Republican Convention
1) some great comments by Arizona Senator John McCain
Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls. Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again
.2) Arnold again used the "girlie men" comment in reffering to Democrats. I admit, it was funny to hear Arnold say "dont be economic girlie men". But the feminists do have a point in saying that the "girlie men" comments gives the image that women are weak and therefore, weak men are "girlie men". Maybe next time, Arnold can call his opponents "cowards" and "whiners"!
Friday, September 03, 2004
Bush Saved Iraqi Lives
Of course that title is blasphemy to the Radical Left
Anyways, here are some facts, courtesy of Stuart Hayashi
Saddam Hussein became presdient of Iraq in 1979. His reign ended in 2003. Within that duration -- those 24 years -- Saddam Hussein killed 1,000,000 people. That is worth repeating. Saddam Hussein killed ONE MILLION innocent Iraqis on account of their disagreeing with him. That means that, within those 24 years, Hussein killed an average 41,666 people every year.
And with the invasion
In 2003, Bush had the U.S. military invade Iraq. As a result, an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by accident.
But do you know what would have happened if Bush did not invade Iraq? If Saddam Hussein continued killing Iraqi civilians at the same rate that he did from 1979 to 2003, he would have killed an estimated 41,666 Iraqi civilians in 2004 ON PURPOSE. That is over four times the number of Iraqis whom Bush killed accidentally. And Saddam Hussein would have continued murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis in every succeeding year. And let's not forget that after he died, Saddam would have been replaced by Uday Hussein -- an even bigger reputed sadist and serial rapist -- to kill even more Iraqis.
In 2004 alone, GEORGE W. BUSH STATISTICALLY SAVED THE LIVES OF AN ESTIMATED NET TOTAL OF 31,666 IRAQI CIVILIANS.
My comments: Those facts will be ignored by Bush-hating Radical Lefties, who care more about promoting anti-Americanism than saving Iraqi lives,
Of course that title is blasphemy to the Radical Left
Anyways, here are some facts, courtesy of Stuart Hayashi
Saddam Hussein became presdient of Iraq in 1979. His reign ended in 2003. Within that duration -- those 24 years -- Saddam Hussein killed 1,000,000 people. That is worth repeating. Saddam Hussein killed ONE MILLION innocent Iraqis on account of their disagreeing with him. That means that, within those 24 years, Hussein killed an average 41,666 people every year.
And with the invasion
In 2003, Bush had the U.S. military invade Iraq. As a result, an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by accident.
But do you know what would have happened if Bush did not invade Iraq? If Saddam Hussein continued killing Iraqi civilians at the same rate that he did from 1979 to 2003, he would have killed an estimated 41,666 Iraqi civilians in 2004 ON PURPOSE. That is over four times the number of Iraqis whom Bush killed accidentally. And Saddam Hussein would have continued murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis in every succeeding year. And let's not forget that after he died, Saddam would have been replaced by Uday Hussein -- an even bigger reputed sadist and serial rapist -- to kill even more Iraqis.
In 2004 alone, GEORGE W. BUSH STATISTICALLY SAVED THE LIVES OF AN ESTIMATED NET TOTAL OF 31,666 IRAQI CIVILIANS.
My comments: Those facts will be ignored by Bush-hating Radical Lefties, who care more about promoting anti-Americanism than saving Iraqi lives,
Monday, August 30, 2004
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Olympics 2004
I've been so busy, I haven't had time to comment on the Olympics on this blog!
1)Iranian judo guy refused to compete with an Israeli because of Israel's human rights violations against Palestinians. Hey, Mr Iranian judo guy, look in the mirror! It's Iran that has one of the worst human rights record in the world! You don't see the USA chickening out of competing with China, Iran, Cuba or anyone else
2) Congrats to local boy Brian Clay for his silver medal in the decathlon. He is a Hawaii boy of multi-racial heritage (part black/part Japanese) so the mixed race folks have another athletic role model in addition to Tiger Woods.
3)with the gold medal win, there might be a professional softball league for the women in the USA soon. Though I think they should start small and grow gradually. The Major Leagues didn't get to where they are overnight! The expectation of overnight growth has hurt WNBA and the women's soccer league! They should've started in smaller stadiums, and gradually graduate to bigger stadiums once interest increase.
4) The biggest individual hero of this Olympics might be Michael Phelps the swimmer. He'll be the one with the biggest hype after the Olympics. Will he continue in 2008?
5)The torch will soon go from Athens (the birthplace of the Olympics) to Beijing in 2008. Will Taiwan be playing? Will there a Tibetan athletic hero or will China continue to oppress the Tibetans?
I've been so busy, I haven't had time to comment on the Olympics on this blog!
1)Iranian judo guy refused to compete with an Israeli because of Israel's human rights violations against Palestinians. Hey, Mr Iranian judo guy, look in the mirror! It's Iran that has one of the worst human rights record in the world! You don't see the USA chickening out of competing with China, Iran, Cuba or anyone else
2) Congrats to local boy Brian Clay for his silver medal in the decathlon. He is a Hawaii boy of multi-racial heritage (part black/part Japanese) so the mixed race folks have another athletic role model in addition to Tiger Woods.
3)with the gold medal win, there might be a professional softball league for the women in the USA soon. Though I think they should start small and grow gradually. The Major Leagues didn't get to where they are overnight! The expectation of overnight growth has hurt WNBA and the women's soccer league! They should've started in smaller stadiums, and gradually graduate to bigger stadiums once interest increase.
4) The biggest individual hero of this Olympics might be Michael Phelps the swimmer. He'll be the one with the biggest hype after the Olympics. Will he continue in 2008?
5)The torch will soon go from Athens (the birthplace of the Olympics) to Beijing in 2008. Will Taiwan be playing? Will there a Tibetan athletic hero or will China continue to oppress the Tibetans?
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Diseases and Stress
This semester, I am taking a medical sociology class. Today's class, we were going over the history of medical care!
It brought my mind back to an idiotic thing I kept from hearing that anti-immigration fanatic talk show host Mike Savage! Savage blames immigrants from Asia and Latin America for bringing in disease!
But what Savage NEVER addresses is the fact that Europeans brought diseases to the Americas and the Pacific - diseases that ended up killing many natives.
But Savage will ignore all that! To him, diseases are bad only when they kill Euro-Americans. But if they kill non-whites, Mike Savage doesn't give a dam!
Anyways, back to that medical sociology class. The professor said that stress and going through major life changes increases vulnerability to tuberculosis (TB) He mentioned that the Irish immigrants to the US had higher rates of TB than those Irish who remained in Ireland. Same with Asians, Asian immigrants have higher rates of TB than Asians who remain in Asia. Same with Native Americans forced into reservations. The massive lifestyle changes immigrants go through can decrease their immunity to TB!
But Mike Savage will ignore those facts because his anti-immigration hysteria has NOTHING to do with saving anyone from diseases. His anti-immigration hysteria is based on hatred towards non-whites!
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Race Card Pimp vs the SATs
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/rodriguez1.asp
or
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/joe_rodriguez/9449551.htm?1c
I sent the following to Joe Rodriguez at jrodriguez@mercurynews.com
============================================================
Joe said:
And it won't make much difference today for students in schools like mine. They don't have as many advanced placement classes or experienced teachers. Nor do they have affluent parents who can pay for expensive SAT preparation courses, as they do at privileged schools. Poor schools that can't teach reading and mathematics aren't going to teach writing any better.
Pablo: I got an 1160 on my SATs (good enough for U of Hawaii) without any expensive SAT prep scores. I just borrowed a few prep materials at a public library for FREE! But asking non-whites (which I am) to go to the public library is considered "racist" by race card pimps like Joe Rodriguez. And poor schools that can't teach? Improve them, DUH! Blaming the SATs is just blaming the truth-teller! And Rodriguez cant handle the truth!
============================================================
Joe said:
Although the test has its roots in the racist eugenics movement of the early 20th century - they thought Jews and African-Americans were inherently dumb and college-incapable - the supporters of scholastic testing doggedly pursued an exam that would measure how much a student had learned in 12 years
Pablo says: Take your race card and shove it! That statement is as stupid as saying that the game of football is racist just because blacks outnumber Latinos and Asians on USC or UCLA football teams. Or calling football racist just because Polynesians outnumber Asians on the U of Hawaii football team! What next? Or we gonna call the game of basketball "racist" just because blacks outnumber Latinos in the LA Lakers?
=====================================================
Joe said
A major flaw of today's SAT is that it's vulnerable to coaching and short-term improvements. How can you trust a test that, for the $800 price of a quickie prep course, can produce a gain of 100 points?
Pablo says:
So what next, do we get rid of sports camps just because it helps some kids get recruited by more college sports programs?
==============================================================
Joe said:
A few years ago, plucky little Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania measured the first-semester grades of freshman with SAT scores of about 1000 against freshmen with 1200 scores or better. The results were virtually identical.
Pablo says: Thomas Sowell data found that those with higher SATs do better in college. He also mentioned that it's true not only in the US, but also in the Phillipines and Indonesia.
============================================================
Joe said:
But the absolute, worst assumption of the SAT is that any young person's potential can be reduced to a number
Pablo says:
young athlete's have their performance reduced to a number ALL THE TIME! (seen the sports page lately?) Sometimes, those numbers can make the difference between getting recruited by a NCAA Division 1 program or being ignored even by Division II programs!
========================================================
Joe said:
It assumes that, after four years of college, a 900-point student from a poor school cannot catch up to or surpass the 1400-point student from a wealthy school.
Pablo says: The politically incorrect reality is that those with low scores can hardly even keep pace, much less surpass those with higher scores. Sowell's research about the Phillipines found that rural Filipinos with low scores dont do well as urban Filipinos with high scores. The rural Filipinos who do as well as high-scoring urban Filipinos are (gasp) high scoring rural Filipinos, not low scoring rural Filipinos. The results are the same in Indonesia.
But race card pimps like Joe Rodriguez will ignore those facts, because his anti-SAT agenda are not based on facts, but on a politically correct religious faith!
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Graduation Speakers
Graduation Speakers
My latest editorial on Ka Leo
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/08/12/411af58193e96
Commencement speakers should encourage, not rant
By Pablo Wegesend
Ka Leo Staff Columnist
August 12, 2004
love to attend graduation ceremonies.
I love them because they celebrate a happy occasion. The graduates are proud about their recent accomplishments! Their families and friends are proud!
I love to attend graduation ceremonies, because I get a chance to say goodbye to someone I might not see again for a while.
I love graduation ceremonies because they promote school pride for its new alumni, old alumni, current students and future students in attendance.
I love graduation ceremonies because sometimes in the audience I see someone who I haven't seen in a long time.
However, there is a negative trend at college graduation ceremonies. That trend is having guest speakers talking about things which are off-topic.
You see, graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about praising the new graduates and giving them some advice for the future. But what some past UH graduation guest speakers have done is talk about topics unrelated to graduation.
In the most recent graduation ceremony--Spring 2004, the guest speakers spent a minute or two denouncing America's "arrogant foreign policy".
In a graduation ceremony last year, a guest speaker criticized the military use of Hawai'i lands for training. And in another ceremony, a guest speaker criticized the "with us or against us" rhetoric of the Bush Administration.
And President Bush himself talked in some mainland universities about his faith-based programs, economic policy and the war on Iraq.
Graduation ceremonies are NOT times to talk about foreign policy, military policy, economic policy or anything else political. Want to talk about politics or foreign policy? Do it somewhere else!
So those political rants were only for a minute or two. I say that's a few minutes too long. There should ZERO political rants. Not for one second.
Some say that politics and foreign policy are too important to ignore at graduation ceremonies. Nonsense.
What else is next? Spend time in political science talking about auto mechanics? Talk about agriculture during an accounting class? Or discuss ocean ecology in fashion design?
Do you want your waiter to talk about abortion policy? No, you want the waiter to get your food and drinks. The waiter's view on abortion is irrelevant when I'm waiting for my food. Do you want the firefighters to talk about the war on Iraq when your house is burning? No, you want them to put an end to the fire. I could care less about their views on the war on Iraq, as long as my home is saved from the fire.
So, my take on political rants during graduation speeches has nothing to do with importance. It has to do with appropriateness. And while politics, agriculture, ecology, auto mechanics, foreign policy and birth control are important, discussions about them should take place in the appropriate forum.
My latest editorial on Ka Leo
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/08/12/411af58193e96
Commencement speakers should encourage, not rant
By Pablo Wegesend
Ka Leo Staff Columnist
August 12, 2004
love to attend graduation ceremonies.
I love them because they celebrate a happy occasion. The graduates are proud about their recent accomplishments! Their families and friends are proud!
I love to attend graduation ceremonies, because I get a chance to say goodbye to someone I might not see again for a while.
I love graduation ceremonies because they promote school pride for its new alumni, old alumni, current students and future students in attendance.
I love graduation ceremonies because sometimes in the audience I see someone who I haven't seen in a long time.
However, there is a negative trend at college graduation ceremonies. That trend is having guest speakers talking about things which are off-topic.
You see, graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about praising the new graduates and giving them some advice for the future. But what some past UH graduation guest speakers have done is talk about topics unrelated to graduation.
In the most recent graduation ceremony--Spring 2004, the guest speakers spent a minute or two denouncing America's "arrogant foreign policy".
In a graduation ceremony last year, a guest speaker criticized the military use of Hawai'i lands for training. And in another ceremony, a guest speaker criticized the "with us or against us" rhetoric of the Bush Administration.
And President Bush himself talked in some mainland universities about his faith-based programs, economic policy and the war on Iraq.
Graduation ceremonies are NOT times to talk about foreign policy, military policy, economic policy or anything else political. Want to talk about politics or foreign policy? Do it somewhere else!
So those political rants were only for a minute or two. I say that's a few minutes too long. There should ZERO political rants. Not for one second.
Some say that politics and foreign policy are too important to ignore at graduation ceremonies. Nonsense.
What else is next? Spend time in political science talking about auto mechanics? Talk about agriculture during an accounting class? Or discuss ocean ecology in fashion design?
Do you want your waiter to talk about abortion policy? No, you want the waiter to get your food and drinks. The waiter's view on abortion is irrelevant when I'm waiting for my food. Do you want the firefighters to talk about the war on Iraq when your house is burning? No, you want them to put an end to the fire. I could care less about their views on the war on Iraq, as long as my home is saved from the fire.
So, my take on political rants during graduation speeches has nothing to do with importance. It has to do with appropriateness. And while politics, agriculture, ecology, auto mechanics, foreign policy and birth control are important, discussions about them should take place in the appropriate forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)