People of Hawaii are so obsessed in having outsiders think that everything is perfect here, that there is no major problems, and if there is any major problems, it's all the fault of the outsiders.
Another racial incident happened, and yet the calls of denial are ringing loud.
At Waiakea Intermediate School in Hilo, a group of Native Hawaiian girls brutally attacked a European-American girl. As they attacked, they called their victim a " f*******n haole".
The European-American girl's head was slammed against the wall, and was bleeding.
You can read the report and see the picture of the girl's injured head at
http://starbulletin.com/2007/12/05/news/story03.html
I am getting sick of those loosers who don't view such incidents as "hate crimes".
OF COURSE IT'S A HATE CRIME!
Why, is admitting stuff like that going to scare away tourists? What really scares tourists is these bull**** denials of "those incidents not being hate crimes"
Racism happens worldwide. Why can't people in Hawaii admit there is problems there too!
I know, Hawaii got a high-rate of inter-racial datings (which was how I was made), a higher rate of inter-racial friendships (including my friends), and hasn't had the racial riots that terrorized places like LA, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc.
But can we admit that some people here have racist attitudes? Denying problems NEVER solved them! Admitting problems is the 1st step in solving these problems.
------
Katy Rose wrote a really stupid letter to the editor
http://starbulletin.com/2007/12/12/editorial/letters.html
Stop whining about a little name-calling It seems like nobody is more sensitive to name-calling than us haoles. Who knew that a race of people that has been so historically adept at domination and control of wealth and resources, even at the expense of the freedom, survival and sovereignty of indigenous populations, could be brought to its knees by an epithet?
I hope my brothers and sisters of European descent can wipe the tears from their eyes long enough to read a history book or two and recognize that about the only thing we really suffer is the occasional indignity of name-calling. We still manage to control most of the nation's wealth and exercise most of the influence.
I have heard it stated, "The cry of the oppressed is not always just, but if you do not hear it, you will never know what justice is." Name-calling should be evaluated in context. It might be insensitive and hurtful and ignorant of individuality, but unless a name also reflects real social and institutional oppression, then it is just a name. Even in Hawaii, with a diverse local population well-represented in government, white people on the whole enjoy tremendous power and privilege. Instead of whining about hurt feelings, more whites should be examining why resentment exists, and working for justice to repair historical and present wrongs.
Katy Rose
Hanalei, Kauai
It is Katy Rose who needs to learn more history. EUROPEANS AREN'T THE ONLY ONES WHO COMMITTED MASSIVE ATROCITIES! One can learn about the brutal conquests committed by the Aztecs and the Zulus before those groups got conquered by Europeans. One can learn about the genocide committed by Turks against the Armenians. The brutal conquest committed by Japanese soldiers who invaded Korea, China, Phillipines, Micronesia, etc. The race riots in Jakarta in which native Indoneisans attacked Chinese. The religious riots that killed millions of Muslims and Hindus in India. The ethnic civil wars in Rwanda and Sudan. The list can go on.
If someone was born white, it's not that person's fault that other Europeans (and their descendants) committed massive atrocities! Why should that girl in Hilo be getting crap over something that happen before she was born?
Why should Arab children be getting crap over 9/11? Why should Japanese children be getting crap over Pearl Harbor?
One can talk about white privillege, but not all whites live in luxury! Some live in ghettoes. And what about white immigrants from Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Ukriane, Poland, Slovakia and other European countries THAT HAVE NEVER CONQUERED OTHER COUNTRIES!
The irony is that in Hawaii, those who have Spanish or Portuguese ancestry ( I got both) don't get as much crap as those with other European ancestry! Nevermind that the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors were extremely brutal towards the Native Americans and the Africans. But because they were more likely to mix with their conquered subjects, they get some kind of pass.
Plus, those Spanish (including their Latin-American descendants) and Portuguese who came to Hawaii weren't the conquerors, they were mostly imported labor. Another reason they get a pass!
And here are 2 rebuttals ot Katy Rose's nonsense
http://starbulletin.com/2007/12/13/editorial/letters.html
History is no excuse for misbehavior todayKaty Rose's Dec. 12 letter minimizing hatred of folks of European ancestry to a case of "what do you expect, history has convicted them!" is an ugly analysis.
Everyone should be happy with who they are; none better, none worse. It is absurd to defend calling people mean names.
Ward Stewart
Hawaii Kai
----
Girl's beating went beyond 'name-calling'Is Katy Rose serious? A little name-calling? If she is referring to the incident in Hilo in which a girl reportedly was beaten by a classmate, I guess she forgot the little part about a girl splitting another girl's head open against the wall when she smashed the victim's face against the building. A little name-calling?
Please don't make me laugh. The young girl who ended up with 10 stitches in her head wound up with a lot more than "hurt feelings."
Alan Cummings
Port Angeles, Wash.
Formerly of Hawaii
----
Those racist attackers at Waiakea Intermediate need to be punished severely. It could be long-term suspension, expulsion and prison time. Anything less would telling other kids "attack anyone who is different, and you'll get a slap on the wrist. " And anytime kids get a slap on the wrist, they feel rewarded! It's time for the rewards to end!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Hawaii Warriors Triumph!
Last week, the University of Hawaii (UH) football ended the regular season with an undefeated record!
This has been an amazing turnaround for Hawaii football.
Back in 1998, the UH football team was 0-12! It was the boiling point of 6 straight years of loosing seasons. The coach, Fred von Appen, was fired after 3 loosing seasons
This was how bleak the situation was during the von Appen years
!1) many of the top local high school football players chose to play for mainland colleges instead of being humilated as a UH player. Those local high school players who wanted to play for UH were even embarrassed to admit to others, knowing they'll be asked "why would you want to play for a sh----y team?"
2) when one of the college counselors came to my 11th grade English class (1997-1998 school year), and talk about the standards required to attend UH, one girl said out loud "why would I want to attend UH? They have such a junk football team!" This girl didn't play any sports, yet didn't want to attend UH "because UH had a junk football team"
3) Rumors went around that at a local high school reunion, when one of the prizes announced was free UH football tickets, people booed!
4) People joked about top high school football teams beating UH football.
That was how embarrassing it was to be associated with UH football.
However, in 1999, UH had a new football coach June Jones. (Coincidentally, it was my 1st year as a UH student). The situation changed.
After the 2nd game of the 1999 season, people asked "did you see the football game", the common reply was "WE FINALLY WON!" UH also won it's 1st road game in years, had a 1st winning season since 1992, won a WAC championship, and even won a bowl game.
PRIDE WAS RESTORED!
Because of the great 1999 season, most of the all-state high school players graduating in 2000 chose to play college football for UH!
---
Fast-forward to this year -- 2007. Sales of UH athletic merchandise went up. The Aloha Stadium had more fans at the games. Even attendance at sports bars went up this year!
It's common to see people wearing UH football jerseys, and UH WAC champions T-shirts! People who usually don't care about football are talking about the UH Warriors!
Now, as the UH football team is going to play Georgia in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, tickets sold out fast! Demand exceeded supply BIG TIME!
----
And that girl in my high school class who said she didn't want to attend UH because of it's "junk football team"?
I wouldn't be surprised if she gathers with friends to watch UH games while wearing a black UH football jersey with Colt Brennan's #15.
This has been an amazing turnaround for Hawaii football.
Back in 1998, the UH football team was 0-12! It was the boiling point of 6 straight years of loosing seasons. The coach, Fred von Appen, was fired after 3 loosing seasons
This was how bleak the situation was during the von Appen years
!1) many of the top local high school football players chose to play for mainland colleges instead of being humilated as a UH player. Those local high school players who wanted to play for UH were even embarrassed to admit to others, knowing they'll be asked "why would you want to play for a sh----y team?"
2) when one of the college counselors came to my 11th grade English class (1997-1998 school year), and talk about the standards required to attend UH, one girl said out loud "why would I want to attend UH? They have such a junk football team!" This girl didn't play any sports, yet didn't want to attend UH "because UH had a junk football team"
3) Rumors went around that at a local high school reunion, when one of the prizes announced was free UH football tickets, people booed!
4) People joked about top high school football teams beating UH football.
That was how embarrassing it was to be associated with UH football.
However, in 1999, UH had a new football coach June Jones. (Coincidentally, it was my 1st year as a UH student). The situation changed.
After the 2nd game of the 1999 season, people asked "did you see the football game", the common reply was "WE FINALLY WON!" UH also won it's 1st road game in years, had a 1st winning season since 1992, won a WAC championship, and even won a bowl game.
PRIDE WAS RESTORED!
Because of the great 1999 season, most of the all-state high school players graduating in 2000 chose to play college football for UH!
---
Fast-forward to this year -- 2007. Sales of UH athletic merchandise went up. The Aloha Stadium had more fans at the games. Even attendance at sports bars went up this year!
It's common to see people wearing UH football jerseys, and UH WAC champions T-shirts! People who usually don't care about football are talking about the UH Warriors!
Now, as the UH football team is going to play Georgia in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, tickets sold out fast! Demand exceeded supply BIG TIME!
----
And that girl in my high school class who said she didn't want to attend UH because of it's "junk football team"?
I wouldn't be surprised if she gathers with friends to watch UH games while wearing a black UH football jersey with Colt Brennan's #15.
Fugitive Slaves and Illegal Aliens
African-American right wingers like Thomas Sowell and Jesse Lee Peterson (as well as some left-wing black supremacists) complain about illegal Mexican immigrants coming to the US to take jobs away from low-income African-Americans.
What irony! When many African-Americans were moving from the South to the North and West in the late 1800's/early 1900's , many European-Americans in the North & West were complaining about African-American migrants coming to take jobs away from low-income European-Americans!
Also, Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina. His parents moved him to New York when he was a teenager. (taking jobs away from New Yorkers). And he has been working at California colleges for decades. (taking jobs away from Californians)
The same irony is true about Iris-Americans like Pat Buchanan, Jewish Americans like Mike Savage, Italian Americans like Tom Tancredo. Their ancestors were seen as taking jobs away from Anglo-Americans. Yet, those individuals are whining about Mexican immigrants taking jobs away from European-Americans!
Here is what I read from a great email from Stuart Hayashi
Lately I've been reading Thomas J. DiLorenzo. I have many strong disagreements with him, but he pointed out something interesting.From the early 1800s to 1860, white Northern labor unions were strong advocates of the Fugitive Slave Act because they were horrified by the prospect that some rich white Northern businessman might hire fugitive slaves to work for him for very low wages. Dr. DiLorenzo writes that Northern states decided to pass laws to fine or criminally prosecute Northern businesses that hired fugitive slaves.
Furthermore, it was argued that the fugitive slaves fleeing to the North were becoming a huge burden, and who's going to take care of them?
So . . . what do we have here? We have a bunch of dark-skinned people who are located South of some border on the Americas. Then these people located in the South choose to migrate Northward. This very migration is a form of lawbreaking. And then the law of the Northern region forces these people to return to that Southern place they came from. This is allegedly to stop those illegal migrators from becoming a burden up North -- to stop them from depressing the wages of the lighter-skinned Northern people, and to stop them from stealing jobs from those born in the Northern region.
Sound familiar?
-----
Former Arkansas governor and current Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been getting crap for once proposing that children of illegal aliens living in Arkansas get to attend Arkansas colleges at in-state tuition rates.
These children (about to become college-aged adults) DID NOT CHOOSE TO MIGRATE ILLEGALLY!
When a parent and children move, IT'S THE PARENTS WHO MAKE THE DECISION, NOT THE CHILDREN! DUH!
So why not let those teens/young adults attend college at in-state tuition rates?
The anti-immigration fascists say "we can't reward lawbreakers!"
"Cant reward lawbreakers?" So I guess that means we can't give in-state tuition to those whose parents are killers, rapists, drug dealers, drunk drivers, thieves, and all those who have too many parking tickets.
Anti-immigration fascists want to punish people for what their parents did. Why stop there? What about punishing people for having the wrong ancestors? Why not deny in-state tuition rates to the descendants of European conquerors and slave-owners?
What irony! When many African-Americans were moving from the South to the North and West in the late 1800's/early 1900's , many European-Americans in the North & West were complaining about African-American migrants coming to take jobs away from low-income European-Americans!
Also, Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina. His parents moved him to New York when he was a teenager. (taking jobs away from New Yorkers). And he has been working at California colleges for decades. (taking jobs away from Californians)
The same irony is true about Iris-Americans like Pat Buchanan, Jewish Americans like Mike Savage, Italian Americans like Tom Tancredo. Their ancestors were seen as taking jobs away from Anglo-Americans. Yet, those individuals are whining about Mexican immigrants taking jobs away from European-Americans!
Here is what I read from a great email from Stuart Hayashi
Lately I've been reading Thomas J. DiLorenzo. I have many strong disagreements with him, but he pointed out something interesting.From the early 1800s to 1860, white Northern labor unions were strong advocates of the Fugitive Slave Act because they were horrified by the prospect that some rich white Northern businessman might hire fugitive slaves to work for him for very low wages. Dr. DiLorenzo writes that Northern states decided to pass laws to fine or criminally prosecute Northern businesses that hired fugitive slaves.
Furthermore, it was argued that the fugitive slaves fleeing to the North were becoming a huge burden, and who's going to take care of them?
So . . . what do we have here? We have a bunch of dark-skinned people who are located South of some border on the Americas. Then these people located in the South choose to migrate Northward. This very migration is a form of lawbreaking. And then the law of the Northern region forces these people to return to that Southern place they came from. This is allegedly to stop those illegal migrators from becoming a burden up North -- to stop them from depressing the wages of the lighter-skinned Northern people, and to stop them from stealing jobs from those born in the Northern region.
Sound familiar?
-----
Former Arkansas governor and current Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been getting crap for once proposing that children of illegal aliens living in Arkansas get to attend Arkansas colleges at in-state tuition rates.
These children (about to become college-aged adults) DID NOT CHOOSE TO MIGRATE ILLEGALLY!
When a parent and children move, IT'S THE PARENTS WHO MAKE THE DECISION, NOT THE CHILDREN! DUH!
So why not let those teens/young adults attend college at in-state tuition rates?
The anti-immigration fascists say "we can't reward lawbreakers!"
"Cant reward lawbreakers?" So I guess that means we can't give in-state tuition to those whose parents are killers, rapists, drug dealers, drunk drivers, thieves, and all those who have too many parking tickets.
Anti-immigration fascists want to punish people for what their parents did. Why stop there? What about punishing people for having the wrong ancestors? Why not deny in-state tuition rates to the descendants of European conquerors and slave-owners?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Dog Chapman & other race issues in Hawaii
Dog Chapman, the bounty hunter of European-American ancestry, had a problem with his son dating an African-American woman.
This is what he said
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/01/news/story01.html
Chapman: Don't care if she's a Mexican, a whore, whatever. It's not 'cause she's black. It's because we use the word "n_____" sometimes here. I'm not going to take a chance ever in life by losing everything I've worked for for 30 years for some f____ n_____ heard us say "n_____" and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine -- our career is over. I'm not taking that chance at all, never in life, never. Never. ... If Lyssa was dating a n_____, we would all say f___ you. And you know that. If Lyssa brought a black guy home ... It's not that they're black. It's none of that. It's that we use the word "n____." We don't mean "you f___ scum n_____ without a soul." We don't mean that s___, but America would think we're meaning that. And we're not taking a chance and losing everything we've got over a racial slur. Because our son goes with a girl like that, I can't do that, Tucker, you can't expect Garry, Bonnie, Cecily, all them young kids ... 'cause I'm in love for seven months, I ... f___ that. ... So I'll help you get another job, but you cannot work here unless you break up with her and she's out of your life. I can't handle that s___. I've got 'em in the parking lot trying to record us. I've got that girl saying she's going to wear a recorder. ...
Dog Chapman needs to be a mature adult already! He should've stop saying the word n----- a long time ago!
And anyone who is against any inter-racial dating is NOT a mature person!
People say "this is just a private conversation". I say "Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".
This incident is a reminder to all of us to be mature in everything we say AT ALL TIMES! If you still use racist words in private conversations, you better stop NOW because others will eventually find out! NOTHING is secret anymore!
---
This is what Charles Memminger said about Chapman's racist rants.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/04/features/memminger.html
"We use the word n---- here," Chapman says on the tape. The "we" part is rather alarming. Like it's just part of a day in the life with the Chapmans: "We do the laundry. We eat lunch. We use the word n----. We vacuum." He tells his son on the tape he doesn't want to see the fact that "we" use that word end up in the Enquirer and then see his career go down the toilet. The I-word -- irony -- doesn't quite capture the fact that that is exactly what is happening.
Cathy Wi said the following idiotic statements
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/11/editorial/letters.html (scroll to 3rd letter from the top)
I am so sick and tired of how thin-skinned this world has become! So "Dog" Chapman made those remarks. So what? He was in the privacy of his own home. How is this any different from using slurs for any other ethnic group? It seems that whenever the N-word is spoken, we are suppose to cringe and say, "Shame on you racist," yet it's OK to call everyone else names. No, I don't buy that. Why should Dog apologize? Apologize to whom? He's being treated too harshly. There are far worse things one could do.
Cathy Wi
Honolulu
Anytime I hear crap like that, I know that person is a hardcore racist! Cathy Wi is using coded words to express "how dare black people ask for respect".
I'm assuming from her last name that Wi is an Asian person. It's easy for Cathy Wi complain about others being "thin-skinned" because she's in a mostly Asian-American environment. She takes her majority status for granted!
If Cathy Wi is that insensitive towards African-Americans, then I wonder how she feels about Polynesians, Micronesians, Arabs, Mexicans, Russians, etc?
If Cathy Wi was growing up in communities in which Asians were less than 1% of the population, she would be mocked endlessly. People would tell her to "go back to China". They would go up to her face and yell at her in a fake Asian accent. They would call her "slant eyes", "chow fun" and other racist insults! This would happen EVERYDAY! I wonder how thick-skinned will she be then!
2) Even with all the controversies of Dog Chapman's statements, the brutal beating of a European-American couple in Waikele, and the murder of a European-American student in Nanakuli earlier this year, I still thought the most under-reported racial story in Hawaii was the persecution of immigrants.
When a European-American or African-American faces discrimination, they know how to contact the media or sympathetic organizations. However, when an immigrant from Micronesia or Asia faces discrimination, they are reluctant to speak to anyone due to a language barrier. So it gets under-reported!
However, recent articles in the Star Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser reported on this issue!
The following article report on the return of gang warfare in Hawaii.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/28/news/story01.html
State law enforcement, education and human service officials say they offer enough services to stop children from entering gangs, disband current groups and avoid chaos. Although public school fights are up, officials argue they are not as violent or as frequent as in the late 1980s and early '90s.
Deborah Spencer-Chun, who heads Adult Friends for Youth, said employees build relationships with gang leaders to learn about brewing fights. But, she said, they are increasingly unable to answer campus disturbances on time.
"Sometimes it takes a real crisis before anybody responds to it," she said. "People don't want to believe there are gangs in those neighborhoods just like people don't want to say there are gangs in Hawaii. This is paradise, this is where most of our economy comes from tourism."
The following day, the Star Bulletin had another article on the gang issue. This articles mentions more about the alienation some immigrant teens feel in Hawaii schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/29/news/story01.html
Neglected by parents who work multiple jobs, students from poor families often join gangs because they feel inferior and see no future in education, said Sid Rosen, who retired this year as head of Adult Friends for Youth, a nonprofit that works with gangs in Hawaii. Gangs are formed along ethnic lines but also by students who share housing projects or street blocks, he said.
"They are living essentially in what is an urban ghetto. If you live in Kalihi, you see yourself as being different than someone who lives in Hawaii Kai," Rosen explained. "The rich haoles live in Hawaii Kai and Kahala, and us poor Filipinos live in Kalihi and us poor Samoans live in Kuhio Park Terrace. ... These boundaries get established."
In the past four years, the Susannah Wesley center has seen about 200 student dropouts, most of them immigrants from outlying islands of Micronesia, the Philippines, Samoa or Tonga, said Stanley Inkyo, the center's youth services administrator.
Families bring their children to Hawaii for a better education, but many parents get stuck with low-paying jobs or end up living in the street and unable to help their kids adjust to the new school setting, Inkyo said.
Aggravating the issue is an influx of Micronesian students in Hawaii's public schools which has nearly doubled in the past five years to 2,558, according to the state Department of Education. The department held a conference for 1,000 educators during the summer to help teachers understand and work better with those students.
"One of the things you'll notice here, and I don't think anybody wants to say it publicly, there's a lot of the racial differences, or the ethnic differences that tend to magnify" the gang issue, Inkyo said, saying Filipino students often clash with those from Micronesia. "There's that kind of uneasiness."
---
I once mentioned that the most under-reported issue in Hawaii was the conflict between Asian immigrants (many from China, Vietnam and Phillipines) and Polynesians. Since then, I've noticed that Micronesians were having conflicts with Polynesians and Asians.
The Honolulu Advertiser had an article about Micronesians facing discrimination when looking for a place to live
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/12/ln/hawaii711120352.html
They say blatant as well as subtle housing discrimination against new Micronesian immigrants and longtime residents alike continues to go largely unchecked. They also say it goes largely unreported because of fears about coming forward, language barriers and a lack of services to address the need."
It seems to be getting worse," added Maria Narruhn, a founding member of Micronesians United, which has been trying to address housing discrimination, but whose resources are limited.
Narruhn said she knows 10 families who have been turned away from rentals on the market in the last year, and were likely discriminated against. Some of the cases involved the landlord actually saying Micronesians weren't welcome.
She believes two of her own family members were also victims of housing discrimination, including her son-in-law, who inquired about a one-bedroom for $995 and was told, when he looked at the unit, that the rent had jumped to $1,020.
(skipped paragraphs)
The first lawsuit Kokua Legal Services filed as part of the project involved a landlord, who was advertising a two-bedroom unit in 'Aiea. According to court documents, a Micronesian tester at Kokua Legal Services called the 'Aiea landlord to inquire about the apartment and was told it was not available. The landlord also told the caller that he had no other units available, the documents allege.
Fifteen minutes later, a Caucasian tester at Kokua Legal Service called the landlord to inquire about the apartment and was told it was available. The landlord also allegedly told the tester he had other rentals that were empty.
(skipped paragraphs)
Kokua Legal Services filed its second lawsuit as part of the project in September, alleging that two landlords who were renting a North King Street unit for $2,000 a month discriminated against a Micronesian tester, then offered the unit to a Caucasian caller.
-------
BUSTED! Those landlords need to be publicly humiliated! Those landlords need to grow up, start being more mature, learn to accept diversity, modernity & globalization!
This is what he said
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/01/news/story01.html
Chapman: Don't care if she's a Mexican, a whore, whatever. It's not 'cause she's black. It's because we use the word "n_____" sometimes here. I'm not going to take a chance ever in life by losing everything I've worked for for 30 years for some f____ n_____ heard us say "n_____" and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine -- our career is over. I'm not taking that chance at all, never in life, never. Never. ... If Lyssa was dating a n_____, we would all say f___ you. And you know that. If Lyssa brought a black guy home ... It's not that they're black. It's none of that. It's that we use the word "n____." We don't mean "you f___ scum n_____ without a soul." We don't mean that s___, but America would think we're meaning that. And we're not taking a chance and losing everything we've got over a racial slur. Because our son goes with a girl like that, I can't do that, Tucker, you can't expect Garry, Bonnie, Cecily, all them young kids ... 'cause I'm in love for seven months, I ... f___ that. ... So I'll help you get another job, but you cannot work here unless you break up with her and she's out of your life. I can't handle that s___. I've got 'em in the parking lot trying to record us. I've got that girl saying she's going to wear a recorder. ...
Dog Chapman needs to be a mature adult already! He should've stop saying the word n----- a long time ago!
And anyone who is against any inter-racial dating is NOT a mature person!
People say "this is just a private conversation". I say "Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".
This incident is a reminder to all of us to be mature in everything we say AT ALL TIMES! If you still use racist words in private conversations, you better stop NOW because others will eventually find out! NOTHING is secret anymore!
---
This is what Charles Memminger said about Chapman's racist rants.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/04/features/memminger.html
"We use the word n---- here," Chapman says on the tape. The "we" part is rather alarming. Like it's just part of a day in the life with the Chapmans: "We do the laundry. We eat lunch. We use the word n----. We vacuum." He tells his son on the tape he doesn't want to see the fact that "we" use that word end up in the Enquirer and then see his career go down the toilet. The I-word -- irony -- doesn't quite capture the fact that that is exactly what is happening.
Cathy Wi said the following idiotic statements
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/11/editorial/letters.html (scroll to 3rd letter from the top)
I am so sick and tired of how thin-skinned this world has become! So "Dog" Chapman made those remarks. So what? He was in the privacy of his own home. How is this any different from using slurs for any other ethnic group? It seems that whenever the N-word is spoken, we are suppose to cringe and say, "Shame on you racist," yet it's OK to call everyone else names. No, I don't buy that. Why should Dog apologize? Apologize to whom? He's being treated too harshly. There are far worse things one could do.
Cathy Wi
Honolulu
Anytime I hear crap like that, I know that person is a hardcore racist! Cathy Wi is using coded words to express "how dare black people ask for respect".
I'm assuming from her last name that Wi is an Asian person. It's easy for Cathy Wi complain about others being "thin-skinned" because she's in a mostly Asian-American environment. She takes her majority status for granted!
If Cathy Wi is that insensitive towards African-Americans, then I wonder how she feels about Polynesians, Micronesians, Arabs, Mexicans, Russians, etc?
If Cathy Wi was growing up in communities in which Asians were less than 1% of the population, she would be mocked endlessly. People would tell her to "go back to China". They would go up to her face and yell at her in a fake Asian accent. They would call her "slant eyes", "chow fun" and other racist insults! This would happen EVERYDAY! I wonder how thick-skinned will she be then!
2) Even with all the controversies of Dog Chapman's statements, the brutal beating of a European-American couple in Waikele, and the murder of a European-American student in Nanakuli earlier this year, I still thought the most under-reported racial story in Hawaii was the persecution of immigrants.
When a European-American or African-American faces discrimination, they know how to contact the media or sympathetic organizations. However, when an immigrant from Micronesia or Asia faces discrimination, they are reluctant to speak to anyone due to a language barrier. So it gets under-reported!
However, recent articles in the Star Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser reported on this issue!
The following article report on the return of gang warfare in Hawaii.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/28/news/story01.html
State law enforcement, education and human service officials say they offer enough services to stop children from entering gangs, disband current groups and avoid chaos. Although public school fights are up, officials argue they are not as violent or as frequent as in the late 1980s and early '90s.
Deborah Spencer-Chun, who heads Adult Friends for Youth, said employees build relationships with gang leaders to learn about brewing fights. But, she said, they are increasingly unable to answer campus disturbances on time.
"Sometimes it takes a real crisis before anybody responds to it," she said. "People don't want to believe there are gangs in those neighborhoods just like people don't want to say there are gangs in Hawaii. This is paradise, this is where most of our economy comes from tourism."
The following day, the Star Bulletin had another article on the gang issue. This articles mentions more about the alienation some immigrant teens feel in Hawaii schools.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/29/news/story01.html
Neglected by parents who work multiple jobs, students from poor families often join gangs because they feel inferior and see no future in education, said Sid Rosen, who retired this year as head of Adult Friends for Youth, a nonprofit that works with gangs in Hawaii. Gangs are formed along ethnic lines but also by students who share housing projects or street blocks, he said.
"They are living essentially in what is an urban ghetto. If you live in Kalihi, you see yourself as being different than someone who lives in Hawaii Kai," Rosen explained. "The rich haoles live in Hawaii Kai and Kahala, and us poor Filipinos live in Kalihi and us poor Samoans live in Kuhio Park Terrace. ... These boundaries get established."
In the past four years, the Susannah Wesley center has seen about 200 student dropouts, most of them immigrants from outlying islands of Micronesia, the Philippines, Samoa or Tonga, said Stanley Inkyo, the center's youth services administrator.
Families bring their children to Hawaii for a better education, but many parents get stuck with low-paying jobs or end up living in the street and unable to help their kids adjust to the new school setting, Inkyo said.
Aggravating the issue is an influx of Micronesian students in Hawaii's public schools which has nearly doubled in the past five years to 2,558, according to the state Department of Education. The department held a conference for 1,000 educators during the summer to help teachers understand and work better with those students.
"One of the things you'll notice here, and I don't think anybody wants to say it publicly, there's a lot of the racial differences, or the ethnic differences that tend to magnify" the gang issue, Inkyo said, saying Filipino students often clash with those from Micronesia. "There's that kind of uneasiness."
---
I once mentioned that the most under-reported issue in Hawaii was the conflict between Asian immigrants (many from China, Vietnam and Phillipines) and Polynesians. Since then, I've noticed that Micronesians were having conflicts with Polynesians and Asians.
The Honolulu Advertiser had an article about Micronesians facing discrimination when looking for a place to live
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/12/ln/hawaii711120352.html
They say blatant as well as subtle housing discrimination against new Micronesian immigrants and longtime residents alike continues to go largely unchecked. They also say it goes largely unreported because of fears about coming forward, language barriers and a lack of services to address the need."
It seems to be getting worse," added Maria Narruhn, a founding member of Micronesians United, which has been trying to address housing discrimination, but whose resources are limited.
Narruhn said she knows 10 families who have been turned away from rentals on the market in the last year, and were likely discriminated against. Some of the cases involved the landlord actually saying Micronesians weren't welcome.
She believes two of her own family members were also victims of housing discrimination, including her son-in-law, who inquired about a one-bedroom for $995 and was told, when he looked at the unit, that the rent had jumped to $1,020.
(skipped paragraphs)
The first lawsuit Kokua Legal Services filed as part of the project involved a landlord, who was advertising a two-bedroom unit in 'Aiea. According to court documents, a Micronesian tester at Kokua Legal Services called the 'Aiea landlord to inquire about the apartment and was told it was not available. The landlord also told the caller that he had no other units available, the documents allege.
Fifteen minutes later, a Caucasian tester at Kokua Legal Service called the landlord to inquire about the apartment and was told it was available. The landlord also allegedly told the tester he had other rentals that were empty.
(skipped paragraphs)
Kokua Legal Services filed its second lawsuit as part of the project in September, alleging that two landlords who were renting a North King Street unit for $2,000 a month discriminated against a Micronesian tester, then offered the unit to a Caucasian caller.
-------
BUSTED! Those landlords need to be publicly humiliated! Those landlords need to grow up, start being more mature, learn to accept diversity, modernity & globalization!
I graduated from a "dropout factory"?
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University researched the graduation rates of various high schools in the U.S.
Those whose graduation rates were less than 60% were labeled "dropout factories".
My high school, McKinley High School was one of them.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/30/news/story01.html
--------
Going to a school labeled a "dropout factory" DOES NOT mean you're "dumb". It just means too many of your classmates aren't graduating.
1) My alma mater McKinley has a lot of high achievers. There are students who excel in math meets, science fairs, robotics, and other academic areas. Many go on to colleges with great reputations.
However, at the same time, there are other students at the school who are gang-affiliated, as well as wanabee thugs, and other non-achievers. What I mean by non-achievers is those students who don't even try to reach their potential in academics.
I remembered when I attended that school, there were students who were freshmen the same year I was, but by the start of my senior year, a lot of those students were gone! The overwhelming # of those students were non-achievers, so it was obvious that they dropped out of school.
Some of them were already falling behind in middle school. For some reason, they were academically promoted to high school, which tends to grade a lot harder than middle school. So some of them gave up!
2) some have questioned the formula used by the Johns Hopkins researchers to determine what school is a "dropout factory"
Here is a commentary from a teacher at Kaimuki High School (also labeled a "dropout factory")
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/31/editorial/letters.html (scroll down to the 2nd letter from top)
Kaimuki High has similar demographics to McKinley (Lot of immigrants, mostly Asians, also has many Polynesians and Micronesians), though Kaimuki High has more European-Americans than McKinley. McKinley has more Filipinos than Kaimuki High Other than that, both schools are almost alike.
--
And here are commentaries from the principals of Waipahu & Farrington High Schools (also labeled "dropout factories"). Both schools are majority Filipino, with some Samoans and Micronesians. Many of them are immigrants, and many are from low-income households.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/04/editorial/commentary.html
(skipped paragraphs)
So, based on what the school officials from Kaimuki, Waipahu and Farrington said, Johns Hopkins researchers didn't take into account 1) the large # of students who move in & out of the school districts, 2) the large amount of students who take longer than 4 years to earn their diplomas, 3) the large amount of students who are recent immigrants who trying to learn high school material in a new language.
3) Even with the flaws of the Johns Hopkins research, the good thing about it is that it brings awareness of the problem of students who aren't living up to their academic potential, and awareness of which schools are facing more problems than others.
I work in the educational field to help students live up to their potential. I don't take the Johns Hopkins report personally, it shall motivate and remind me of what I need to do to help our students achieve.
Those whose graduation rates were less than 60% were labeled "dropout factories".
My high school, McKinley High School was one of them.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/30/news/story01.html
A national report is labeling seven Oahu public high schools as "dropout factories," meaning that no more than 60 percent of freshmen make it to their senior year.
Hawaii ranked 11th among the states reporting the most dropout factories in an analysis of Education Department data conducted by Johns Hopkins University for the Associated Press.
The state Education Department disputed the findings, noting that Hawaii ninth-graders tend to fall behind and inflate freshman enrollment. So comparing the number of freshman and seniors at any given year to determine dropout and graduation rates is misleading, said Education Department spokesman Greg Knudsen.
The percentage of isle freshmen who move on to their senior year at the schools highlighted in the report ranged from 45 percent at Nanakuli High and Intermediate to 60 percent at Kailua High. The other schools facing dropout problems include Farrington, Kaimuki, McKinley, Waianae and Waipahu, according to the study released yesterday. Those schools all have a large number of minority and low-income students.
--------
Going to a school labeled a "dropout factory" DOES NOT mean you're "dumb". It just means too many of your classmates aren't graduating.
1) My alma mater McKinley has a lot of high achievers. There are students who excel in math meets, science fairs, robotics, and other academic areas. Many go on to colleges with great reputations.
However, at the same time, there are other students at the school who are gang-affiliated, as well as wanabee thugs, and other non-achievers. What I mean by non-achievers is those students who don't even try to reach their potential in academics.
I remembered when I attended that school, there were students who were freshmen the same year I was, but by the start of my senior year, a lot of those students were gone! The overwhelming # of those students were non-achievers, so it was obvious that they dropped out of school.
Some of them were already falling behind in middle school. For some reason, they were academically promoted to high school, which tends to grade a lot harder than middle school. So some of them gave up!
2) some have questioned the formula used by the Johns Hopkins researchers to determine what school is a "dropout factory"
Here is a commentary from a teacher at Kaimuki High School (also labeled a "dropout factory")
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/31/editorial/letters.html (scroll down to the 2nd letter from top)
I am appalled that you published findings from a John Hopkins University report labeling seven Hawaii high schools as "dropout factories" (Star-Bulletin, Oct. 30). If you did your homework, you would have found out that the study assumes that any student who does not graduate from the same high school he or she enters into as a freshman is a dropout. This is so far from the truth. I am a teacher at Kaimuki High School, and we have an extremely transient population. Many students enter as freshmen but later move to the mainland or back to their home country and graduate there. They should not be labeled as dropouts.
Kaimuki High has similar demographics to McKinley (Lot of immigrants, mostly Asians, also has many Polynesians and Micronesians), though Kaimuki High has more European-Americans than McKinley. McKinley has more Filipinos than Kaimuki High Other than that, both schools are almost alike.
--
And here are commentaries from the principals of Waipahu & Farrington High Schools (also labeled "dropout factories"). Both schools are majority Filipino, with some Samoans and Micronesians. Many of them are immigrants, and many are from low-income households.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/04/editorial/commentary.html
Farrington and Waipahu each enrolls more than 2,500 young people. Our students come from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. Approximately 20 percent of our students are learning to speak English while simultaneously endeavoring to meet challenging graduation requirements. Both of our schools receive federal funds because 48 percent to 60 percent of our families have incomes low enough to qualify for government assistance. The Johns Hopkins researchers should be familiar with the multitude of studies that link family income to student achievement. Many of our students face overwhelming personal challenges, yet they persist in working toward a future that will be better than their present lives.
Because so many students enter our campuses with academic deficits, we have developed a number of different paths that support the goal of a high school diploma. We have alternative programs within our schools and off-campus partnerships with others in the community. Some students take more than four years to earn their diplomas, but we do not consider them dropouts. Other students who must spend most of their time with us learning English are not able to complete the traditional high school diploma requirements. However, we work with the Community Schools for Adults that are on our campuses to transition these students to the adult diploma programs. They are not dropouts -- they are overcoming great odds to persist in reaching their goal.
(skipped paragraphs)
As the standards for a diploma continue to move more toward requiring all students to be prepared for entry to a four-year college, we can expect to see an increasing need for alternatives for many of our students. Those who take alternative paths are not dropouts and the schools that support them are not "dropout factories." When we consider those who complete their requirements in more than four years, or who transition to the Community Schools and earn a diploma, our completion rates are higher.
So, based on what the school officials from Kaimuki, Waipahu and Farrington said, Johns Hopkins researchers didn't take into account 1) the large # of students who move in & out of the school districts, 2) the large amount of students who take longer than 4 years to earn their diplomas, 3) the large amount of students who are recent immigrants who trying to learn high school material in a new language.
3) Even with the flaws of the Johns Hopkins research, the good thing about it is that it brings awareness of the problem of students who aren't living up to their academic potential, and awareness of which schools are facing more problems than others.
I work in the educational field to help students live up to their potential. I don't take the Johns Hopkins report personally, it shall motivate and remind me of what I need to do to help our students achieve.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Lameness of Anti-Immigration Fascists
At a bookstore, I was looking at Laura Ingraham's book, and it said the usual non-sense of "illegal aliens committing crimes, illegal aliens driving drunk, and if you don't hate illegal aliens, its because you lived in a luxury community with private security guards"
Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Neal Boortz, Thomas Sowell all say the same B.S. that David Duke says! The only difference between David Duke and those other pundits is their opinion on Israel. Duke thinks "Israel can do nothing right", the others think "Israel can do nothing wrong!"
But my topic of today isn't Israel, it's immigration.
Another right-wing anti-immigration fascist wrote a silly editorial. His name is Mark W. Hendrickson.You can read his garbage here http://tinyurl.com/39mays
---
Here is Stuart Hayashi's response to Hendrickson's nonsense.
-------
Conservative Mark W. Hendrickson writes, "Illegal immigration is one of our country's most divisive, intractable issues."
http://tinyurl. com/39mays
I wish that were true. It isn't. It is one of the most uncontroversial issues, because the vast majority of people scoff at the right to migrate without a visa.Who supports open immigration? Prof. Schoolland, Pablo Wegesend,Sean Brunett, Jeff Olstad, and me. And Harry Binswanger of the AynRand Institute, and Robert W. Tracinski. That's the end of it.
Who opposes your right to migrate without a visa? Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, and almost everybody else. Most of the demonstrators in favor of Bush's quasi-amnesty plan were concerned about their own families; they weren't overtly ideological. The left-wingers there who were ideological blathered about issues other than open immigration, such as "corporate imperialism. " And the Mexican government certainly doesn't favor open immigration. If a South American tries to sneak into Mexico, the Mexican government will shoot him.
Hendrickson writes sarcastically, "But we should at least stop rewarding illegals with the ultimate prize: automatic U.S. citizenship for their children born here. This is absurd: 'Congratulations, Ms.Gonzalez! You have broken our laws, entered our country illegally, evaded the immigration service, and now your son has all the rights ofU.S. citizenship. ' It is time to amend the Constitution so that the precious gift of citizenship is awarded only to babies born here of parents who are in the country legally."
Here is what's wrong with Hendrickson' s argument. By his logic, the British government should not have let Thomas Jefferson get away with committing treason. Jefferson and the U.S. Founding Fathers broke the law of their own country; they were all traitors. They were guilty of legal sedition. And the British government is to give them amnesty for that? For shame! What sort of example will that set?
Furthermore, what about all of the Northerners who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Law by participating in the underground railroad? What about all of the people who participated in forms of civil disobedience and, in defiance of the law, disobeyed state segregation laws? Charlton Heston himself committed civil disobedience against segregation laws. So shouldn't all of these people have been prosecuted even after the law was changed? The law is the law, and we have to follow the law!
And what about the re-legalization of alcohol? Alcohol was decriminalized precisely *because* of the abundance of Americans flouting that regulation. Do you want to reward those lawbreakers by changing the law for them? Do you want to reward their lawbreaking,which amounted to a huge TANTRUM? And wasn't it wrong that, following Prohibition' s repeal, so many drinkers and bootleggers received*de-facto* clemency, in the sense that officers didn't prosecute them anymore?
Conservatives keep assuming that the law is the word of God. They evade that the law is not an end in itself; it is a means to the higher end that is the protection of Lockean individual rights. When the law itself becomes destructive of Lockean rights, the law morally invalidates itself.
Finally, Hendrickson writes: "Fourth, let's make the US A monolingual by law. Certainly everyone may speak and write whatever language they prefer, but when it comes to things like official business, this should be an English-only country."
Here's what's wrong with what he said. "Monolingual" is a grammatically incorrect neologism. If you know two languages, you're "bilingual." If you know multiple languages, you're "multilingual. "
So if you know one language, then the correct term should be "unilingual, " not"monolingual. " "Monolingual" would be the correct word if the term for someone who knew two languages or multiple languages was,respectively, "duolingual" and "polylingual. "
People like Hendrickson, who use such a grammatically incorrect word as "monolingual, " do not seem to understand Latin-based English. Hendrickson does not know proper English, so, by his own standards, heis worthy of deportation.
-------
What's with all this hysteria about children born to illegal aliens born in the US having US citizenship.
The David Dukes, Thomas Sowells and Ann Coulters think those children should be punished for having the "wrong parents".
So what, should we deprive all descendants of British conquerors of having US citizenship? That might mean the David Dukes, Ann Coulters, Laura Ingrahams, etc might all get deported!
Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Neal Boortz, Thomas Sowell all say the same B.S. that David Duke says! The only difference between David Duke and those other pundits is their opinion on Israel. Duke thinks "Israel can do nothing right", the others think "Israel can do nothing wrong!"
But my topic of today isn't Israel, it's immigration.
Another right-wing anti-immigration fascist wrote a silly editorial. His name is Mark W. Hendrickson.You can read his garbage here http://tinyurl.com/39mays
---
Here is Stuart Hayashi's response to Hendrickson's nonsense.
-------
Conservative Mark W. Hendrickson writes, "Illegal immigration is one of our country's most divisive, intractable issues."
http://tinyurl. com/39mays
I wish that were true. It isn't. It is one of the most uncontroversial issues, because the vast majority of people scoff at the right to migrate without a visa.Who supports open immigration? Prof. Schoolland, Pablo Wegesend,Sean Brunett, Jeff Olstad, and me. And Harry Binswanger of the AynRand Institute, and Robert W. Tracinski. That's the end of it.
Who opposes your right to migrate without a visa? Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, and almost everybody else. Most of the demonstrators in favor of Bush's quasi-amnesty plan were concerned about their own families; they weren't overtly ideological. The left-wingers there who were ideological blathered about issues other than open immigration, such as "corporate imperialism. " And the Mexican government certainly doesn't favor open immigration. If a South American tries to sneak into Mexico, the Mexican government will shoot him.
Hendrickson writes sarcastically, "But we should at least stop rewarding illegals with the ultimate prize: automatic U.S. citizenship for their children born here. This is absurd: 'Congratulations, Ms.Gonzalez! You have broken our laws, entered our country illegally, evaded the immigration service, and now your son has all the rights ofU.S. citizenship. ' It is time to amend the Constitution so that the precious gift of citizenship is awarded only to babies born here of parents who are in the country legally."
Here is what's wrong with Hendrickson' s argument. By his logic, the British government should not have let Thomas Jefferson get away with committing treason. Jefferson and the U.S. Founding Fathers broke the law of their own country; they were all traitors. They were guilty of legal sedition. And the British government is to give them amnesty for that? For shame! What sort of example will that set?
Furthermore, what about all of the Northerners who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Law by participating in the underground railroad? What about all of the people who participated in forms of civil disobedience and, in defiance of the law, disobeyed state segregation laws? Charlton Heston himself committed civil disobedience against segregation laws. So shouldn't all of these people have been prosecuted even after the law was changed? The law is the law, and we have to follow the law!
And what about the re-legalization of alcohol? Alcohol was decriminalized precisely *because* of the abundance of Americans flouting that regulation. Do you want to reward those lawbreakers by changing the law for them? Do you want to reward their lawbreaking,which amounted to a huge TANTRUM? And wasn't it wrong that, following Prohibition' s repeal, so many drinkers and bootleggers received*de-facto* clemency, in the sense that officers didn't prosecute them anymore?
Conservatives keep assuming that the law is the word of God. They evade that the law is not an end in itself; it is a means to the higher end that is the protection of Lockean individual rights. When the law itself becomes destructive of Lockean rights, the law morally invalidates itself.
Finally, Hendrickson writes: "Fourth, let's make the US A monolingual by law. Certainly everyone may speak and write whatever language they prefer, but when it comes to things like official business, this should be an English-only country."
Here's what's wrong with what he said. "Monolingual" is a grammatically incorrect neologism. If you know two languages, you're "bilingual." If you know multiple languages, you're "multilingual. "
So if you know one language, then the correct term should be "unilingual, " not"monolingual. " "Monolingual" would be the correct word if the term for someone who knew two languages or multiple languages was,respectively, "duolingual" and "polylingual. "
People like Hendrickson, who use such a grammatically incorrect word as "monolingual, " do not seem to understand Latin-based English. Hendrickson does not know proper English, so, by his own standards, heis worthy of deportation.
-------
What's with all this hysteria about children born to illegal aliens born in the US having US citizenship.
The David Dukes, Thomas Sowells and Ann Coulters think those children should be punished for having the "wrong parents".
So what, should we deprive all descendants of British conquerors of having US citizenship? That might mean the David Dukes, Ann Coulters, Laura Ingrahams, etc might all get deported!
Libertarianism Today
I remember back when I was a freshmen in college (1999-2000), I was introduced to Libertarianism. (actually, I heard of it before, but I didn't pay attention to it).
I was politically homeless because the I didn't side with the Republican Party (with it's ties to the Religious Right) or the Democratic Party (which made Hawaii an over-taxed state with regulations that made it hard on entrepreneurs).
I also felt both parties pursue a misguided drug policy which over-reacted to marijuana use (which has some side effects but has helped others deal with illness).
As for foreign policy, while I admire the heroics of the US troops who defeated Hitler & Tojo, I was also suspicious of US support of fascist dictators during the Cold War just because they claimed to be anti-communists.
So when I learned more about the Libertarian Party, more I felt allied with them.
After 9/11, I felt the US troops should be fighting Al Quaida in Afghanistan. However, too many Libertarians thought America should back down because "it was America's fault". While the US had some foreign policy blunders before, Al Quaida were NOT liberators, they were fascist terrorists who want to kill anyone who didn't submit to their Ultra-Conservative strain of Islam.
At the time, I wrote editorials arguing against the Radical Left and their Blame-America-First ideology. For that, I was called a "right-wing Republican" by radical left-wing lunatic Tobin Jones. Nevermind that I NEVER agreed with the right-wing Republicans on issues like abortion, sex ed, prostitution or other related issues.
Jones said my political views matches what was popular in Mississippi! Actually, my poltical views is a better match with Arizona or Nevada, and I want Hawaii be a tropical version of those 2 states.
so why am I bringing all this up.
There's an editorial by Stephen Green that I could relate to
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/i_was_a_cardcarrying_libertari.php
Here's a few excerpts
Being a Libertarian was hard work, but I set right at it. I even went so far as to read the entire party platform. Pro-choice? Right on! Free trade? Hell, yes! Privatize all the schools? Start with mine! Abolish that Social Security Ponzi scheme? I was never going to see a dime, anyway! Bring all our troops home from Europe and Japan and South Korea and everywhere else and close half our embassies and cut defense spending at least in half and forget about enforcing freedom of the seas? Whoa, Nelly! “But,” I rationalized, “they don’t really mean all that stuff. A Libertarian president wouldn’t be that naive.”
But come election day, I held my nose, covered my eyes and pulled the lever for George HW Bush — no easy feat with only two hands. There was still a Cold War to be won. I could be a real Libertarian — we all would be! — once the Soviets caved in.
Almost exactly a year later, that’s exactly what happened. On November 9, 1989, the people of East Berlin took hammers and chisels and even their bare hands to that Wall. Soon, the governments of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and even Romania had fallen — mostly peacefully. The peoples of Eastern Europe had liberated themselves from Communist oppression, and at long last I was free to throw off the last shackles of my Republican heritage.
I changed my party affiliation to Libertarian, smiling all the way back from the voter registrar’s office.
---- (paragraphs skipped)
Then we all woke up one morning to learn that airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and into the wooded hills of Pennsylvania. “Well, here’s a war even a good Libertarian like me can support.” We’d been attacked, directly, and we knew who the culprits were and where their protectors and sponsors were. We would go after them with such righteous fury that no one would dare strike New York City ever again.
Boy, was I wrong.
The angry folks at Liberty were mad at most everybody but Islamic terrorists. One even went so far as to denounce the Afghan War as “racist.” It was all imperialism this, and blowback that, and without a care in the world for protecting American lives, commerce, or, well, liberty.
---- (skipped paragraphs)
I stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, I’m not sure which party I’ll support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
It was easy tearing up my LP membership card. It’s quite a bit harder to find something to replace it. But I know this much: There’s no going back. Maybe there’s just too little room for principle in such a violent world.
---
Actually, there's room for principle in a violent world --- defeating the Islamic Fascists who want to kill everyone who doesn't want to submit to their ultra-conservative version of Islam!
I was politically homeless because the I didn't side with the Republican Party (with it's ties to the Religious Right) or the Democratic Party (which made Hawaii an over-taxed state with regulations that made it hard on entrepreneurs).
I also felt both parties pursue a misguided drug policy which over-reacted to marijuana use (which has some side effects but has helped others deal with illness).
As for foreign policy, while I admire the heroics of the US troops who defeated Hitler & Tojo, I was also suspicious of US support of fascist dictators during the Cold War just because they claimed to be anti-communists.
So when I learned more about the Libertarian Party, more I felt allied with them.
After 9/11, I felt the US troops should be fighting Al Quaida in Afghanistan. However, too many Libertarians thought America should back down because "it was America's fault". While the US had some foreign policy blunders before, Al Quaida were NOT liberators, they were fascist terrorists who want to kill anyone who didn't submit to their Ultra-Conservative strain of Islam.
At the time, I wrote editorials arguing against the Radical Left and their Blame-America-First ideology. For that, I was called a "right-wing Republican" by radical left-wing lunatic Tobin Jones. Nevermind that I NEVER agreed with the right-wing Republicans on issues like abortion, sex ed, prostitution or other related issues.
Jones said my political views matches what was popular in Mississippi! Actually, my poltical views is a better match with Arizona or Nevada, and I want Hawaii be a tropical version of those 2 states.
so why am I bringing all this up.
There's an editorial by Stephen Green that I could relate to
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/i_was_a_cardcarrying_libertari.php
Here's a few excerpts
Being a Libertarian was hard work, but I set right at it. I even went so far as to read the entire party platform. Pro-choice? Right on! Free trade? Hell, yes! Privatize all the schools? Start with mine! Abolish that Social Security Ponzi scheme? I was never going to see a dime, anyway! Bring all our troops home from Europe and Japan and South Korea and everywhere else and close half our embassies and cut defense spending at least in half and forget about enforcing freedom of the seas? Whoa, Nelly! “But,” I rationalized, “they don’t really mean all that stuff. A Libertarian president wouldn’t be that naive.”
But come election day, I held my nose, covered my eyes and pulled the lever for George HW Bush — no easy feat with only two hands. There was still a Cold War to be won. I could be a real Libertarian — we all would be! — once the Soviets caved in.
Almost exactly a year later, that’s exactly what happened. On November 9, 1989, the people of East Berlin took hammers and chisels and even their bare hands to that Wall. Soon, the governments of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and even Romania had fallen — mostly peacefully. The peoples of Eastern Europe had liberated themselves from Communist oppression, and at long last I was free to throw off the last shackles of my Republican heritage.
I changed my party affiliation to Libertarian, smiling all the way back from the voter registrar’s office.
---- (paragraphs skipped)
Then we all woke up one morning to learn that airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and into the wooded hills of Pennsylvania. “Well, here’s a war even a good Libertarian like me can support.” We’d been attacked, directly, and we knew who the culprits were and where their protectors and sponsors were. We would go after them with such righteous fury that no one would dare strike New York City ever again.
Boy, was I wrong.
The angry folks at Liberty were mad at most everybody but Islamic terrorists. One even went so far as to denounce the Afghan War as “racist.” It was all imperialism this, and blowback that, and without a care in the world for protecting American lives, commerce, or, well, liberty.
---- (skipped paragraphs)
I stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, I’m not sure which party I’ll support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
It was easy tearing up my LP membership card. It’s quite a bit harder to find something to replace it. But I know this much: There’s no going back. Maybe there’s just too little room for principle in such a violent world.
---
Actually, there's room for principle in a violent world --- defeating the Islamic Fascists who want to kill everyone who doesn't want to submit to their ultra-conservative version of Islam!
Monday, October 15, 2007
My 27th birthday
Today, I became 27 years old.
I kept thinking myself as 27 years old a few months earlier.
It's so odd, because during my early 20's, I always felt a few years younger than I really was.
Anyways, this is a milestone into adulthood. I feel more adult than I was a few years back. I've been out of school for almost 3 years (I graduated from UH in December 2004).
In the last 2.5 years, I've been working either as a substitute teacher or a summer group leader, which comes with a lot of responsibility. It also forced me to mature real fast. Being a role model means not doing certain things I could've gotten away with when I was younger.
I like being charge of younger people. Though at times, being around younger people makes me feel like I wish I was back in time, so I could take more advantage of opportunities reserved for younger people.
I like being a substitute, but I hate unpaid vacation time that subs have to put up with. Vacations are dangerous to a substitute's financial health. Which is the main reason why I am working to switch to a teaching assistant position.
Some ask why I don't become a full-time teacher. That would require going back to school (which cost $$$$ and time) to get a teaching certificate. Also, at this point, I don't feel ready to take on the added responsibilities.
---
The great thing about being an adult is being able to live by myself. I hope I will be able to do so for a long time.
The hard thing is just making sure all the bills are paid. We can't take anything for granted!
-----
I once thought of making music and having a talk show. That's been put on the side for a while, though I hope I can get back to it in the future.
----
My birthday tradition was to have breakfast with my parents and grandma at Kapiolani Coffee Shop inside Kam Bowl's. However, Kam Bowl has closed down. Luckily, the folks at Kapiolani Coffee Shop found another location, so I was able to have my fried rice & scrambled eggs :)
I kept thinking myself as 27 years old a few months earlier.
It's so odd, because during my early 20's, I always felt a few years younger than I really was.
Anyways, this is a milestone into adulthood. I feel more adult than I was a few years back. I've been out of school for almost 3 years (I graduated from UH in December 2004).
In the last 2.5 years, I've been working either as a substitute teacher or a summer group leader, which comes with a lot of responsibility. It also forced me to mature real fast. Being a role model means not doing certain things I could've gotten away with when I was younger.
I like being charge of younger people. Though at times, being around younger people makes me feel like I wish I was back in time, so I could take more advantage of opportunities reserved for younger people.
I like being a substitute, but I hate unpaid vacation time that subs have to put up with. Vacations are dangerous to a substitute's financial health. Which is the main reason why I am working to switch to a teaching assistant position.
Some ask why I don't become a full-time teacher. That would require going back to school (which cost $$$$ and time) to get a teaching certificate. Also, at this point, I don't feel ready to take on the added responsibilities.
---
The great thing about being an adult is being able to live by myself. I hope I will be able to do so for a long time.
The hard thing is just making sure all the bills are paid. We can't take anything for granted!
-----
I once thought of making music and having a talk show. That's been put on the side for a while, though I hope I can get back to it in the future.
----
My birthday tradition was to have breakfast with my parents and grandma at Kapiolani Coffee Shop inside Kam Bowl's. However, Kam Bowl has closed down. Luckily, the folks at Kapiolani Coffee Shop found another location, so I was able to have my fried rice & scrambled eggs :)
Friday, September 28, 2007
The SuperFerry
I have so busy this past month, that only I'm able to blog about the biggest controversy in Hawaii --- The SuperFerry.
The SuperFerry is a group of boats that transports people between the different islands of Hawaii. This is something that should've done a long time ago. That way, we're not over-reliant on airplanes to visit the other islands.
However, some on Kauai don't want any visitors! They're angry that the SuperFerry will give Oahu residents another way to (gasp) visit their island. They want Kauai to be same way it was when they were growing up! (Nevermind that NO PLACE IN THE WORLD hasn't experienced change in the last 20 years)
These anti-SuperFerry fanatics believe that their utopia island would be ruined by Oahu people who would clog their highways, shopping centers, and commit crime, etc, etc, etc.
These anti-SuperFerry were so pissed off about it, that when the SuperFerry made it's 1st attempt to travel from Oahu to Kauai, some came on their surfboards to block the SuperFerry, they yelled threats, and vandalized cars!
Let's call those punks what they are --- Nostalgia Fascists! They're so set on keeping their island 100% the same as was in the past, that they'll use violent tactics against any change, no matter how minor!
If that's how they're gonna be, this is how we ought to deal with them
1) No Kauai Nostalgia Fascist would be allowed recieve non-Kauai assistance if their homes were damage by hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.
Those ingrates took advantage of all the help Oahu residents gave when their island was ruined by Hurricane Iniki in 1992. Many Oahu carpenters (my dad included) helped in renovating homes, airports, businesses, etc in Kauai after Hurricane Iniki. Those Nostalgia Fascists ought to be ashamed of themselves!
2) No Kauai Nostalgia Fascist would be allowed to visit anywhere outside Kauai!
Any of them want to visit Las Vegas? (most popular tourist destination for Hawaii residents)TOO BAD!
Any of them want to watch their young relatives on Kauai high school teams playing a game on Oahu? TOO BAD!
Any of them want to visit a long-time friend who moved to Maui? TOO BAD!
Any of them want to visit the volcanoes on the Big Island? TOO BAD!
Any of them have a curiosity of what it's like in foreign lands? TOO BAD! That's what they get for being rude to those who were curious of what it's like on Kauai!
=====
Meanwhile, some said the SuperFerry would help disabled people visit other islands, and give high school sports team a cheaper way to travel to the other islands to play in tournaments!
These people are the ones most hurt by those Nostalgia Fascists!
====
Imagine if I had a boat of foreign immigrants headed to Kauai. (It could be from anywhere -- Asia, Micronesia, Mexico, Middle East, etc) Imagine if it was on the news before the boat arrived.
If those Nostalgia Fascists reacted to the boat's arrival the same way they reacted to the SuperFerry, Hawaii's image as a multi-racial utopia would be further damaged! Those Nostalgia Fascists would make Hawaii look like Alabama or Mississippi of the 1950's/1960's.
The SuperFerry is a group of boats that transports people between the different islands of Hawaii. This is something that should've done a long time ago. That way, we're not over-reliant on airplanes to visit the other islands.
However, some on Kauai don't want any visitors! They're angry that the SuperFerry will give Oahu residents another way to (gasp) visit their island. They want Kauai to be same way it was when they were growing up! (Nevermind that NO PLACE IN THE WORLD hasn't experienced change in the last 20 years)
These anti-SuperFerry fanatics believe that their utopia island would be ruined by Oahu people who would clog their highways, shopping centers, and commit crime, etc, etc, etc.
These anti-SuperFerry were so pissed off about it, that when the SuperFerry made it's 1st attempt to travel from Oahu to Kauai, some came on their surfboards to block the SuperFerry, they yelled threats, and vandalized cars!
Let's call those punks what they are --- Nostalgia Fascists! They're so set on keeping their island 100% the same as was in the past, that they'll use violent tactics against any change, no matter how minor!
If that's how they're gonna be, this is how we ought to deal with them
1) No Kauai Nostalgia Fascist would be allowed recieve non-Kauai assistance if their homes were damage by hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.
Those ingrates took advantage of all the help Oahu residents gave when their island was ruined by Hurricane Iniki in 1992. Many Oahu carpenters (my dad included) helped in renovating homes, airports, businesses, etc in Kauai after Hurricane Iniki. Those Nostalgia Fascists ought to be ashamed of themselves!
2) No Kauai Nostalgia Fascist would be allowed to visit anywhere outside Kauai!
Any of them want to visit Las Vegas? (most popular tourist destination for Hawaii residents)TOO BAD!
Any of them want to watch their young relatives on Kauai high school teams playing a game on Oahu? TOO BAD!
Any of them want to visit a long-time friend who moved to Maui? TOO BAD!
Any of them want to visit the volcanoes on the Big Island? TOO BAD!
Any of them have a curiosity of what it's like in foreign lands? TOO BAD! That's what they get for being rude to those who were curious of what it's like on Kauai!
=====
Meanwhile, some said the SuperFerry would help disabled people visit other islands, and give high school sports team a cheaper way to travel to the other islands to play in tournaments!
These people are the ones most hurt by those Nostalgia Fascists!
====
Imagine if I had a boat of foreign immigrants headed to Kauai. (It could be from anywhere -- Asia, Micronesia, Mexico, Middle East, etc) Imagine if it was on the news before the boat arrived.
If those Nostalgia Fascists reacted to the boat's arrival the same way they reacted to the SuperFerry, Hawaii's image as a multi-racial utopia would be further damaged! Those Nostalgia Fascists would make Hawaii look like Alabama or Mississippi of the 1950's/1960's.
Friday, August 31, 2007
More on Michael Vick
There's so many issues connected to Michael Vick dog-fighting controversy.
1) Because Vick is African-American, many feel that he's being picked on due to his race.
Just because someone criticizes Vick, that doesn't always mean they're racist.
Animal rights advocates criticizes anyone involved in dog-fighting or other animal abuse, no matter their race.
Many African-Americans are embarrased by Vick's involvement in dog-fighting including but not limited to liberal editorialists like editorialist Derrick Jackson, Jonathan Capehart, Cynthia Tucker and Leonard Pitts.
However, there are some right-wing editorialists whose criticism of Vick seem very suspicious. (ie. Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Neal Boortz)
Many right-wing editorialists make fun of animal rights advocates as "peace pansy hippies"
But all of sudden, they're outraged that Vick is involved in dog-fighting.
I wonder if those same right-wingers would be outraged if a European-American NFL player is involved in dog-fighting. Especially if that white guy is from the rural areas of the South, Great Plains or the Rocky Mountains. I dont think so. That white NFL dog-fighting would be portrayed as a "hero fighting political correctness" by the same right-wingers who hate Micheal Vick.
To those right-wingers, Vick isn't just any African-American athlete. He's an African-American from the ghetto, who had braids, and is part of the hip-hop generation. That terrifies them a lot more than the cruelty of dog-fighting.
It reminds me of this NewsMax (right-wing website) article that portrayed rock-star Ted Nugent as a hero.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/113405.shtml?s=rss
Nugent is a hunter (ie. someone who irritates the same animal rights adovates angered by Micheal Vick), against gun-control laws (I agree with Nugent on that) and thinks immigrants should learn English (I think Nugent should lighten up on that issue and mind his own business)
That NewsMax article mentions Nugent's use of profanity and sexual innuendo in his songs, but they mention in a tone of "but he's still a good guy" But rappers who use profanity, carry guns, and have strippers in videos? The typical right-wing reaction is "Oh my god, they're so vulgar".
This past weekend, rapper DMX was busted for animal cruelty and possessing unliscensed assault weapons. Would the Ted Nugent defenders @ NewsMax defend DMX? Or is DMX too black for them?
2) Rush Limbaugh ( conservative radio host who once had controversy over his criticism of African-American quarterback Donovan McNabb) had some criticism of Vick's involvement in dog-fighting but also had an interesting big-picture perspective.
May we get serious here for just a second? Whatever Vick's accused of doing -- and, remember, these are just accusations so far. We've been here with the Duke lacrosse kids -- this amazes me -- and I have warned people, all of these indictments, these charges that come down from prosecutors, I have told you, we are inclined as human beings to believe what law enforcement says.
(skip paragraphs)
But to say that this is bigger than Ray Lewis, where a guy died -- two people might have been stabbed in that incident. These were dogs in Vick's case. Here's another one. Brian Maloof, the proprietor at Manuel's Tavern, "This is embarrassing to the city. It sure lets us know about Vick's character. The wrestler? (Chris Benoit) That's nothing." That's in print and it's in Sports Illustrated. He killed his son; he killed his wife; then he hung himself. He said, "It sure lets us know about Vick's character. The wrestler, that's nothing. Don't get me wrong; that's not really nothing. There was obviously some mental illness there -- the depression -- that that man had to suffer from to take your own life, and your wife's and child's lives. Even with steroids. But this is almost like some sick Roman bloodsport. It's just horrible."
(skip paragraphs)
So you have two instances here, the Ray Lewis situation where a murder took place, and I don't think we know who actually committed the murder in that situation, but Lewis was in the bar when it happened. It was very controversial, but a human being died. The Chris Benoit situation where three people died, one of the three killed the other two. The story in Sports Illustrated says, "Well, the Vick thing is far worse. It's just far worse." Now, can you come up, ladies and gentlemen, in your own minds with a reason why people are thinking this way?
In other words, Limbaugh is saying are people getting more worked up over dogs being killed than real humans being killed!
Limbaugh is right on that one
3) Should there even be laws against dog-fighting.
Here's Stuart Hayashi's take on that issue!
Upon first hearing about what Michael Vick was accused of, my personal reaction was: "What? He had dogs fight each other soviciously for his own entertainment? Ewwwwwww!! That's inhumane."
So I am free to avoid associating with anybody who performs actions upon animals that I do not approve of. If I don't like peoplewho arrange cockfights, then I don't have to deal with them.
Does my disapproval of dogfighting or cockfighting make it okay for me to demand that the government threaten violence against Michael Vick for doing what he wants with his own private property, without actually hurting any sapient being that is functionally *capable* ofadhering to other organisms' rights? Bear in mind that your pet cat can't even respect the "rights" of mice not to be "murdered." Ifanimals have "rights," then your cat should go to prison for all of the mice that it "murdered."
My answer is no, it's not right for the State to threaten violence against Michael Vick for exercising his property rights in amanner that I don't approve of.
4) My take on the issue?
I'm not big fan of dogs. I'm the type that don't want to have pets. I get annoyed when animals want to sniff me. And big dogs make me real nervous!
I think it's ridiculous that Hawaii bans chicken-fights! Legalize it!
As for dog-fights, I 've heard that dogs that were bred for fighting are so aggressive, that they're not allowed to be adopted as pets.
If someone next door is having dog-fights, I'll be very nervous about one of those dogs escaping! I might even snitch on that neighbor to protect myself from getting bitten by those dogs. (this, even though I agree with Stuart Hayashi's statements posted earlier this blog post)
As for Vick being involved in killing dogs that suck at fighting, he would've better off putting them up for adoption. Vick's killing dogs that "suck at fighting" is what really getting controversy! It's why some might never forgive him!
If the accusations were true, I think Vick took it too far by killing dogs who "suck at fighting". After all, he wasn't killed for screwing up games. However, I think Vick should get a 2nd chance!
After all, athletes busted for drunk driving, domestic violence, sexual harrasment, etc. have been getting 2nd chances!
1) Because Vick is African-American, many feel that he's being picked on due to his race.
Just because someone criticizes Vick, that doesn't always mean they're racist.
Animal rights advocates criticizes anyone involved in dog-fighting or other animal abuse, no matter their race.
Many African-Americans are embarrased by Vick's involvement in dog-fighting including but not limited to liberal editorialists like editorialist Derrick Jackson, Jonathan Capehart, Cynthia Tucker and Leonard Pitts.
However, there are some right-wing editorialists whose criticism of Vick seem very suspicious. (ie. Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Neal Boortz)
Many right-wing editorialists make fun of animal rights advocates as "peace pansy hippies"
But all of sudden, they're outraged that Vick is involved in dog-fighting.
I wonder if those same right-wingers would be outraged if a European-American NFL player is involved in dog-fighting. Especially if that white guy is from the rural areas of the South, Great Plains or the Rocky Mountains. I dont think so. That white NFL dog-fighting would be portrayed as a "hero fighting political correctness" by the same right-wingers who hate Micheal Vick.
To those right-wingers, Vick isn't just any African-American athlete. He's an African-American from the ghetto, who had braids, and is part of the hip-hop generation. That terrifies them a lot more than the cruelty of dog-fighting.
It reminds me of this NewsMax (right-wing website) article that portrayed rock-star Ted Nugent as a hero.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/113405.shtml?s=rss
Nugent is a hunter (ie. someone who irritates the same animal rights adovates angered by Micheal Vick), against gun-control laws (I agree with Nugent on that) and thinks immigrants should learn English (I think Nugent should lighten up on that issue and mind his own business)
That NewsMax article mentions Nugent's use of profanity and sexual innuendo in his songs, but they mention in a tone of "but he's still a good guy" But rappers who use profanity, carry guns, and have strippers in videos? The typical right-wing reaction is "Oh my god, they're so vulgar".
This past weekend, rapper DMX was busted for animal cruelty and possessing unliscensed assault weapons. Would the Ted Nugent defenders @ NewsMax defend DMX? Or is DMX too black for them?
2) Rush Limbaugh ( conservative radio host who once had controversy over his criticism of African-American quarterback Donovan McNabb) had some criticism of Vick's involvement in dog-fighting but also had an interesting big-picture perspective.
May we get serious here for just a second? Whatever Vick's accused of doing -- and, remember, these are just accusations so far. We've been here with the Duke lacrosse kids -- this amazes me -- and I have warned people, all of these indictments, these charges that come down from prosecutors, I have told you, we are inclined as human beings to believe what law enforcement says.
(skip paragraphs)
But to say that this is bigger than Ray Lewis, where a guy died -- two people might have been stabbed in that incident. These were dogs in Vick's case. Here's another one. Brian Maloof, the proprietor at Manuel's Tavern, "This is embarrassing to the city. It sure lets us know about Vick's character. The wrestler? (Chris Benoit) That's nothing." That's in print and it's in Sports Illustrated. He killed his son; he killed his wife; then he hung himself. He said, "It sure lets us know about Vick's character. The wrestler, that's nothing. Don't get me wrong; that's not really nothing. There was obviously some mental illness there -- the depression -- that that man had to suffer from to take your own life, and your wife's and child's lives. Even with steroids. But this is almost like some sick Roman bloodsport. It's just horrible."
(skip paragraphs)
So you have two instances here, the Ray Lewis situation where a murder took place, and I don't think we know who actually committed the murder in that situation, but Lewis was in the bar when it happened. It was very controversial, but a human being died. The Chris Benoit situation where three people died, one of the three killed the other two. The story in Sports Illustrated says, "Well, the Vick thing is far worse. It's just far worse." Now, can you come up, ladies and gentlemen, in your own minds with a reason why people are thinking this way?
In other words, Limbaugh is saying are people getting more worked up over dogs being killed than real humans being killed!
Limbaugh is right on that one
3) Should there even be laws against dog-fighting.
Here's Stuart Hayashi's take on that issue!
Upon first hearing about what Michael Vick was accused of, my personal reaction was: "What? He had dogs fight each other soviciously for his own entertainment? Ewwwwwww!! That's inhumane."
So I am free to avoid associating with anybody who performs actions upon animals that I do not approve of. If I don't like peoplewho arrange cockfights, then I don't have to deal with them.
Does my disapproval of dogfighting or cockfighting make it okay for me to demand that the government threaten violence against Michael Vick for doing what he wants with his own private property, without actually hurting any sapient being that is functionally *capable* ofadhering to other organisms' rights? Bear in mind that your pet cat can't even respect the "rights" of mice not to be "murdered." Ifanimals have "rights," then your cat should go to prison for all of the mice that it "murdered."
My answer is no, it's not right for the State to threaten violence against Michael Vick for exercising his property rights in amanner that I don't approve of.
4) My take on the issue?
I'm not big fan of dogs. I'm the type that don't want to have pets. I get annoyed when animals want to sniff me. And big dogs make me real nervous!
I think it's ridiculous that Hawaii bans chicken-fights! Legalize it!
As for dog-fights, I 've heard that dogs that were bred for fighting are so aggressive, that they're not allowed to be adopted as pets.
If someone next door is having dog-fights, I'll be very nervous about one of those dogs escaping! I might even snitch on that neighbor to protect myself from getting bitten by those dogs. (this, even though I agree with Stuart Hayashi's statements posted earlier this blog post)
As for Vick being involved in killing dogs that suck at fighting, he would've better off putting them up for adoption. Vick's killing dogs that "suck at fighting" is what really getting controversy! It's why some might never forgive him!
If the accusations were true, I think Vick took it too far by killing dogs who "suck at fighting". After all, he wasn't killed for screwing up games. However, I think Vick should get a 2nd chance!
After all, athletes busted for drunk driving, domestic violence, sexual harrasment, etc. have been getting 2nd chances!
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Micheal Vick & Dogfighting
There has been a lot of controversy over Michael Vick's involvement in dog-fighting.
For those who don't know Vick, he was a quarterback for the NFL's Atlanta Falcons. He was known for running ability, his ability to dodge tackles, and sometimes making a great play when he was in danger of getting tackled. He wasn't a consistent passer, but wasn't someone to be over-looked.
In college, he brought Virginia Tech to major bowl games, though they lost the "championship game" to Florida State. (to non-sports fans: as long as Division 1-A college football don't have a playoff system, the words "championship game" will be surrounded by quotation marks)
His style and his #7 jerseys were popular among the hip-hop generation. However, the more conservative football fans couldn't relate to him.
Vick's involvement in dog-fighting created a strong backlash! There have been protests, the NFL suspended him from training camp, and he lost his endorsements
Now, Vick is about to enter a guilty plea, and could face jail time for his involvement in dog-fighting.
---
1) A lot of mainstream sports editorial writers have been writing "How could Vick be so stupid! He had a multi-million dollar contract, and he throw it all away"
What the sports editorialists didn't take into account was this --- Vick probably didn't realize how offended mainstream, middle class America would be offended by dogfighting.
Mainstream, middle class America view dogs as "very adorable pets". They don't understand how anyone can hurt those adorable animals.
However, in other cultures, dogs are considered "food". It is eaten by some in the Phillipines, but not all Filipinos eat dogs, and many Filipinos hate the stereotype of "Filipinos eating dogs"
In low-income areas of the South (where Vick was from), dogfighting is considered a past-time. Participation in dog-fighting is a sign of masculinity. They view any outrage against dofighting as "political correctness run amok"
It is popular among low-income European-American communities (especially the descendants of Scottish settlers that are common in the South) and low-income African-American communities.
Vick probably noticed other athletes getting in trouble for assaults, sexual harrasment, drunk driving, and noticed those athletes only get mild outrage. So he most likely assumed that any outrage against dog-fighting would be very minor and would likely last in the newspapers for only a few days.
He probably didn't expect the controversy that be so strong and to last that long.
He's probably thinking "why am I getting more bad publicity than those other athletes busted for rape, domestic violence or drunk-driving?"
2) Some say Vick ought to be banned from the NFL forever.
I say he should get a 2nd chance.
Though, if he spends time in jail, by the time he's released, he might be past his athletic prime. It will be so long since he last practiced, that the teams rather have someone else be their quarterback.
For those who don't know Vick, he was a quarterback for the NFL's Atlanta Falcons. He was known for running ability, his ability to dodge tackles, and sometimes making a great play when he was in danger of getting tackled. He wasn't a consistent passer, but wasn't someone to be over-looked.
In college, he brought Virginia Tech to major bowl games, though they lost the "championship game" to Florida State. (to non-sports fans: as long as Division 1-A college football don't have a playoff system, the words "championship game" will be surrounded by quotation marks)
His style and his #7 jerseys were popular among the hip-hop generation. However, the more conservative football fans couldn't relate to him.
Vick's involvement in dog-fighting created a strong backlash! There have been protests, the NFL suspended him from training camp, and he lost his endorsements
Now, Vick is about to enter a guilty plea, and could face jail time for his involvement in dog-fighting.
---
1) A lot of mainstream sports editorial writers have been writing "How could Vick be so stupid! He had a multi-million dollar contract, and he throw it all away"
What the sports editorialists didn't take into account was this --- Vick probably didn't realize how offended mainstream, middle class America would be offended by dogfighting.
Mainstream, middle class America view dogs as "very adorable pets". They don't understand how anyone can hurt those adorable animals.
However, in other cultures, dogs are considered "food". It is eaten by some in the Phillipines, but not all Filipinos eat dogs, and many Filipinos hate the stereotype of "Filipinos eating dogs"
In low-income areas of the South (where Vick was from), dogfighting is considered a past-time. Participation in dog-fighting is a sign of masculinity. They view any outrage against dofighting as "political correctness run amok"
It is popular among low-income European-American communities (especially the descendants of Scottish settlers that are common in the South) and low-income African-American communities.
Vick probably noticed other athletes getting in trouble for assaults, sexual harrasment, drunk driving, and noticed those athletes only get mild outrage. So he most likely assumed that any outrage against dog-fighting would be very minor and would likely last in the newspapers for only a few days.
He probably didn't expect the controversy that be so strong and to last that long.
He's probably thinking "why am I getting more bad publicity than those other athletes busted for rape, domestic violence or drunk-driving?"
2) Some say Vick ought to be banned from the NFL forever.
I say he should get a 2nd chance.
Though, if he spends time in jail, by the time he's released, he might be past his athletic prime. It will be so long since he last practiced, that the teams rather have someone else be their quarterback.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
My discussions with Marcus Daniel and school diversity
On July 2, I post my thoughts on the 2007 Supreme Court ruling on schools using quotas to make schools "diverse". I think racial quotas are silly, and that people can figure out on their own how to deal with diversity.
UH history professor Marcus Daniel wrote an editorial criticizing the Supreme Court decision.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jul/03/op/FP707030304.html
I sent him my July 2, 2007 post http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (scroll down to July 2, 2007 post)
Here is his silly email to me
---
Hiya Pablo,Thanks for your friendly email! I won't bother to go into all this with you as you clearly have opinions that brook no disagreement. The situation in Hawaii is different, mainly because of a history of US colonial occupation, although the "color-blind" approach of the Supreme Court represents a real threat to Hawaiians as well, hence the Akaka Bill. Unlike you I'm interested less in the issues of abstract principle than I am in the creation of a fair and just society. This is not the same as the "color-blind" legalism which has been used in the past (ie in Plessy) to justify profound racial abuses and the trampling of the 14th Amendment. Democracy and Justice are sometimes uneasy bedfellows, and letting people do what they want does not always produce justice viz, in the Jim Crow south which always had a white majority. According to your political principles, the south should be still be segregated. The assumption that animates the recent court decision, that the courts have nothing to say about the existing, and long-standing patterns of residential and racial segregation in our society, I find repellent. I often wonder whether people like you (and our beloved Supreme Court majority) would have been quite as keen advocates of "equality" for all in the period before Brown v. Board...personally I suspect your strident views would not have propelled you into the front lines of the civil rights movement. In fact, your arguments are exactly the same as those used by segregationists in the South, who always dressed white supremacy up in the garb of "equality" and "democracy." The point of my column was to show how this kind of simple-minded thinking will take us right back to a society of racial division and segregation. And the assumption of your message is that everybody prefers it that way anyway...except apparently the whites families clamoring to knock down the walls of "racial segregation" that keep them out of Kamehameha! If only they were as keen to send their kids to Farrington High or Waipahu (instead of maintaining their own exclusive residential/public school enclaves or sending their kids to Punahou and Iolani or one of the other all too numerous private schools in Hawaii) then none of this would be such a problem. Wonder why they aren't?
Aloha,Marcus
---
Here is my response to that silly e-mail
----
Your debate tactics is just inidirectly stating that "anyone who disagrees with the Radical Left is automatically is a Jim Crow Segregationist" You use those tactics to intimidate those who disagree with you from speaking out! That won't work with me!
The problem with Jim Crow was that Big Government told people where they could live, where they could go to school, where they could sit on the bus, who they could marry, etc. Big Government was interferring with people's choices in the Jim Crow era!
For the Brown vs Board of Ed, the African American family lived closer to the "white school" than the "black school". They argued they had the right to go to the school closer to them. And I agree with them!
And any African-American that wants to live in a mostly European-American suburb in the South should have the right to do that!
If you bothered to read my blogs, I am strong defender of immigration. (risking the strong hatred from the Radical Right) But you'll delibrately ignore that just because I believe government shouldn't chose the race of the school's demographics!
If you really believe I'm a segregationist, then answer the following questions
1) Why is that I (a Mexican/PuertoRican/German/Portuguse) am not living in East LA or South Bronx?
2) Why do I continue to live in areas dominated by Asians and Pacific Islanders?
I like living in Hawaii. If other Latinos want to come, I'll embrace that! If they rather stay in California instead of coming to Hawaii, who am I to tell them no? People have choices!
I've always been a minority in my neighborhood and I dont have any problem with that!
And if an African-American wants to live in Kahala, or a European-American wants to live in Waianae, that's fine with me! If a Guatemalan wants to live in Pearl City, that's fine with me! If a Samoan or a Micronesian wants to move to Hawaii Kai, that's fine with me.People have choices.
If a Filipino CHOOSES to live his whole life in Kalihi with other Filipinos, who is anyone to tell him no? If a Filipino CHOOSES to move to a Manoa or Kahala (areas with mostly Japanese and Euro-Americans) who is anyone to tell him no? (see, I'm being consistent)
You ask why aren't more white families aren't choosing Farrington or Waipahu high schools? Any white family that live in Kalihi or Waipahu would be able to go to those schools! And you will a find a few white kids in those schools. Yes, those families choose to be in a situation where they're a minority, but that's their choice!
Pablo Wegesend
UH history professor Marcus Daniel wrote an editorial criticizing the Supreme Court decision.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jul/03/op/FP707030304.html
I sent him my July 2, 2007 post http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (scroll down to July 2, 2007 post)
Here is his silly email to me
---
Hiya Pablo,Thanks for your friendly email! I won't bother to go into all this with you as you clearly have opinions that brook no disagreement. The situation in Hawaii is different, mainly because of a history of US colonial occupation, although the "color-blind" approach of the Supreme Court represents a real threat to Hawaiians as well, hence the Akaka Bill. Unlike you I'm interested less in the issues of abstract principle than I am in the creation of a fair and just society. This is not the same as the "color-blind" legalism which has been used in the past (ie in Plessy) to justify profound racial abuses and the trampling of the 14th Amendment. Democracy and Justice are sometimes uneasy bedfellows, and letting people do what they want does not always produce justice viz, in the Jim Crow south which always had a white majority. According to your political principles, the south should be still be segregated. The assumption that animates the recent court decision, that the courts have nothing to say about the existing, and long-standing patterns of residential and racial segregation in our society, I find repellent. I often wonder whether people like you (and our beloved Supreme Court majority) would have been quite as keen advocates of "equality" for all in the period before Brown v. Board...personally I suspect your strident views would not have propelled you into the front lines of the civil rights movement. In fact, your arguments are exactly the same as those used by segregationists in the South, who always dressed white supremacy up in the garb of "equality" and "democracy." The point of my column was to show how this kind of simple-minded thinking will take us right back to a society of racial division and segregation. And the assumption of your message is that everybody prefers it that way anyway...except apparently the whites families clamoring to knock down the walls of "racial segregation" that keep them out of Kamehameha! If only they were as keen to send their kids to Farrington High or Waipahu (instead of maintaining their own exclusive residential/public school enclaves or sending their kids to Punahou and Iolani or one of the other all too numerous private schools in Hawaii) then none of this would be such a problem. Wonder why they aren't?
Aloha,Marcus
---
Here is my response to that silly e-mail
----
Your debate tactics is just inidirectly stating that "anyone who disagrees with the Radical Left is automatically is a Jim Crow Segregationist" You use those tactics to intimidate those who disagree with you from speaking out! That won't work with me!
The problem with Jim Crow was that Big Government told people where they could live, where they could go to school, where they could sit on the bus, who they could marry, etc. Big Government was interferring with people's choices in the Jim Crow era!
For the Brown vs Board of Ed, the African American family lived closer to the "white school" than the "black school". They argued they had the right to go to the school closer to them. And I agree with them!
And any African-American that wants to live in a mostly European-American suburb in the South should have the right to do that!
If you bothered to read my blogs, I am strong defender of immigration. (risking the strong hatred from the Radical Right) But you'll delibrately ignore that just because I believe government shouldn't chose the race of the school's demographics!
If you really believe I'm a segregationist, then answer the following questions
1) Why is that I (a Mexican/PuertoRican/German/Portuguse) am not living in East LA or South Bronx?
2) Why do I continue to live in areas dominated by Asians and Pacific Islanders?
I like living in Hawaii. If other Latinos want to come, I'll embrace that! If they rather stay in California instead of coming to Hawaii, who am I to tell them no? People have choices!
I've always been a minority in my neighborhood and I dont have any problem with that!
And if an African-American wants to live in Kahala, or a European-American wants to live in Waianae, that's fine with me! If a Guatemalan wants to live in Pearl City, that's fine with me! If a Samoan or a Micronesian wants to move to Hawaii Kai, that's fine with me.People have choices.
If a Filipino CHOOSES to live his whole life in Kalihi with other Filipinos, who is anyone to tell him no? If a Filipino CHOOSES to move to a Manoa or Kahala (areas with mostly Japanese and Euro-Americans) who is anyone to tell him no? (see, I'm being consistent)
You ask why aren't more white families aren't choosing Farrington or Waipahu high schools? Any white family that live in Kalihi or Waipahu would be able to go to those schools! And you will a find a few white kids in those schools. Yes, those families choose to be in a situation where they're a minority, but that's their choice!
Pablo Wegesend
I call for security too much?
I've worked at Central Middle School as a substitute teacher starting from Fall 2005 to Fall 2006. During the 2005-2006 school year, the principal was Ms Trew and the VP was Mr Ogawa. I got along with them, and they were very helpful.
However, they got replaced by Brian Mizuguchi and Cindy Yun-Kim, and things went sour in Fall 2006.
Last week, on July 19, 2007, I talked to the Hawaii Board of Education (BOE) about what goes on there. Ms Fisher was also there to talk about the corruption at CMS.
I know there's a risk in putting stuff on the Internet, but since I already testified in front of the BOE, it's already a matter of public record, so I might as well mention it on the blog.
Here's an outline of what I said. It's NOT word-for-word, just an outline
-----------
I am a substitute teacher working in the Honolulu District.
While working at Central Middle School during the fall 2006 semester, the principal told me that I was blocked from working at the school and he claimed that I "call sceurity too much".
Call security too much?
If a student is disruptive, disrespectful, and commiting repeat offenses, I have them sent to the office. (which is what I was told to do by substitute training course, and various school officials) If they refuse to go to the office, what am I supposed to. I can't drag them to the office. So I call security to get them out.
Teachers don't have time to counsel misbehaving students during classtime. We have to help the rest of students understand their lessons.
If an argument breaks out, I call security because it could turn violent. Even if I get the students to settle down temporarily, that won't stop them from retaliation after-school or off-campus. To prevent those things, I call security to get them out of class and send them to the counselor or vice-principal. It's their jobs to settle disputes.
I was told in substitute training course, that if I suspect a fight could occur, (even later in the day), I need to notify the office.
Yet the principal of Central Middle School says I "call security too much." His philosophy is dnagerous, in that it let problems fester until it gets worse.
Even when i question the principal on the issue, his reply was "want me to block you from the district?" That's not his job!
While the complex supervisor listened respectfully when I talked to her, she seemed to indirectly defend the principal's thought process on the security issue, and I should've been more clear on it with her.
The irony of all this was that the former vice-principal of Central Middle School (Mr Ogawa, in 2005-2006 year) told me to call security if a student is defiant. (Ogawa was no longer VP when CMS principal Mizuguchi said I "call security too much")
Other substitutes and former school officials thought what Mizuguchi said was "ridiculous"
I decide to talk the Board of Education, not so much for myself, but for the other teachers, the students and anyone else involved in Hawaii's public school system.
This isn't just about Central Middle School, it's about how all schools deal with student crisis.
----
After me and Ms Fisher testified, BOE member Mr Pennebacker asked DOE superintendent Ms Hamamoto (who was McKinley's principal when I was a student) to investigate this matter.
However, they got replaced by Brian Mizuguchi and Cindy Yun-Kim, and things went sour in Fall 2006.
Last week, on July 19, 2007, I talked to the Hawaii Board of Education (BOE) about what goes on there. Ms Fisher was also there to talk about the corruption at CMS.
I know there's a risk in putting stuff on the Internet, but since I already testified in front of the BOE, it's already a matter of public record, so I might as well mention it on the blog.
Here's an outline of what I said. It's NOT word-for-word, just an outline
-----------
I am a substitute teacher working in the Honolulu District.
While working at Central Middle School during the fall 2006 semester, the principal told me that I was blocked from working at the school and he claimed that I "call sceurity too much".
Call security too much?
If a student is disruptive, disrespectful, and commiting repeat offenses, I have them sent to the office. (which is what I was told to do by substitute training course, and various school officials) If they refuse to go to the office, what am I supposed to. I can't drag them to the office. So I call security to get them out.
Teachers don't have time to counsel misbehaving students during classtime. We have to help the rest of students understand their lessons.
If an argument breaks out, I call security because it could turn violent. Even if I get the students to settle down temporarily, that won't stop them from retaliation after-school or off-campus. To prevent those things, I call security to get them out of class and send them to the counselor or vice-principal. It's their jobs to settle disputes.
I was told in substitute training course, that if I suspect a fight could occur, (even later in the day), I need to notify the office.
Yet the principal of Central Middle School says I "call security too much." His philosophy is dnagerous, in that it let problems fester until it gets worse.
Even when i question the principal on the issue, his reply was "want me to block you from the district?" That's not his job!
While the complex supervisor listened respectfully when I talked to her, she seemed to indirectly defend the principal's thought process on the security issue, and I should've been more clear on it with her.
The irony of all this was that the former vice-principal of Central Middle School (Mr Ogawa, in 2005-2006 year) told me to call security if a student is defiant. (Ogawa was no longer VP when CMS principal Mizuguchi said I "call security too much")
Other substitutes and former school officials thought what Mizuguchi said was "ridiculous"
I decide to talk the Board of Education, not so much for myself, but for the other teachers, the students and anyone else involved in Hawaii's public school system.
This isn't just about Central Middle School, it's about how all schools deal with student crisis.
----
After me and Ms Fisher testified, BOE member Mr Pennebacker asked DOE superintendent Ms Hamamoto (who was McKinley's principal when I was a student) to investigate this matter.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Supreme Court, Schools & Diversity
On the recent Supreme Court decision on race & diversity in government (public) schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=print
With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.
Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.
Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
I commented on this issue last year. Here is what I wrote!
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
The idea that schools choose the race of it's students, for any reason, is ridiculous. Especially if it's a government school.
Our state of Hawaii is more racially integrated than most of the mainland. This state has the largest rate of inter-racial marriages and multi-racial people.
And we didn't get that way by having government schools choosing the race of it's students.
The real reason people had problems with segregated schools in the South pre-1960's, was because the government schools chose the race of it's students. Now, forcing schools to have a certain percentage of whites. blacks, etc for the sake of "diversity" is just as crazy!
Let the people figure out their own way of dealing with diversity.
That's what we in Hawaii have done.
Yes, a school like Waipahu High would have a lot of Filipinos, but anyone living in that school's district can go to that school. A school like Waianae High would have mostly Native Hawaiians, but anyone living in the district can go there. Hardly anyone in Hawaii has a problem with Waipahu High being mostly Filipino or Waianae High being mostly Native Hawaiian, because people can choose where they live.
Other schools have very different combinations of people, with Kahuku High having a lot of Polynesians and Caucasians; Roosevelt High having a lot of local Japanese and Native Hawaiians, or McKinley High having a large of number of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific (which, by the way, is where I, a Mexican/PuertoRican/Portuguese//German, graduated from). The people in those district choose to live among such diversity.
Yes, Hawaii has Kamehameha Schools, which admits only Native Hawaiians, but it's a private school. And even that has caused controversy. A person with 99% European/1% Hawaiian ancestry can go to Kamehameha School, but a 100% Samoan or a 100% Tongan can't go there, all because their ancestors landed on the wrong island.
On the recent Supreme Court decision on race & diversity in government (public) schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=print
With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.
Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.
Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
I commented on this issue last year. Here is what I wrote!
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
The idea that schools choose the race of it's students, for any reason, is ridiculous. Especially if it's a government school.
Our state of Hawaii is more racially integrated than most of the mainland. This state has the largest rate of inter-racial marriages and multi-racial people.
And we didn't get that way by having government schools choosing the race of it's students.
The real reason people had problems with segregated schools in the South pre-1960's, was because the government schools chose the race of it's students. Now, forcing schools to have a certain percentage of whites. blacks, etc for the sake of "diversity" is just as crazy!
Let the people figure out their own way of dealing with diversity.
That's what we in Hawaii have done.
Yes, a school like Waipahu High would have a lot of Filipinos, but anyone living in that school's district can go to that school. A school like Waianae High would have mostly Native Hawaiians, but anyone living in the district can go there. Hardly anyone in Hawaii has a problem with Waipahu High being mostly Filipino or Waianae High being mostly Native Hawaiian, because people can choose where they live.
Other schools have very different combinations of people, with Kahuku High having a lot of Polynesians and Caucasians; Roosevelt High having a lot of local Japanese and Native Hawaiians, or McKinley High having a large of number of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific (which, by the way, is where I, a Mexican/PuertoRican/Portuguese//German, graduated from). The people in those district choose to live among such diversity.
Yes, Hawaii has Kamehameha Schools, which admits only Native Hawaiians, but it's a private school. And even that has caused controversy. A person with 99% European/1% Hawaiian ancestry can go to Kamehameha School, but a 100% Samoan or a 100% Tongan can't go there, all because their ancestors landed on the wrong island.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Hypocracy of the anti-immigration fascists
The anti-immigration fascists love to talk about heinous crimes that immigrants have committed. But even when they do that, they only talk about crimes committed by NON-WHITE immigrants.
Earlier this week, a French-Canadian immigrant wrestler who goes by the name of Chris Benoit killed his wife and son at his home near Atlanta. Benoit later killed himself.
Here is the grisly details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/
Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with a weight-machine pulley, authorities said Tuesday.
[paragraphs skipped]
Benoit’s 43-year-old wife was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said. Daniel was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, the district attorney said.
Benoit, 40, apparently hanged himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.
A closed Bible was placed next to the bodies of the wife and son, authorities said.
If that was committed by an immigrant from Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, or any other non-white nation, the anti-immigration fascists like Pat Buchanan, Debbie Schussell, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc would say "these are people from a savage culture! why do you want more of these people coming to our country?"
To the anti-immigration fascists, heinous crimes committed by white people (like Chris Benoit) are considered "isolated incidents". However, if committed by non-whites, they'll yell out "see, I told you those people are like that? what, you want more of them in your neighborhood?"
The anti-immigration fascists dont want to talk about acts of kindness from non-white immigrants. They don't want to talk about the white American lives saved by non-white immigrant doctors, nurses, firefighters, lifeguards, etc. They don't want to talk about good customer service from non-white immigrant workers! They don't want to talk about non-white immigrant teachers, counselors, coaches, etc who inspire our young people!
The anti-immigration fascists don't care about the facts. They want an all-white America that they once knew, and they are uncomfortable around those with different skin colors, different accents, different cultures.
If a non-white immigrant commits a heinous crime, that scares the anti-immigrant a lot more than a Chris Benoit commiting a heinous crime. The anti-immigrant fascist would see Benoit (though a French-Canadian immigrant) as someone who reminds them of their brother, uncle, childhood friend, or boyfriend!
They dont have the same familiarity with non-white immigrants, so they freak out anytime a non-white immigrant commits even a minor moral violation!
The anti-immigration fascists love to talk about heinous crimes that immigrants have committed. But even when they do that, they only talk about crimes committed by NON-WHITE immigrants.
Earlier this week, a French-Canadian immigrant wrestler who goes by the name of Chris Benoit killed his wife and son at his home near Atlanta. Benoit later killed himself.
Here is the grisly details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/
Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with a weight-machine pulley, authorities said Tuesday.
[paragraphs skipped]
Benoit’s 43-year-old wife was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said. Daniel was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, the district attorney said.
Benoit, 40, apparently hanged himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.
A closed Bible was placed next to the bodies of the wife and son, authorities said.
If that was committed by an immigrant from Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, or any other non-white nation, the anti-immigration fascists like Pat Buchanan, Debbie Schussell, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc would say "these are people from a savage culture! why do you want more of these people coming to our country?"
To the anti-immigration fascists, heinous crimes committed by white people (like Chris Benoit) are considered "isolated incidents". However, if committed by non-whites, they'll yell out "see, I told you those people are like that? what, you want more of them in your neighborhood?"
The anti-immigration fascists dont want to talk about acts of kindness from non-white immigrants. They don't want to talk about the white American lives saved by non-white immigrant doctors, nurses, firefighters, lifeguards, etc. They don't want to talk about good customer service from non-white immigrant workers! They don't want to talk about non-white immigrant teachers, counselors, coaches, etc who inspire our young people!
The anti-immigration fascists don't care about the facts. They want an all-white America that they once knew, and they are uncomfortable around those with different skin colors, different accents, different cultures.
If a non-white immigrant commits a heinous crime, that scares the anti-immigrant a lot more than a Chris Benoit commiting a heinous crime. The anti-immigrant fascist would see Benoit (though a French-Canadian immigrant) as someone who reminds them of their brother, uncle, childhood friend, or boyfriend!
They dont have the same familiarity with non-white immigrants, so they freak out anytime a non-white immigrant commits even a minor moral violation!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Ron Paul on immigration
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Kam Bowl
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kamehameha Day
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
Friday, May 04, 2007
More on the V-Tech Murders
1) Pat Buchanan, again, is using a tragedy committed by an immigrant to promote his anti-immigration agenda.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/01/the_dark_side_of_diversity
In that article, he lists all the violent incidents committed by immigrants, then concludes that we should stop immigration.
This is idiotic!
For one thing, majority of the school shootings in the U.S. were committed by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
The Oklahoma federal building was blown up by a Caucasian born in the U.S. Though he wasn't even from Oklahoma, he was from Buffalo, New York.
I got nothing against Caucasians born in the U.S. Many are wonderful people. But Pat Buchanan act as if they never committed any terrorism, as if only immigrants are capable of terrorism.
Did Buchanan bother to find out about immigrants saving lives?
A lot of the doctors & nurses in the U.S. are immigrants, many coming from India and the Philippines. A lot of native-born Americans would've been dead if it wasn't for those immigrant doctors & nurses.
Maybe some of those who were shot BUT NOT KILLED in the V-Tech incident were saved by immigrant paramedics, surgeons, nurses, doctors, etc.
And what if Buchanan got a heart attack, and was saved by an immigrant using CPR on him?
A lot of the soldiers risking their lives for America in the Middle East are immigrants! Why doesn't Buchanan not care about that?
Many cops, firefighters, lifeguards, ambulance drivers, etc are immigrants.
However, the Pat Buchanans and the Debbie Schlussel DONT CARE ABOUT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM!
They just wait for another terrorist incident committed by non-whites! Once it happens, they use that incident to promote the hatred of the non-white!
2) While the Gun Control Crowd love to focus on the V-Tech killings, they CHOOSE TO IGNORE an incident at Appalachian Law School.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.
In other words, it took armed civilians to stop an armed lunatic. That's reality! It may not be "politically correct" reality, but IT IS REALITY!
The answer to armed lunatics isn't disarming everyone else. The answer to armed lunatics is armed civilians.
Anyways, the article also cites liberal media bias against guns,
Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.
With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.
Most US media outlets are run by anti-gun liberals. That is where many foreign media outlets get their US news from. This is why many foreign media folks view the US as a "trigger happy country". They don't even bother to investigate the other side of the story!
3) Many V-Tech students and professors cited Cho Seung-Hui's writings in a creative writing class as a sign that he was prone to violence.
Some see this as a sign that anyone who writes a violent story should be involuntary committed to a mental health institution.
This is over-reaction. The world is violent, so many of us write stories, songs, poems, etc with violence. But in most cases, we don't even bother to commit the violent acts.
If anyone who writes a violent story for a creative writing class gets involuntarily sent to therapy, that won't stop any violence. All it would do is that violence-prone people just won't write anything violent. They'll just keep it all inside.
Then when they finally lash out violently, everyone would say they didn't see it coming.
1) Pat Buchanan, again, is using a tragedy committed by an immigrant to promote his anti-immigration agenda.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/01/the_dark_side_of_diversity
In that article, he lists all the violent incidents committed by immigrants, then concludes that we should stop immigration.
This is idiotic!
For one thing, majority of the school shootings in the U.S. were committed by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
The Oklahoma federal building was blown up by a Caucasian born in the U.S. Though he wasn't even from Oklahoma, he was from Buffalo, New York.
I got nothing against Caucasians born in the U.S. Many are wonderful people. But Pat Buchanan act as if they never committed any terrorism, as if only immigrants are capable of terrorism.
Did Buchanan bother to find out about immigrants saving lives?
A lot of the doctors & nurses in the U.S. are immigrants, many coming from India and the Philippines. A lot of native-born Americans would've been dead if it wasn't for those immigrant doctors & nurses.
Maybe some of those who were shot BUT NOT KILLED in the V-Tech incident were saved by immigrant paramedics, surgeons, nurses, doctors, etc.
And what if Buchanan got a heart attack, and was saved by an immigrant using CPR on him?
A lot of the soldiers risking their lives for America in the Middle East are immigrants! Why doesn't Buchanan not care about that?
Many cops, firefighters, lifeguards, ambulance drivers, etc are immigrants.
However, the Pat Buchanans and the Debbie Schlussel DONT CARE ABOUT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM!
They just wait for another terrorist incident committed by non-whites! Once it happens, they use that incident to promote the hatred of the non-white!
2) While the Gun Control Crowd love to focus on the V-Tech killings, they CHOOSE TO IGNORE an incident at Appalachian Law School.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.
In other words, it took armed civilians to stop an armed lunatic. That's reality! It may not be "politically correct" reality, but IT IS REALITY!
The answer to armed lunatics isn't disarming everyone else. The answer to armed lunatics is armed civilians.
Anyways, the article also cites liberal media bias against guns,
Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.
With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.
Most US media outlets are run by anti-gun liberals. That is where many foreign media outlets get their US news from. This is why many foreign media folks view the US as a "trigger happy country". They don't even bother to investigate the other side of the story!
3) Many V-Tech students and professors cited Cho Seung-Hui's writings in a creative writing class as a sign that he was prone to violence.
Some see this as a sign that anyone who writes a violent story should be involuntary committed to a mental health institution.
This is over-reaction. The world is violent, so many of us write stories, songs, poems, etc with violence. But in most cases, we don't even bother to commit the violent acts.
If anyone who writes a violent story for a creative writing class gets involuntarily sent to therapy, that won't stop any violence. All it would do is that violence-prone people just won't write anything violent. They'll just keep it all inside.
Then when they finally lash out violently, everyone would say they didn't see it coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)