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!"

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