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!
Friday, October 26, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)