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 :)
Monday, October 15, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)