.
Whenever a new building goes up in city or suburb, opponents call it the "mainland-ization" of Hawaii. But is the mainland the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Japan the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Mexico the same? Is France? The answer, obviously, is no! But some people want Hawaii to be exempt from the passage of time.
When a new condominium is built in Kakaako, or a new neighborhood is built near Kona, opponents promote the fear of the Big, Bad, White Mainlanders who are coming to take over Hawaii and drive up property values. But as mentioned in a recent newspaper article, Hawaii people are more likely to move to the mainland, than mainlanders are to move to Hawaii.
Most of the population increase in Hawaii is due to: 1) babies born to Hawaii residents and 2) foreign immigration, mostly from Asia, Micronesia and the South Pacific.
IT'S IRONIC that the anti- development folks complain about both suburban and urban development, yet they have the nerve to complain about the high cost of housing. If they had their way, housing would be even more expensive because there would be even fewer houses. It's basic supply and demand: When the supply of homes goes down, the demand goes up and the remaining supply of houses becomes more expensive. Then more Hawaii residents must choose between homelessness or moving to the mainland.
What this means is that the anti-development agenda is a bigger threat to Hawaii residents today than the Big, Bad, White Mainlander.
DON'T GET me wrong, I still want to see forests in Hawaii. But I also understand that people need places to live, so we either have more suburban development or more condominiums in urban areas. I prefer more condominiums so that more people can enjoy the urban life of Honolulu without wasting their time in long commutes from other parts of Oahu.
One last thing: I am not a Big, Bad, White Mainlander; I am a Medium-Sized, Brown-Skinned, Hawaii-Born-and-Raised Guy who grew up in a low-income section of urban Honolulu.
But I still think fearing development and Big, Bad, White Mainlanders is ridiculous!
Here's my editorial published in yesterday's Honolulu Star Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/30/editorial/commentary.html
Gathering Place
Pablo Wegesend
Time doesn't stand still and neither can Hawaii
IT IS natural for people to reminisce about the old days. I'm only 25 years old, and I already feel nostalgic about the good times of the past.
That's totally OK when you're sitting alone at home or when talking story to longtime friends.
However, some people use nostalgia as an excuse to oppose any development, whether it's a condo building, a neighborhood or a Wal-Mart being built.
Many of these opponents grew up in Hawaii in the 1950s and 1960s, and they want Hawaii to stay the way they remember it.
How ironic, since when they were children, the adults (who grew up in the 1920s) already wished things were the way they were when they were young.
People just assume that the way things were when they grew up was how it was before they were born.
If those people were living in caveman times, they would oppose the idea of building homes outside of caves, not to mention basic sanitation, electric systems and other things we take for granted today.
THINGS CHANGE, and it happens everywhere.
Whenever a new building goes up in city or suburb, opponents call it the "mainland-ization" of Hawaii. But is the mainland the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Japan the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Mexico the same? Is France? The answer, obviously, is no! But some people want Hawaii to be exempt from the passage of time.
When a new condominium is built in Kakaako, or a new neighborhood is built near Kona, opponents promote the fear of the Big, Bad, White Mainlanders who are coming to take over Hawaii and drive up property values. But as mentioned in a recent newspaper article, Hawaii people are more likely to move to the mainland, than mainlanders are to move to Hawaii.
Most of the population increase in Hawaii is due to: 1) babies born to Hawaii residents and 2) foreign immigration, mostly from Asia, Micronesia and the South Pacific.
IT'S IRONIC that the anti- development folks complain about both suburban and urban development, yet they have the nerve to complain about the high cost of housing. If they had their way, housing would be even more expensive because there would be even fewer houses. It's basic supply and demand: When the supply of homes goes down, the demand goes up and the remaining supply of houses becomes more expensive. Then more Hawaii residents must choose between homelessness or moving to the mainland.
What this means is that the anti-development agenda is a bigger threat to Hawaii residents today than the Big, Bad, White Mainlander.
DON'T GET me wrong, I still want to see forests in Hawaii. But I also understand that people need places to live, so we either have more suburban development or more condominiums in urban areas. I prefer more condominiums so that more people can enjoy the urban life of Honolulu without wasting their time in long commutes from other parts of Oahu.
One last thing: I am not a Big, Bad, White Mainlander; I am a Medium-Sized, Brown-Skinned, Hawaii-Born-and-Raised Guy who grew up in a low-income section of urban Honolulu.
But I still think fearing development and Big, Bad, White Mainlanders is ridiculous!
Saturday, April 22, 2006
What's wrong with Thomas Sowell
First, who is Thomas Sowell?He is an African-American conservative economist who writes a lot of editorials that have been published in newspapers nationwide.
While I used to enjoy his articles on economics, I find him extremely paranoid when it comes to immigrant. He keeps saying that modern-day immigrants (especially the ones from the Middle East and Latin America) refuse to adjust to American culture.
Nevermind the fact there is many Latinos making hip-hop music (I keep hearing Fat Joe, Lil Rob and Pitbull on the radio), and it's only a matter of time before we hear descendants of Arab immigrants getting involved in the hip-hop industry.
Also, he ignores the fact that most immigrant teenagers (no matter where they're from) REBEL AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S CULTURE! I always hear teenagers with immigrant parents complain that their parents are "old-fashioned". So I wouldn't even worry about the descendants of immigrants adjusting to American culture. In fact, the descendants of modern-day Latino and Arab immigrant would struggle to adjust to the cultures of Latin America or the Middle East!
Meanwhile, I got this email from one of my allies Stuart Hayashi, and he gave me the permission to post the following (though I edited it only for length). It is about Thomas Sowell
-------------
Assimilate THIS!
By Stuart K. Hayashi
Whenever I have heard a left-winger make the dirty accusation that some black man is an "Uncle Tom" just because he wants to roll back the welfare state, I have stood by that black man in defense. I cannot let people get away with smearing Larry Elder, Bill Cosby, or Ward Connerly in such a manner.
Sadly, nowadays, when somebody calls Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom,"I cannot do much to deny it.
It's time we face up to something: Thomas Sowell sounds like a white supremacist. He certainly doesn't cast doubt on that impression when he heaps accolades upon the eugenics advocacy of the late "BellCurve" co-author and Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein. http://tinyurl.com/a55wz http://tinyurl.com/hrwh5http://tinyurl.com/9chof
My poor dear uncle, Uncle Tom Sowell, does quibble with many of the book's conclusions, and he is correct to note that it is not some explicitly angry, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe about non-whites. But there are two facts about this book that Sowell's whitewashing cannot erase -- (1) it *does* conclude that genes have doomed blacks and Chicanos to being congenitally less rational and more violent than northern Europeans and East Asians, and, (2) by promoting that book,Sowell *does* perpetuate that conclusion as well.
Or perhaps "white supremacist" is not a fully precise term for what Sowell has advocated the past few years. Like the late Dr.Herrnstein, Dr. Sowell often ostensibly touts the cultural (if not ethnic) supremacy of East Asians over whites. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3529 http://tinyurl.com/8bakchttp://tinyurl.com/kyaw3
And Dr. Sowell, like many neoconservatives (but not so manypaleoconservatives), is quick to admonish others for anti-Semitism. http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html
But there is one group that Dr. Sowell frequently berates as inferior. I am referring to a certain group of dark-skinned,Mediterranean-looking Caucasoids, many of whom are part AmericanIndian, and most of whom are Catholic.
Judging by my many years of faithfully reading Dr. Sowell's columns, when I mistook him for a proponent of free minds and free markets (he did write for "Reason" magazine for a time, after all) he appears to rank ethnic groups in the following order, with #1 beingthe group he praises the most.
01. East Asians
02. WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
03. Jews
04. South Asians
05. Blacks
06. Persians, Arabs, and other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners
07. That group of dark-skinned, Catholic caucasoids (Sowell's absolute least favorite!)
Ann Coulter quipped that "Brown is the new black."http://tinyurl.com/oh9es That's true, though not in the way she meant it. Brown IS the new black in the sense that brown-skinned people are one of the last few scapegoats whom people can still verbally bad mouth without other Americans socially ostracizing them over it. It's not as easy these days for the Archie Bunkers of the world to criticizeblacks as a whole (nor *should* anyone criticize blacks as a whole, as all people are individuals, which is something that formerly anti-affirmative-action neocons seem to have forgotten). Well, native-born blacks anyway; Michael Savage still gets away with derogating Haitians.
If there is a group that people can still kick around, it is brown-skinned, part Indo-European, part "Amerindian" Caucasoids. Even Michelle Malkin -- not exactly an Aryan -- is on the bandwagon of demonizing them.
I myself have had a falling-out with certain rightwingers when I found out that they were trying to create the stereotypical impression that *all* people from the Middle East who call themselves "Muslim" necessarily either commit murder or at least condone it.
The conservatives' rhetoric about "assimilation" sounds like ahuge, stinking red herring -- emphasis on the RED, because the conservatives' rhetoric sounds so collectivistic that it might as wellbe communist.
When they demand that immigrants "assimilate,"they are using that word as a euphemism for "conform." Essentially,they expect immigrants to CONFORM to customs that are not even politically relevant. Hence we hear so much screeching about peaceful people coming to the United States and -- oh, Allah forgive me fornaming this horrible act! -- speaking *Spanish* to their relatives!
Such conservatives and libertarians ignore a simple fact --"assimilation" is not a one-way street. If everyone in America"assimilates," it not only means that foreign-born people adopt some of the best (or worst) customs of the native-born Americans, but also that native-born Americans may adopt some of the best (or worst)customs of the foreign-born migrants. *That* is the melting pot. How can one expect the foreign-born tobe influenced on the native-born customs without the foreign-born likewise having some influence over the native-born?
Neoconservative immigrant-haters portray Mexican and Middle-Eastern immigrants as being essentially static, robotic creatures that always stay the same when they have some (imaginary)duty to be influenced by the native-born. But what they truly fear is not that foreign-born people onlytake and never give, culture-wise, to the native born. Nay, what they truly fear is that there will *necessarily* be a cultural give-and-take between the foreign-born and the native-born. They are basically *protectionists* trying to shield estalished domestic customs from *competition* from foreign-born customs when all people in America choose which customs they want to buy in the marketplace of ideas.
You know all this talk about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out of the United States? I can describe the spiritual essence of that idea with just one word: . . . "segregation."
Assimilate THAT!
First, who is Thomas Sowell?He is an African-American conservative economist who writes a lot of editorials that have been published in newspapers nationwide.
While I used to enjoy his articles on economics, I find him extremely paranoid when it comes to immigrant. He keeps saying that modern-day immigrants (especially the ones from the Middle East and Latin America) refuse to adjust to American culture.
Nevermind the fact there is many Latinos making hip-hop music (I keep hearing Fat Joe, Lil Rob and Pitbull on the radio), and it's only a matter of time before we hear descendants of Arab immigrants getting involved in the hip-hop industry.
Also, he ignores the fact that most immigrant teenagers (no matter where they're from) REBEL AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S CULTURE! I always hear teenagers with immigrant parents complain that their parents are "old-fashioned". So I wouldn't even worry about the descendants of immigrants adjusting to American culture. In fact, the descendants of modern-day Latino and Arab immigrant would struggle to adjust to the cultures of Latin America or the Middle East!
Meanwhile, I got this email from one of my allies Stuart Hayashi, and he gave me the permission to post the following (though I edited it only for length). It is about Thomas Sowell
-------------
Assimilate THIS!
By Stuart K. Hayashi
Whenever I have heard a left-winger make the dirty accusation that some black man is an "Uncle Tom" just because he wants to roll back the welfare state, I have stood by that black man in defense. I cannot let people get away with smearing Larry Elder, Bill Cosby, or Ward Connerly in such a manner.
Sadly, nowadays, when somebody calls Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom,"I cannot do much to deny it.
It's time we face up to something: Thomas Sowell sounds like a white supremacist. He certainly doesn't cast doubt on that impression when he heaps accolades upon the eugenics advocacy of the late "BellCurve" co-author and Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein. http://tinyurl.com/a55wz http://tinyurl.com/hrwh5http://tinyurl.com/9chof
My poor dear uncle, Uncle Tom Sowell, does quibble with many of the book's conclusions, and he is correct to note that it is not some explicitly angry, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe about non-whites. But there are two facts about this book that Sowell's whitewashing cannot erase -- (1) it *does* conclude that genes have doomed blacks and Chicanos to being congenitally less rational and more violent than northern Europeans and East Asians, and, (2) by promoting that book,Sowell *does* perpetuate that conclusion as well.
Or perhaps "white supremacist" is not a fully precise term for what Sowell has advocated the past few years. Like the late Dr.Herrnstein, Dr. Sowell often ostensibly touts the cultural (if not ethnic) supremacy of East Asians over whites. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3529 http://tinyurl.com/8bakchttp://tinyurl.com/kyaw3
And Dr. Sowell, like many neoconservatives (but not so manypaleoconservatives), is quick to admonish others for anti-Semitism. http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html
But there is one group that Dr. Sowell frequently berates as inferior. I am referring to a certain group of dark-skinned,Mediterranean-looking Caucasoids, many of whom are part AmericanIndian, and most of whom are Catholic.
Judging by my many years of faithfully reading Dr. Sowell's columns, when I mistook him for a proponent of free minds and free markets (he did write for "Reason" magazine for a time, after all) he appears to rank ethnic groups in the following order, with #1 beingthe group he praises the most.
01. East Asians
02. WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
03. Jews
04. South Asians
05. Blacks
06. Persians, Arabs, and other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners
07. That group of dark-skinned, Catholic caucasoids (Sowell's absolute least favorite!)
Ann Coulter quipped that "Brown is the new black."http://tinyurl.com/oh9es That's true, though not in the way she meant it. Brown IS the new black in the sense that brown-skinned people are one of the last few scapegoats whom people can still verbally bad mouth without other Americans socially ostracizing them over it. It's not as easy these days for the Archie Bunkers of the world to criticizeblacks as a whole (nor *should* anyone criticize blacks as a whole, as all people are individuals, which is something that formerly anti-affirmative-action neocons seem to have forgotten). Well, native-born blacks anyway; Michael Savage still gets away with derogating Haitians.
If there is a group that people can still kick around, it is brown-skinned, part Indo-European, part "Amerindian" Caucasoids. Even Michelle Malkin -- not exactly an Aryan -- is on the bandwagon of demonizing them.
I myself have had a falling-out with certain rightwingers when I found out that they were trying to create the stereotypical impression that *all* people from the Middle East who call themselves "Muslim" necessarily either commit murder or at least condone it.
The conservatives' rhetoric about "assimilation" sounds like ahuge, stinking red herring -- emphasis on the RED, because the conservatives' rhetoric sounds so collectivistic that it might as wellbe communist.
When they demand that immigrants "assimilate,"they are using that word as a euphemism for "conform." Essentially,they expect immigrants to CONFORM to customs that are not even politically relevant. Hence we hear so much screeching about peaceful people coming to the United States and -- oh, Allah forgive me fornaming this horrible act! -- speaking *Spanish* to their relatives!
Such conservatives and libertarians ignore a simple fact --"assimilation" is not a one-way street. If everyone in America"assimilates," it not only means that foreign-born people adopt some of the best (or worst) customs of the native-born Americans, but also that native-born Americans may adopt some of the best (or worst)customs of the foreign-born migrants. *That* is the melting pot. How can one expect the foreign-born tobe influenced on the native-born customs without the foreign-born likewise having some influence over the native-born?
Neoconservative immigrant-haters portray Mexican and Middle-Eastern immigrants as being essentially static, robotic creatures that always stay the same when they have some (imaginary)duty to be influenced by the native-born. But what they truly fear is not that foreign-born people onlytake and never give, culture-wise, to the native born. Nay, what they truly fear is that there will *necessarily* be a cultural give-and-take between the foreign-born and the native-born. They are basically *protectionists* trying to shield estalished domestic customs from *competition* from foreign-born customs when all people in America choose which customs they want to buy in the marketplace of ideas.
You know all this talk about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out of the United States? I can describe the spiritual essence of that idea with just one word: . . . "segregation."
Assimilate THAT!
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Immigrants and American culture
1) Thomas Sowell, like many other right-wing conservatives, believe that immigrants refuse to adjust to American culture and are taking American jobs. BULL-DUNG!
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/04/11/193239.html
Here's my message to Thomas Sowell
You keep claiming that current-day immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.Then why do I keep hearing immigrant teenagers rap along with the SAME EXACT RAP SONGS that are on the top of American music charts? Why do I keep hearing those same songs blasted out of the car stereos of many immigrant teenagers?
Immigrant teenagers probably know more about 50 Cent, Eminem, Kanye West, Fat Joe, Lil Jon and Ying Yang Twins (all important American cultural icons of this decade) than you do! So dont tell me that immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.
It's the right-wing conservatives who are having trouble adjusting to modern American culture! Maybe they should be the ones deported!
In your latest article, you said that the pro-immigration crowd is being abstract?Excuse me?Immigrants are real people with real aspirations! They're not just some folks with wierd accents! They are real people, many of whom I know and respect! So dont give me this crap about "pro-immigration advocates being too abstract!"
You used to hate victimhood and the entitlement mentality! Yet, you are demanding native-born Americans to act like victims and act as if they're entitled to jobs. Many native-born Americans can only qualify for low-paying jobs because many of them were bullies who picked on nerds and irritated their teachers during their childhood and adolescent years! So excuse me, if I have no pity for them if they got to compete with 3rd world immigrants for low-paying jobs!
What next, do we deport Yao Ming because he is competing with native-born Americans for NBA jobs? Maybe we should stop importing music from British rock stars since they take $$$ that could've gone to American rock stars instead!
And maybe your parents should've stayed in North Carolina instead of moving to New York and taking jobs away from native-born New Yorkers!
You use to hate government bureaucracy and red tape, yet you demand immigrants face government bureaucracy and red tape that is far worse than the IRS, Dept of Motor Vehicles, etc all combined!
PS: The European explorers didn't have green cards or visas when they arrived in the Americas! So why should Mexicans have green cards or visa when they move to land that was once part of Mexico!
2) Jews, Italians and Irish were once looked down by British Americans! Many British-Americans said that Jews, Italians and Irish couldn't become real Americans, that real Americans practice Protestant Christianity and not Catholicism or Judaism.
Yet, the descendants of Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants are Americanized to the point where they can't understand their ancestors languages! Yet, many of them still practice Catholicism or Judaism. But many are now looking down on Latino and Arab immigrants, saying nearly the same shit that British Americans used to say about them!
They complain about pro-immigration protesters waving Mexican flags, but are silent about Irish flags waved during St. Patrick's Day parades. They claim that waving Mexican flags is a proof of disloyalty to America, yet they get pissy when non-Jews complain about Jews showing excessive loyalty to Israel over the US.
Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Mike Savage - the previous 3 paragraphs are about YOU!
3) In a recent edition of Time magazine, there was an article about Asian-Americans who are in their 20's now. ALL were born in the US to immigrant parents
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1147177,00.html (to read full article, find the 1/16/06 edition of Time in a public library)
Guess what nearly all had in common. They rebelled against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers
I bet you, within the next 10-20 years, Time or Newsweek will profile the children of Arab immigrants. And guess what? They will all rebell against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers! And Arab teenagers have a disadvantage those Asians 20-something years old DONT have. Those Arab-American teenagers looked like the 9/11 attackers, so even more they'll be outcasted by mainstream American. And that will motivate them to REALLY REBEL against their parent's cultures when they become teenagers!
However, the anti-immigrant fascist will ignore all that! They'll assume that immigrant teenagers dont rebel against their parents
And here's an article on Cambodian-American gang members who were deported!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169557/site/newsweek/
The vast majority of alien Cambodians who are subject to deportation have little to no recollection of their native country, having been evacuated to the United States when they were children. Many don’t even speak the Khmer language or have living relatives here, and some were born in Thai refugee camps and have never set foot on Cambodian soil. Instead of civil war and “The Killing Fields,” they grew up with MTV, McDonald’s and Ronald Reagan.
They were so Americanized that they struggled to fit in when they moved to Cambodia! Similar issues have been raised about Salvadoran gang members deported to El Salvador!
1) Thomas Sowell, like many other right-wing conservatives, believe that immigrants refuse to adjust to American culture and are taking American jobs. BULL-DUNG!
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/04/11/193239.html
Here's my message to Thomas Sowell
You keep claiming that current-day immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.Then why do I keep hearing immigrant teenagers rap along with the SAME EXACT RAP SONGS that are on the top of American music charts? Why do I keep hearing those same songs blasted out of the car stereos of many immigrant teenagers?
Immigrant teenagers probably know more about 50 Cent, Eminem, Kanye West, Fat Joe, Lil Jon and Ying Yang Twins (all important American cultural icons of this decade) than you do! So dont tell me that immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.
It's the right-wing conservatives who are having trouble adjusting to modern American culture! Maybe they should be the ones deported!
In your latest article, you said that the pro-immigration crowd is being abstract?Excuse me?Immigrants are real people with real aspirations! They're not just some folks with wierd accents! They are real people, many of whom I know and respect! So dont give me this crap about "pro-immigration advocates being too abstract!"
You used to hate victimhood and the entitlement mentality! Yet, you are demanding native-born Americans to act like victims and act as if they're entitled to jobs. Many native-born Americans can only qualify for low-paying jobs because many of them were bullies who picked on nerds and irritated their teachers during their childhood and adolescent years! So excuse me, if I have no pity for them if they got to compete with 3rd world immigrants for low-paying jobs!
What next, do we deport Yao Ming because he is competing with native-born Americans for NBA jobs? Maybe we should stop importing music from British rock stars since they take $$$ that could've gone to American rock stars instead!
And maybe your parents should've stayed in North Carolina instead of moving to New York and taking jobs away from native-born New Yorkers!
You use to hate government bureaucracy and red tape, yet you demand immigrants face government bureaucracy and red tape that is far worse than the IRS, Dept of Motor Vehicles, etc all combined!
PS: The European explorers didn't have green cards or visas when they arrived in the Americas! So why should Mexicans have green cards or visa when they move to land that was once part of Mexico!
2) Jews, Italians and Irish were once looked down by British Americans! Many British-Americans said that Jews, Italians and Irish couldn't become real Americans, that real Americans practice Protestant Christianity and not Catholicism or Judaism.
Yet, the descendants of Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants are Americanized to the point where they can't understand their ancestors languages! Yet, many of them still practice Catholicism or Judaism. But many are now looking down on Latino and Arab immigrants, saying nearly the same shit that British Americans used to say about them!
They complain about pro-immigration protesters waving Mexican flags, but are silent about Irish flags waved during St. Patrick's Day parades. They claim that waving Mexican flags is a proof of disloyalty to America, yet they get pissy when non-Jews complain about Jews showing excessive loyalty to Israel over the US.
Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Mike Savage - the previous 3 paragraphs are about YOU!
3) In a recent edition of Time magazine, there was an article about Asian-Americans who are in their 20's now. ALL were born in the US to immigrant parents
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1147177,00.html (to read full article, find the 1/16/06 edition of Time in a public library)
Guess what nearly all had in common. They rebelled against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers
I bet you, within the next 10-20 years, Time or Newsweek will profile the children of Arab immigrants. And guess what? They will all rebell against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers! And Arab teenagers have a disadvantage those Asians 20-something years old DONT have. Those Arab-American teenagers looked like the 9/11 attackers, so even more they'll be outcasted by mainstream American. And that will motivate them to REALLY REBEL against their parent's cultures when they become teenagers!
However, the anti-immigrant fascist will ignore all that! They'll assume that immigrant teenagers dont rebel against their parents
And here's an article on Cambodian-American gang members who were deported!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169557/site/newsweek/
The vast majority of alien Cambodians who are subject to deportation have little to no recollection of their native country, having been evacuated to the United States when they were children. Many don’t even speak the Khmer language or have living relatives here, and some were born in Thai refugee camps and have never set foot on Cambodian soil. Instead of civil war and “The Killing Fields,” they grew up with MTV, McDonald’s and Ronald Reagan.
They were so Americanized that they struggled to fit in when they moved to Cambodia! Similar issues have been raised about Salvadoran gang members deported to El Salvador!
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Riots in France
Here's an email from a friend commenting on the riots in France
When those riots began in France some month ago, and the majority of participants were the teenage children of Mulism immigrants, the "nativist" bigot brigrade of the West, blamed this on the innate evil of immigrants from Muslim countries. They snarled that it was these Muslim immigrants that were imposing their own violent culture on the innocent, passive, over-accomdating native-born French.
Now we see similar riots by equally-spoiled native-born French youths, and it is not even over inflammatory allegations of police brutality, but over something even stupider -- these spoiled French youths take to violence because the French government is now considering some recognition of a business owner's right to sever his business relationship with anyone younger than 26 for any reason.
The anti-immigrationists would have you believe that the Muslim immigrant children are a bad influence on today's native-born French mores. But could it be, in some part, that it is the native-born French mores that has been a bad influence on those Muslim immigrant children?
Here's an email from a friend commenting on the riots in France
When those riots began in France some month ago, and the majority of participants were the teenage children of Mulism immigrants, the "nativist" bigot brigrade of the West, blamed this on the innate evil of immigrants from Muslim countries. They snarled that it was these Muslim immigrants that were imposing their own violent culture on the innocent, passive, over-accomdating native-born French.
Now we see similar riots by equally-spoiled native-born French youths, and it is not even over inflammatory allegations of police brutality, but over something even stupider -- these spoiled French youths take to violence because the French government is now considering some recognition of a business owner's right to sever his business relationship with anyone younger than 26 for any reason.
The anti-immigrationists would have you believe that the Muslim immigrant children are a bad influence on today's native-born French mores. But could it be, in some part, that it is the native-born French mores that has been a bad influence on those Muslim immigrant children?
The Immigration Hysteria
This past weekend, in LA, Phoenix and other US cities, people were protesting the anti-immigration laws being proposed in the US Congress.
Now, the warriors of conservative correctness are again, putting out their lame arguments. I'll break them down here
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lame Argument #1 - Illegal aliens broke a law, so they deserve to be punished
Reality: Some laws deserve to be broken. The civil rights supporters in the 1950's broke the law when they protested segregation. The folks at Tianeman Sqaure in 1989 were breaking the law before they got smashed by tanks. Jesus Christ was breaking the law. That's why he got executed by the Romans. Yet, we all now consider those lawbreakers heroes.
My point is, some laws dont deserve to exist. Laws telling people where they can live don't deserve to exist.
Stop trying to over-manage people's lives!
By the way, did all those European conquerors have to fill out forms before invading Native American lands? NO! Yet, the descendants of the same Europeans are demanding that the new outsiders fill out stupid papers to come into a land that their ancestors stole from the Native Americans
-------------------------------
Lame Argument #2 - Immigrants dont deserve to be here, since they dont act like native-born Americans
Reality: Ever observed how their kids act. I do. I work with those kids.
Those kids are into the same pop-culture trends as native-born American kids. Take a kid who arrived in the US when he/she was 5. Then deport that same kid when he/she is 16. That kid would NOT fit in with the peer culture of the country he/she was born.
I hear immigrants from Micronesia, Philippines and Samoa rapping along to the SAME EXACT SONGS that are topping the US charts! So dont give me this crap about immigrants not adjusting to American culture
Even if they don't follow American pop culture, SO WHAT? It's their choice! Mind your business!
My dad is from Mexico, and I cant even speak Spanish.
And I have cousins living in the LA metro area. Last time I visited them, they were living in a mostly Latino neighborhood. And I could easily talk to them in English. (Anti-immigration fascist didn't want you to know that)
And if the anti-immigration bunch were so correct in stating that Latinos don't want to learn English - then why do Jennifer Lopez, Fat Joe, Angelina, Pitbull, Lil Rob, Nino Brown, Frankie J, NB Ridaz , ALL rap or sing in English? Remember, these are all Latinos from US cities filled with Latinos. So dont give me this crap that Latinos dont want to learn English.
Yeah, I know, the reggaeton craze is coming to the US, and they all rap/sing in Spanish, but most of it's stars are from Puerto Rico, not the mainland US. If Daddy Yankee grew up in New York instead of Puerto Rico, he would be singing/rapping in English instead of Spanish.
And even if immigrants dont want to speak English, SO WHAT? Mind your own business!
------------------------------------
Lame Argument #3 - Letting illegal aliens stay here is like letting a burglar stay in your house
Reality: That is such a stupid anology!
Americans are supposed to believe in private property. So if I want to hire illegal aliens to work or live on my property, it's none of your business! You dont own my property, so dont bother to vote on what I can or cannot do with it! Mind your own business!
Some also complain about illegal aliens committing violent crimes. He/she ought to be arrested for commiting that violent crime, not for choosing to live in America.
After all, Timothy McVeigh was NOT from Oklahoma! He's from Buffallo, New York. So, should we force New Yorkers to have certain documents in order to even visit Oklahoma?
--------------------------------
Lame Arguement #4 - Immigrants take jobs from Americans.
Reality: If I opened a restaurant, and most of the people applying to work there are immigrants, dam friggin right most of the people I'd be hiring are going to be immigrants! Or should I have those stupid quotas (which conservatives used to complain about) saying what % of my workers ought to be native- born Americans.
Life is rough, getting a job isn't always so easy. Trust me, I know. There was a time in which I was unemployed for 5 months, and it can have an effect on finances and emotional well-being. But I was also (gasp) mature enough to not blame others (ie. The White Man, illegal aliens, etc) if I didn't get a job I applied for!
What next, do we stop importing foregin music to protect the $$$ of American musicians?
That would've meant banning the Beatles, Bob Marley, Shakira, AC/DC, Bryan Adams, Sean Paul, Sting, Rolling Stones, and all those other foreigners from selling their music in the US.
This past weekend, in LA, Phoenix and other US cities, people were protesting the anti-immigration laws being proposed in the US Congress.
Now, the warriors of conservative correctness are again, putting out their lame arguments. I'll break them down here
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lame Argument #1 - Illegal aliens broke a law, so they deserve to be punished
Reality: Some laws deserve to be broken. The civil rights supporters in the 1950's broke the law when they protested segregation. The folks at Tianeman Sqaure in 1989 were breaking the law before they got smashed by tanks. Jesus Christ was breaking the law. That's why he got executed by the Romans. Yet, we all now consider those lawbreakers heroes.
My point is, some laws dont deserve to exist. Laws telling people where they can live don't deserve to exist.
Stop trying to over-manage people's lives!
By the way, did all those European conquerors have to fill out forms before invading Native American lands? NO! Yet, the descendants of the same Europeans are demanding that the new outsiders fill out stupid papers to come into a land that their ancestors stole from the Native Americans
-------------------------------
Lame Argument #2 - Immigrants dont deserve to be here, since they dont act like native-born Americans
Reality: Ever observed how their kids act. I do. I work with those kids.
Those kids are into the same pop-culture trends as native-born American kids. Take a kid who arrived in the US when he/she was 5. Then deport that same kid when he/she is 16. That kid would NOT fit in with the peer culture of the country he/she was born.
I hear immigrants from Micronesia, Philippines and Samoa rapping along to the SAME EXACT SONGS that are topping the US charts! So dont give me this crap about immigrants not adjusting to American culture
Even if they don't follow American pop culture, SO WHAT? It's their choice! Mind your business!
My dad is from Mexico, and I cant even speak Spanish.
And I have cousins living in the LA metro area. Last time I visited them, they were living in a mostly Latino neighborhood. And I could easily talk to them in English. (Anti-immigration fascist didn't want you to know that)
And if the anti-immigration bunch were so correct in stating that Latinos don't want to learn English - then why do Jennifer Lopez, Fat Joe, Angelina, Pitbull, Lil Rob, Nino Brown, Frankie J, NB Ridaz , ALL rap or sing in English? Remember, these are all Latinos from US cities filled with Latinos. So dont give me this crap that Latinos dont want to learn English.
Yeah, I know, the reggaeton craze is coming to the US, and they all rap/sing in Spanish, but most of it's stars are from Puerto Rico, not the mainland US. If Daddy Yankee grew up in New York instead of Puerto Rico, he would be singing/rapping in English instead of Spanish.
And even if immigrants dont want to speak English, SO WHAT? Mind your own business!
------------------------------------
Lame Argument #3 - Letting illegal aliens stay here is like letting a burglar stay in your house
Reality: That is such a stupid anology!
Americans are supposed to believe in private property. So if I want to hire illegal aliens to work or live on my property, it's none of your business! You dont own my property, so dont bother to vote on what I can or cannot do with it! Mind your own business!
Some also complain about illegal aliens committing violent crimes. He/she ought to be arrested for commiting that violent crime, not for choosing to live in America.
After all, Timothy McVeigh was NOT from Oklahoma! He's from Buffallo, New York. So, should we force New Yorkers to have certain documents in order to even visit Oklahoma?
--------------------------------
Lame Arguement #4 - Immigrants take jobs from Americans.
Reality: If I opened a restaurant, and most of the people applying to work there are immigrants, dam friggin right most of the people I'd be hiring are going to be immigrants! Or should I have those stupid quotas (which conservatives used to complain about) saying what % of my workers ought to be native- born Americans.
Life is rough, getting a job isn't always so easy. Trust me, I know. There was a time in which I was unemployed for 5 months, and it can have an effect on finances and emotional well-being. But I was also (gasp) mature enough to not blame others (ie. The White Man, illegal aliens, etc) if I didn't get a job I applied for!
What next, do we stop importing foregin music to protect the $$$ of American musicians?
That would've meant banning the Beatles, Bob Marley, Shakira, AC/DC, Bryan Adams, Sean Paul, Sting, Rolling Stones, and all those other foreigners from selling their music in the US.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
More on the Dubai ports
Thomas Friedman had a great editorial on the Dubai ports controversy. He tells the truth about the United Arab Emirates, and it's main city Abu Dubai
http://www.iht.com/bin/challenge.php?URI=http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/15/opinion/edfried.php
Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.
What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change.
That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?"
So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.
Thomas Friedman had a great editorial on the Dubai ports controversy. He tells the truth about the United Arab Emirates, and it's main city Abu Dubai
http://www.iht.com/bin/challenge.php?URI=http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/15/opinion/edfried.php
Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.
What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change.
That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?"
So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Who Runs the Seaports and other Middle Eastern news
1)UAE seaport controversy
There has been all this controversy over a company from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) taking over the management of the seaports in New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.
Because UAE is an Arab country, people got hysterical about it! Too many people in the US assume that all Arab countries are run by anti-American Islamic fanatics.
However, the UAE is run by pro-American leaders have been helpful in the War on Terror!
If Iran, Sudan, Lybia or Syria wanted to take over US ports, I'd be against it.But the UAE, like Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan are run by pro-American Muslims. While those countries might have some anti-American Muslims, there is also a more pro-business, moderate Muslims who would love to invest in the U.S.
Meanwhile, the federal government screwed up by not informing Congress and the governors and mayors of the affected states/cities ahead of time. Which is what probably added to the hysteria!
Because of all this controversy, a lot of rich Arabs are thinking about investing their $$$ elsewhere. Our economy could miss out on an opportunity. The US and the Middle East could miss out an opportunity for some cultural exchanges as well.
Also, by investing in each other, there is a powerful economic incentive in avoiding the next war.
2) Lebanon
The nation of Lebanon, which was once a land of civil war in the 1980s and was occupied by Syrian fascists in the 1990s and early 2000's, is now a thriving nation which is liberal by Middle East standards.
It's capital, Beirut, now has the same type of nightclubs you can find in Europe and the U.S. In fact, many Europeans vacation there to get a taste of the Islamic Middle East without stepping into a nation run by theocratic Islamic Fascists. Beirut and Tel Aviv (in Israel) are the party cities of the Middle East!
Unfortunately, the Islamic terrorists still want to ruin the fun.
1)UAE seaport controversy
There has been all this controversy over a company from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) taking over the management of the seaports in New York/New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.
Because UAE is an Arab country, people got hysterical about it! Too many people in the US assume that all Arab countries are run by anti-American Islamic fanatics.
However, the UAE is run by pro-American leaders have been helpful in the War on Terror!
If Iran, Sudan, Lybia or Syria wanted to take over US ports, I'd be against it.But the UAE, like Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan are run by pro-American Muslims. While those countries might have some anti-American Muslims, there is also a more pro-business, moderate Muslims who would love to invest in the U.S.
Meanwhile, the federal government screwed up by not informing Congress and the governors and mayors of the affected states/cities ahead of time. Which is what probably added to the hysteria!
Because of all this controversy, a lot of rich Arabs are thinking about investing their $$$ elsewhere. Our economy could miss out on an opportunity. The US and the Middle East could miss out an opportunity for some cultural exchanges as well.
Also, by investing in each other, there is a powerful economic incentive in avoiding the next war.
2) Lebanon
The nation of Lebanon, which was once a land of civil war in the 1980s and was occupied by Syrian fascists in the 1990s and early 2000's, is now a thriving nation which is liberal by Middle East standards.
It's capital, Beirut, now has the same type of nightclubs you can find in Europe and the U.S. In fact, many Europeans vacation there to get a taste of the Islamic Middle East without stepping into a nation run by theocratic Islamic Fascists. Beirut and Tel Aviv (in Israel) are the party cities of the Middle East!
Unfortunately, the Islamic terrorists still want to ruin the fun.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Immigrants and Extended Families
Some folks on the mainland are whining that their immigrant neighbors have a lot of people living in the same house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/magazine/26wwln_lead.html
I would tell them "Big F----in Deal!"
Ideally, the less people in the home, the better. That is because you'd get more privacy.
However, if your family is poor, you'd got to make some sacrifices. That might mean having many of your relatives under a roof!
I dont hear anyone in Hawaii whining about this, except for imported white conservatives who moved from the mainland.
In Hawaii, we have a lot of Asians and Pacific Islanders whose culture stress the importance of extended family and family gatherings.
So it's not unusual to have a lot of people living under a roof. Though the richer families tend to have less people in a bigger home.
In white mainland US culture, the parents take care of the kids, and the kids better leave the house by age 25 or else they'll be considered a "looser".
In many Asian and Pacific Island cultures, the parents take care of the kids, be very strict with the kids, and when the kids become adults, they stay home to take care of the parents. A 26 year old person who stays with his/her parents isn't considered a "looser", he/she is considered "devoted to taking care of the extended family". In fact, those who ditch their families are the ones considered "loosers".
And those who migrate from Asia or the Pacific Islands to the US tend to give whatever money they earn to their relatives back home, or help their relative access the opportunities in the US.
However, the anti-immigration fascists hate it when immigrants bring their relatives to the US. I would tell those anti-immigration fascists to "mind your own fuckin business!"
Some folks on the mainland are whining that their immigrant neighbors have a lot of people living in the same house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/magazine/26wwln_lead.html
I would tell them "Big F----in Deal!"
Ideally, the less people in the home, the better. That is because you'd get more privacy.
However, if your family is poor, you'd got to make some sacrifices. That might mean having many of your relatives under a roof!
I dont hear anyone in Hawaii whining about this, except for imported white conservatives who moved from the mainland.
In Hawaii, we have a lot of Asians and Pacific Islanders whose culture stress the importance of extended family and family gatherings.
So it's not unusual to have a lot of people living under a roof. Though the richer families tend to have less people in a bigger home.
In white mainland US culture, the parents take care of the kids, and the kids better leave the house by age 25 or else they'll be considered a "looser".
In many Asian and Pacific Island cultures, the parents take care of the kids, be very strict with the kids, and when the kids become adults, they stay home to take care of the parents. A 26 year old person who stays with his/her parents isn't considered a "looser", he/she is considered "devoted to taking care of the extended family". In fact, those who ditch their families are the ones considered "loosers".
And those who migrate from Asia or the Pacific Islands to the US tend to give whatever money they earn to their relatives back home, or help their relative access the opportunities in the US.
However, the anti-immigration fascists hate it when immigrants bring their relatives to the US. I would tell those anti-immigration fascists to "mind your own fuckin business!"
Friday, March 03, 2006
In Memory of Harry Browne
Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1996 & 2000 elections, has died on March 1, 2006.
http://www.lp.org/media/article_294.shtml
I have learned about Browne through some politically minded friends in the summer of 2000. At the time, I was struggling between voting for Al Gore or George W. Bush. I knew what their political tendencies were, I just don't always agree with either of them.
Anyways, I read Harry Browne's political advertisement and his book "Why Government Doesn't Work" and I found his writings very convincing, especially on controversial viewpoints on ending the War on Drugs, privatizing all health care, selling national parks to those committed to preserving them, privatizing education, etc. His writings on those topics were so convincing that it changed the way I viewed those issues.
Though after 9/11, I became more of a foreign policy, and was disillusioned with Browne's anti-war politics. I thought that Browne spent too much blaming America, and not enough time on denouncing the Islamic Fascists.
I also think that while Browne's views on privatizing government services are very convincing, I think that having an immediate privatization of all those services (which he advocates) would cause mass confusion among the people who might be unprepared to deal with it. Which is why I prefer a more gradual approach to privatizing most government services.
I dont agree with the Libertarian Party on everything, but I do think they have valuable things to say about very important political issues, so please check out www.lp.org to learn more about it. Even if you don't agree with it, you would learn something from it.
And you can still check out www.harrybrowne.org
Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1996 & 2000 elections, has died on March 1, 2006.
http://www.lp.org/media/article_294.shtml
I have learned about Browne through some politically minded friends in the summer of 2000. At the time, I was struggling between voting for Al Gore or George W. Bush. I knew what their political tendencies were, I just don't always agree with either of them.
Anyways, I read Harry Browne's political advertisement and his book "Why Government Doesn't Work" and I found his writings very convincing, especially on controversial viewpoints on ending the War on Drugs, privatizing all health care, selling national parks to those committed to preserving them, privatizing education, etc. His writings on those topics were so convincing that it changed the way I viewed those issues.
Though after 9/11, I became more of a foreign policy, and was disillusioned with Browne's anti-war politics. I thought that Browne spent too much blaming America, and not enough time on denouncing the Islamic Fascists.
I also think that while Browne's views on privatizing government services are very convincing, I think that having an immediate privatization of all those services (which he advocates) would cause mass confusion among the people who might be unprepared to deal with it. Which is why I prefer a more gradual approach to privatizing most government services.
I dont agree with the Libertarian Party on everything, but I do think they have valuable things to say about very important political issues, so please check out www.lp.org to learn more about it. Even if you don't agree with it, you would learn something from it.
And you can still check out www.harrybrowne.org
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Body Hair
This is from an advice column from one week ago.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/17/il/FP602170319.html
THE ADVICE DIVA
Don't bring up a hairy situation
By Tara Solomon
DEAR ADVICE DIVA:
A friend of mine is absolutely adorable, with one exception — she has an abnormal amount of noticeable body hair on her arms, the small of her back, and even along the side of her face, like sideburns.
I know that guys find her attractive, but I also know that behind her back they make fun of all her body hair.
I want to talk to her about it but it doesn't even seem to bother her. How can I bring this up to my friend without hurting her feelings? Should I?
—Stuck in a Hairy Situation
DEAR HAIRY SITUATION:
Ouch. This is a toughie. But you know what — in this case we would urge you to say nothing. Body hair is a cultural standard and even if she looks like Chewbacca it doesn't mean that she needs to de-hair herself just because some immature guys make fun of her. Why give her ammunition for self-hate? If she asks you, give her the name of a good waxing salon, but keep the anecdotes to yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------
And here's what I wrote to the Advice Diva
---------------------------------------------------
This is in response to your column a few weeks back.
Someone wrote about a friend with a lot of body hair, and wanted to say something to her about it!
As a person with a lot of body hair, I get VERY IRRITATED when someone says "you're hairy". I want to yell at them "I KNOW THAT ALREADY!" Or usually, I tell them sarcastically "wow, I didn't know that!"
Do those people think I never looked in the mirror before? Or that I can't see what's on myself 24/7!
Some said I should shave! As if I had time to do all that, as well as wake up, go to work, go home, eat, communicate with friends and family, keep up with current events, sleep, etc. Once in a while, I'd shave my body hair but it's too time consuming. I know about those lazer treatments, but if I could pay for it, I would've done A LONG TIME AGO!
When someone keeps pointing out that I have a lot of body hair, all it does is make me too self-conscious and too insecure to take my shirt off in public, to go to the beach or the swimming pool, or go anywhere that has a locker room.
I'm not asking for advice here! I just want to tell that letter-writter that you don't have to tell someone that he/she got a lot of body hair. That person already knows that, and is probably been insecure about it for years, so shut the fuck up and leave that person alone.
Tired of Hair,
Honolulu, HI
----------------
I usually avoid the body hair topic when talking to people, but someone's gotta say something, and it aint gonna be someone else, so I'll say it now!
This is from an advice column from one week ago.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/17/il/FP602170319.html
THE ADVICE DIVA
Don't bring up a hairy situation
By Tara Solomon
DEAR ADVICE DIVA:
A friend of mine is absolutely adorable, with one exception — she has an abnormal amount of noticeable body hair on her arms, the small of her back, and even along the side of her face, like sideburns.
I know that guys find her attractive, but I also know that behind her back they make fun of all her body hair.
I want to talk to her about it but it doesn't even seem to bother her. How can I bring this up to my friend without hurting her feelings? Should I?
—Stuck in a Hairy Situation
DEAR HAIRY SITUATION:
Ouch. This is a toughie. But you know what — in this case we would urge you to say nothing. Body hair is a cultural standard and even if she looks like Chewbacca it doesn't mean that she needs to de-hair herself just because some immature guys make fun of her. Why give her ammunition for self-hate? If she asks you, give her the name of a good waxing salon, but keep the anecdotes to yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------
And here's what I wrote to the Advice Diva
---------------------------------------------------
This is in response to your column a few weeks back.
Someone wrote about a friend with a lot of body hair, and wanted to say something to her about it!
As a person with a lot of body hair, I get VERY IRRITATED when someone says "you're hairy". I want to yell at them "I KNOW THAT ALREADY!" Or usually, I tell them sarcastically "wow, I didn't know that!"
Do those people think I never looked in the mirror before? Or that I can't see what's on myself 24/7!
Some said I should shave! As if I had time to do all that, as well as wake up, go to work, go home, eat, communicate with friends and family, keep up with current events, sleep, etc. Once in a while, I'd shave my body hair but it's too time consuming. I know about those lazer treatments, but if I could pay for it, I would've done A LONG TIME AGO!
When someone keeps pointing out that I have a lot of body hair, all it does is make me too self-conscious and too insecure to take my shirt off in public, to go to the beach or the swimming pool, or go anywhere that has a locker room.
I'm not asking for advice here! I just want to tell that letter-writter that you don't have to tell someone that he/she got a lot of body hair. That person already knows that, and is probably been insecure about it for years, so shut the fuck up and leave that person alone.
Tired of Hair,
Honolulu, HI
----------------
I usually avoid the body hair topic when talking to people, but someone's gotta say something, and it aint gonna be someone else, so I'll say it now!
Monday, February 13, 2006
My February So Far
It's been 2 weeks since I last posted on this blog.
1) I had a real bad cold at the beginning of this month. The first few days, I was exhausted after work. It wasn't the stress, since there were work days a lot more stressful than that. It was the lack of energy that comes along with having a cold.
The following weekend, my head was hot but my lower body was cold. It was bizzare!
I dont take cold medicine. All it does is make my mouth and throat dry. It's not worth it! I didn't go to the doctor. I just stayed home and rest for a few days.
I also refused to go to my friend's party at Rumors due to my illness.
Now, I'm feeling much better.
2) Super Bowl
I dont have a favorite NFL team since Hawaii doesn't have one. But I like the Pittsburgh Steelers uniform because it matches the same colors as McKinley High School (Black and Gold)
It was also Jerome Bettis (Steelers' running back) last game. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make a touchdown during the game. But at least his team won.
It's been 2 weeks since I last posted on this blog.
1) I had a real bad cold at the beginning of this month. The first few days, I was exhausted after work. It wasn't the stress, since there were work days a lot more stressful than that. It was the lack of energy that comes along with having a cold.
The following weekend, my head was hot but my lower body was cold. It was bizzare!
I dont take cold medicine. All it does is make my mouth and throat dry. It's not worth it! I didn't go to the doctor. I just stayed home and rest for a few days.
I also refused to go to my friend's party at Rumors due to my illness.
Now, I'm feeling much better.
2) Super Bowl
I dont have a favorite NFL team since Hawaii doesn't have one. But I like the Pittsburgh Steelers uniform because it matches the same colors as McKinley High School (Black and Gold)
It was also Jerome Bettis (Steelers' running back) last game. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make a touchdown during the game. But at least his team won.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Battles over Gender Role
You would think that with women gaining the presidency of a diverse group of nations like Germany, Chile, Liberia -- that all this talk about "women must stay home instead of women" would be as old-fashioned as saying the "world is flat"
But even in America, some people still haven't gotten the message. In fact, there's even women who demand that all women be subordinate to men.
An example would be mega-conservative Kate O'Beirne.A lot of what O'Beirne says in an interview in Salon is so full of stuff you wouldn't dare eat that I feel like being misogynistic for a few seconds so I could hit her head with a water bottle. But don't worry, I'm not like that :)
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/17/o_beirne/index.html?x
-----------------------------------------
Interviewer:In the chapter about VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] you describe some of the signs of abuse -- like having a partner who monitors what you're doing, humiliates you in public, and controls your money -- as trivial. Do you really think those things are trivial?
O'Beirne:I think they are potentially trivial. Could any one of those things rise to the level of a real abusive situation? I suppose so. But it strikes me as a sort of alarmist [attempt to define] domestic violence down in order to find some epidemic of it. [If those were true] every dating relationship in high school would be abuse. I mean constant, constant humiliation in front of people? It's all so subjective: like every time I go out he asks me where I've been?What I see there is an attempt to define it down because it has to be an epidemic -- because there's a lot of money in it being an epidemic.
Pablo: What O'Beirne is saying is so stupid! Trivial?If your partner is controlling your money, monitoring all your actions, etc, do you think your partner would just stop there?
FUCK NO! Anyone with a brain can tell you that shit will escalate! It's common sense!
Domestic violence doesn't start with a viscious punch fist on the first date. It starts with an asshole asking "why are talking to that guy", "why are you smiling at him". It starts an asshole saying "you're stupid", "what the fuck are you doing". It starts with someone saying "you're good for nothing"
In other words, domestic violence doesn't begin with physical violence, it begins with hurtful words, it begins with micro-managing behavior.As time goes by, the spouse starting slapping, then punching, then with more punching, kicking, choking, etc.
Dont believe me? Just ask anyone in prison for killing their wives, girlfriends, etc! Just ask anyone in a shelter for domestic violence victims.
That's right, it starts with 1) someone using his/her words to control you, then 2) minor violence, 3) major violence, 4) murder.
Conservatives blame gangsta rap and heavy metal for domestic violence. Maybe folks like Vox Day and Kate O'Beirne should share some blame too, for displaying massive ignorance on this issue!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviewer:You write about your dismay when your son was read a story about a princess killing the dragons while the boys did nothing. Why shouldn't the girls defend the castle?
O'Beirne:Men protect women from the physical threat. You're going into a movie theater with your husband or your boyfriend and you see two guys tussling in the parking lot: You walk a little faster. You see a guy shoving a girl around: You want to be with a guy who wouldn't go over to the parking lot and see what was happening? I wouldn't want to be with a guy who didn't. Good men rise to defend women in the face of a physical threat.
Pablo: It's all nice and sweet for a man to defend his girlfriend!
But let's also live in reality here. Some men have ZERO interest in defending women, they have interest in raping and abusing women.
If I had a daughter, youre dam F.N. right I want her to be inspired by a book about girls defending the castle!
So who wouldn't want my future daughter to be inspired by such books?
Pimps, spouse abusers, rapists, Islamic Fascists and so-called conservatives like Vox Day and Kate O'Beirne! After all, pimps, rapists and spouse abusers want easy targets! Anyone with a brain should be able to figure that out!
--------------------------------------------
Interviewer:You're accepting that society won't ever validate a man who stays home! That's a big trade-off!
O'Beirne:But it's not my opinion! Find me one. Find me one in the history of recorded mankind. You know what's funny to me? Whatever men do, as I understand it, is the status job in that society. Like if they gathered [instead of hunted] in some damn society, then gathering would be the status job because men were doing it.
Interviewer:But that's exactly the problem! To say that it's been true historically without exception doesn't make it right!
O'Beirne:
They care more about [status] than we do. But that's also why they care more about paid work. And obviously I'm talking broadly here. There are women who dance circles around guys, make them look like slugs. But [there are] recent stories about women being handed keys to the executive washroom and going, "Eh, I really don't want it!"
Pablo: Talking about history, a person living in 1800 can say there's no civilization in all of history that didn't have slavery. That was true! But now, slavery is banned in most nations throughout the world.
Of course, change is slow. Women gaining equal status to men wasn't going to come overnight. After all, in the US, African-Americans didn't all of a sudden have equal status to European-Americans after the end of slavery. These things take decades! After all 1) oppressed groups need a lot of time to catch up, 2) both the oppressors and oppressed have a lot of bad habits to overcome. These things take decades!
While there is major focus on women quitting high status job to take care of family, there has been men who did the same. For example, former Congressman JC Watts said he quit Congress because he wanted to be able to a bigger presence in his own children's life! Some has been true of some coaches and executives as well.
--------------------------------------------
Enough of Kate O'Beirne, let's look at a woman who did stay home instead of work, Terry Hekker
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/04/brooks_and_hekker/index.html?x
Hekker was stunned when, on her 40th wedding anniversary, her well-supported husband announced he wanted a divorce. Left not just emotionally bereft, but financially decimated in her 60s, Hekker was forced to pay insurance, taxes, a mortgage and car payments for the first time in her life.
She may be more an emblem of full-time motherhood than a true practitioner, but Hekker proclaims that she is not alone. Several of her friends, women who'd "been faithful wives, good mothers, cooks and housekeepers," also found themselves discarded like "outdated kitchen appliances." Hekker now regrets a sentence from her original Times column mocking the feminist notion that "the only work worth doing is that for which you get paid." It turns out that that wasn't such a laughable idea after all. "For a divorced mother," she writes, "the harsh reality is that the work for which you do get paid is the only work that will keep you afloat."
Pablo: Ladies, learn from Hekker's mistakes! You dont want to be there
.---------------------------------------------
Before I go, I want to mention about a former room-mate who said "women should be soft", that he "didn't like strong women" and said "men ought to be superior".
This guy wasn't a jock! This guy wasn't a playa. This guy was a loser who couldn't get laid, a loser who wanted to ditch his high school's festival instead of enjoying the festivities, a loser who can't handle strong minded women!
I never heard a jock say the stuff my former room-mate said!After all jocks are the real tough guys! They can handle strong-minded women! In many cases, their moms, aunts, sisters and girlfriends are strong-minded women, many of whom played sports!
It's losers who can't get laid with those women who end up being the sexists!
You would think that with women gaining the presidency of a diverse group of nations like Germany, Chile, Liberia -- that all this talk about "women must stay home instead of women" would be as old-fashioned as saying the "world is flat"
But even in America, some people still haven't gotten the message. In fact, there's even women who demand that all women be subordinate to men.
An example would be mega-conservative Kate O'Beirne.A lot of what O'Beirne says in an interview in Salon is so full of stuff you wouldn't dare eat that I feel like being misogynistic for a few seconds so I could hit her head with a water bottle. But don't worry, I'm not like that :)
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/17/o_beirne/index.html?x
-----------------------------------------
Interviewer:In the chapter about VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] you describe some of the signs of abuse -- like having a partner who monitors what you're doing, humiliates you in public, and controls your money -- as trivial. Do you really think those things are trivial?
O'Beirne:I think they are potentially trivial. Could any one of those things rise to the level of a real abusive situation? I suppose so. But it strikes me as a sort of alarmist [attempt to define] domestic violence down in order to find some epidemic of it. [If those were true] every dating relationship in high school would be abuse. I mean constant, constant humiliation in front of people? It's all so subjective: like every time I go out he asks me where I've been?What I see there is an attempt to define it down because it has to be an epidemic -- because there's a lot of money in it being an epidemic.
Pablo: What O'Beirne is saying is so stupid! Trivial?If your partner is controlling your money, monitoring all your actions, etc, do you think your partner would just stop there?
FUCK NO! Anyone with a brain can tell you that shit will escalate! It's common sense!
Domestic violence doesn't start with a viscious punch fist on the first date. It starts with an asshole asking "why are talking to that guy", "why are you smiling at him". It starts an asshole saying "you're stupid", "what the fuck are you doing". It starts with someone saying "you're good for nothing"
In other words, domestic violence doesn't begin with physical violence, it begins with hurtful words, it begins with micro-managing behavior.As time goes by, the spouse starting slapping, then punching, then with more punching, kicking, choking, etc.
Dont believe me? Just ask anyone in prison for killing their wives, girlfriends, etc! Just ask anyone in a shelter for domestic violence victims.
That's right, it starts with 1) someone using his/her words to control you, then 2) minor violence, 3) major violence, 4) murder.
Conservatives blame gangsta rap and heavy metal for domestic violence. Maybe folks like Vox Day and Kate O'Beirne should share some blame too, for displaying massive ignorance on this issue!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviewer:You write about your dismay when your son was read a story about a princess killing the dragons while the boys did nothing. Why shouldn't the girls defend the castle?
O'Beirne:Men protect women from the physical threat. You're going into a movie theater with your husband or your boyfriend and you see two guys tussling in the parking lot: You walk a little faster. You see a guy shoving a girl around: You want to be with a guy who wouldn't go over to the parking lot and see what was happening? I wouldn't want to be with a guy who didn't. Good men rise to defend women in the face of a physical threat.
Pablo: It's all nice and sweet for a man to defend his girlfriend!
But let's also live in reality here. Some men have ZERO interest in defending women, they have interest in raping and abusing women.
If I had a daughter, youre dam F.N. right I want her to be inspired by a book about girls defending the castle!
So who wouldn't want my future daughter to be inspired by such books?
Pimps, spouse abusers, rapists, Islamic Fascists and so-called conservatives like Vox Day and Kate O'Beirne! After all, pimps, rapists and spouse abusers want easy targets! Anyone with a brain should be able to figure that out!
--------------------------------------------
Interviewer:You're accepting that society won't ever validate a man who stays home! That's a big trade-off!
O'Beirne:But it's not my opinion! Find me one. Find me one in the history of recorded mankind. You know what's funny to me? Whatever men do, as I understand it, is the status job in that society. Like if they gathered [instead of hunted] in some damn society, then gathering would be the status job because men were doing it.
Interviewer:But that's exactly the problem! To say that it's been true historically without exception doesn't make it right!
O'Beirne:
They care more about [status] than we do. But that's also why they care more about paid work. And obviously I'm talking broadly here. There are women who dance circles around guys, make them look like slugs. But [there are] recent stories about women being handed keys to the executive washroom and going, "Eh, I really don't want it!"
Pablo: Talking about history, a person living in 1800 can say there's no civilization in all of history that didn't have slavery. That was true! But now, slavery is banned in most nations throughout the world.
Of course, change is slow. Women gaining equal status to men wasn't going to come overnight. After all, in the US, African-Americans didn't all of a sudden have equal status to European-Americans after the end of slavery. These things take decades! After all 1) oppressed groups need a lot of time to catch up, 2) both the oppressors and oppressed have a lot of bad habits to overcome. These things take decades!
While there is major focus on women quitting high status job to take care of family, there has been men who did the same. For example, former Congressman JC Watts said he quit Congress because he wanted to be able to a bigger presence in his own children's life! Some has been true of some coaches and executives as well.
--------------------------------------------
Enough of Kate O'Beirne, let's look at a woman who did stay home instead of work, Terry Hekker
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/04/brooks_and_hekker/index.html?x
Hekker was stunned when, on her 40th wedding anniversary, her well-supported husband announced he wanted a divorce. Left not just emotionally bereft, but financially decimated in her 60s, Hekker was forced to pay insurance, taxes, a mortgage and car payments for the first time in her life.
She may be more an emblem of full-time motherhood than a true practitioner, but Hekker proclaims that she is not alone. Several of her friends, women who'd "been faithful wives, good mothers, cooks and housekeepers," also found themselves discarded like "outdated kitchen appliances." Hekker now regrets a sentence from her original Times column mocking the feminist notion that "the only work worth doing is that for which you get paid." It turns out that that wasn't such a laughable idea after all. "For a divorced mother," she writes, "the harsh reality is that the work for which you do get paid is the only work that will keep you afloat."
Pablo: Ladies, learn from Hekker's mistakes! You dont want to be there
.---------------------------------------------
Before I go, I want to mention about a former room-mate who said "women should be soft", that he "didn't like strong women" and said "men ought to be superior".
This guy wasn't a jock! This guy wasn't a playa. This guy was a loser who couldn't get laid, a loser who wanted to ditch his high school's festival instead of enjoying the festivities, a loser who can't handle strong minded women!
I never heard a jock say the stuff my former room-mate said!After all jocks are the real tough guys! They can handle strong-minded women! In many cases, their moms, aunts, sisters and girlfriends are strong-minded women, many of whom played sports!
It's losers who can't get laid with those women who end up being the sexists!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)