1) Last week, the Honolulu Weekly had an article explaining the hardships many Micronesian immigrants face here in Hawaii
http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2009/02/legal-aliens/
The article mentioned their economic harships, language barriers and racial discrimination!
The racial discrimination isn't just some lame jokes people make, it's worse than that .. it's threats and violent acts of terror!
(from the article)
Even those who are bilingual aren’t free them from facing difficult and often dangerous situations. A group of Micronesian tenants last year filed a complaint against the Honolulu Police Department—who were found in a police investigation to have complied with regulations—for failing to take seriously their concerns over violence at Mayor Wright Housing.
Several police reports include accounts from tenants who describe neighbors shouting slurs at them, lighting fireworks outside their doors, and throwing what the victims believed to be gasoline onto their property. One resident’s November 2007 petition for a restraining order includes description of neighbors who had tried to kick her and beat her up, and stood outside her door brandishing knives and other weapons, shouting, “You fat bitch, you fat Micronesians, you fat pig, you fat frog.”
“That’s harassment, still, they doing all that kind of gestures to me,” said Fetu Taua Kolio, referring to a separate incident, in a report filed by the Honolulu Police Commission in December 2007. Kolio described police response to her call about harassment at Mayor Wright. “[The] officer commented to me, ‘Well, that’s what you get when you live in public housing.’ I’m supposed to accept all this kind of threatens and harassment by these individuals?”
Indeed, even those who work to protect members of the Micronesian community express disdain at their being here.
-----------
I wrote a letter to the Honolulu Weekly on that issue
Here's the link to my letter (edited & titled by the Honolulu Weekly staff)
http://honoluluweekly.com/letters/2009/03/island-of-cowards/
And here's the un-edited version that I sent
(the paragraphs in orange was edited out of the Honolulu Weekly version, most likely due to space considerations)
A few weeks ago, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder got controversy over his statements calling the U.S. a "nation of cowards" on racial issues and lamented that people don't interact with other races in their free time!
While we in Hawaii tend to be braver than most when it comes to inter-racial dating, we still have cowardly tendencies when it comes to addressing serious racial conflicts in Hawaii!
In the 2/25/09 edition of the Honolulu Weekly, there was an article about the struggles of the Micronesian community.
It mentioned incidents in Mayor Wright's Housing (MWH) in which fireworks and gasoline were thrown at the homes of Micronesian residents. It also mentioned Micronesians getting attacked and threatened with knives. These acts were done as the attackers were yelling racist slurs on their Micronesian victims.
In the mainland, these incidents would be referred to as "hate crimes". These are racist attacks of terror!
Yet, too many in Hawaii are reluctant to even admit hate crimes happen here too! This is cowardice!
Also, in the same Honolulu Weekly article, a social worker (who was too cowardly to reveal his/her real name) blamed Micronesians for shop-lifting and for the negative conditions at Kuhio Park Terrace (KPT). I have actually heard kids of other races openly brag about shoplifiting. Also, the horrible conditions at KPT were there DECADES before the Micronesians moved in! Yet, that cowardly social worker has the nerve to blame these problems on the most discriminated group in Hawaii!
In other places, the attitude of that social worker would be referred to as "racist". But too many here are reluctant to admit racism occurs here too. This is cowardice!
Last year, after City Council representative Rod Tam used the racist slur "wetback" at a meeting, some in Hawaii were outraged that some local Latinos refused to be cowards against Rod Tam. Nevermind that all the local Latinos did was verbally protested Tam's words. No Latino activist used violence on Tam. But verbal bravery from Latino activists was too much for some in Hawaii to handle !
Also, too many in Hawaii were too cowardly to point out that Tam's district has many immigrants from the land of Tam's ancestors (China) --- way more than the feared, illegal aliens from Mexico! Is anyone else brave enough to point out that some Chinese immigrants (living mostly in Tam's district) are illegal!
In defense of the Chinese immigrants, is anyone brave enough to even mentioned that other racial groups have harassed them and mock their accents literally in their face? This is what I have heard from sons of Chinese immigrants!
Also, is anyone in Hawaii brave enough to point out that not all European countries were involved in the conquest of non-white lands! Think about it next time someone gets attacked for being a "haole"!
There's more going on, but I'll let others add on to the list!
Some might say "why don't you leave Hawaii". I am a lifelong resident of Hawaii and I refuse to leave! That would be an act of cowardice! I prefer to develop the bravery required to point out that sometimes problems exist in Hawaii!
I encourage our fellow Hawaii residents to do the same!
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu, HI
--
Again, the above paragraphs in orange was edited out of the Honolulu Weekly version of my letter!
2) As for the Honolulu Weekly, they had a good editorial on the struggles for same-sex civil unions in Hawaii
http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2009/03/coming-home-3/
( an excerpt from the article)
Before the committee is the same Linda Krieger, now 53 years old and a professor at the University of Hawai‘i’s Richardson School of Law. Krieger is offering testimony in support of the bill, on behalf, she says, of the gay and lesbian students with whom she works. Her students—“most are local, Hawaiian, Chinese, Filipino, South Pacific Islander, European, hapa”—are hurting. “Most of these students are already in deeply committed, loving relationships, or aspire to be. All love their families and their communities, and deeply long to be accepted by them. All will be devastated if Hawai‘i once again denies them the basic human rights accorded to their heterosexual brothers, sisters and friends.”
Krieger reminds the senators that they have taken an oath to defend the constitution, one that has as a basic tenet that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. “And I have taken another oath,” she says in closing. “Albeit a private one, to do everything in my power to help make Hawai‘i a place in which my wonderful, precious students can grow, flourish and build strong, loving families, as is each of our birthright in a community that holds ‘ohana—‘ohana for everyone—as the first among our cherished values. Please, please support HB 444. It is long past time.”
Sen. Sam Slom is the first to respond. “Thank you, Ms. Krieger, for your testimony, and for lecturing us,” he sneers. The audience, packed with opponents to the civil unions legislation, erupts in cheers. Many are jeering and snickering at Krieger. They boo, not loudly, but plenty loud enough to hear. One observer described the atmosphere as “like a hate party. She’s baring her soul and people are mocking her, and the people she’s appealing to for help are mocking her right back.”
---
Look I understand some people are grossed out by homosexuality!However, this is supposed to be a land of freedom, so people should be allowed to live their life as they see fit! If someone wants to have a same-sex marriage, LET THEM!
If you don't want to be a part of a same-sex union, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO! Let others live as they see fit!
Friday, March 06, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Cell phones on Buses
Again, people want to ban the use of cell phones on buses
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20090221_Bus_ban_on_phone_ringers_not_enough_some_contend.html
------
Here is my response to them
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090224_Letters_to_the_Editor.html
Don't ban cell phones on city buses
Imagine you're on a bus. You're on your way to work. Or maybe you're on your way to meet your friends. Either way, an accident has occurred on nearby streets, and there is a traffic jam.
You would like to call your employer or your friend to notify him/her that you might be late.
However, that would not be allowed if cell phone use is banned on the bus.
To those who want to ban cell phones on buses, do you want to ban bus riders from talking to each other? Or are you jealous because someone has a cell phone and you don't?
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20090221_Bus_ban_on_phone_ringers_not_enough_some_contend.html
------
Here is my response to them
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090224_Letters_to_the_Editor.html
Don't ban cell phones on city buses
Imagine you're on a bus. You're on your way to work. Or maybe you're on your way to meet your friends. Either way, an accident has occurred on nearby streets, and there is a traffic jam.
You would like to call your employer or your friend to notify him/her that you might be late.
However, that would not be allowed if cell phone use is banned on the bus.
To those who want to ban cell phones on buses, do you want to ban bus riders from talking to each other? Or are you jealous because someone has a cell phone and you don't?
Pablo Wegesend
Honolulu
Monday, February 16, 2009
The legacy of George W. Bush
I know, it's over a month ago!
But these blog posts take hours to write & edit, and I don't always have the time! Today I do!
Plus, it's easier to write legacy post after it's over than just before it's over like many pundits did!
----
What is the legacy of President George W. Bush?
Like many presidents, some of his decisions benefited the USA, while others were counter-productive and made some things worse!
Many on the Radical Left think of Bush as the root of all evil in the world! That's ridiculous!
While Bush made some wrong decisions, he's not the root of all evil in the world. In fact, he attempted to protect us from the real evil of the world -- people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il.
Let's go over the many aspects of the George W. Bush presidency
1)War on Terror
Many on the Radical Left blame 9/11 on Bush! It would've happened no matter who was president. After all, terrorist incidents happened in the Clinton years too!
But it's got nothing to do with Clinton or Bush!
There are people out there who want to inflict terror on this world.
A lot of those people are Radical Muslims!
They want the whole world to submit to their ultra-conservative Islam, and if it means using extreme violence, they'll do it and they did it!
Attacking Al Qaida bases in Afghanistan showed the world that we refuse to be submissive & soft in the face of Radical Islamic terror!
While the federal government was unable to stop the 9/11 attacks, it was able to protect us from extra terrorist attacks since then! Let's give Bush at least some credit here!
From Thomas Sowell
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011609.php3
President Bush's number one achievement was also the number one function of government— to protect its citizens. Nobody on September 11, 2001 believed that there would never be another such attack for more than seven years.
Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks.
2) The war on Iraq
While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, there was a concern that Hussein wanted to violently retaliate against the US for kicking Iraqi troops out of Kuwait back in 1991!
This isn't Bush/Cheney paranoia, this was also a concern to Bill Clinton as well. It's just that Clinton wasn't going to attack Iraq unless it did something to the US again!
George W. Bush didn't want to take that risk!
However, mistakes were made!
Within George W. Bush's administration, there were disagreements about how to do it!
Collin Powell said we would need a large amount of troops to invade, then keep the peace after the fall of Hussein! Eric Shinseki said the same thing to Congress!
However, Donald Rumsfeld said we didn't that many troops in Iraq to get the job done!
Unfortunately, Bush took the advice of Rumsfeld instead of Powell.
So while overthrowing Hussein was easy, keeping the peace was difficult. The Sunnis & Shiites were fighting over control of Iraq. Meanwhile, militants from outside of Iraq were pouring in! It got to the point where people thought the USA would loose Iraq like it did in Vietnam!
Bush realized too late that Powell & Shinseki were right all along! Bush should've sent an overwhelming force in the beginning to keep things under control!
It was only in late 2006 when Bush decided to have a "surge" in the amount of US troops in Iraq! That dramatically improved the situation in Iraq!
Too bad it didn't happen earlier, or lives would've been saved!
It would've also made stabilizing Afghanistan easier had the surge in Iraq happened earlier!
For more read:
Condi On the Record
Barack Obama is lucky he isn't inheriting Saddam Hussein.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904339882300339.html?mod=rss_Potomac_Watch
3) Hurricane Katrina
While Bush was facing controversy and dwindling support over his Iraqi strategy, it wasn't enough for Kerry to defeat Bush in 2004!
However, in the following year, a storm hit Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama! It was Hurricane Katrina.
The emergency response was slow and people were dying. Images were broadcast worldwide!
This is what even former Bush advisers said damaged Bush's legacy forever!
And for the ultimate kill, rapper Kanye West said "George Bush doesn't care about black people"! It was an inaccurate statement, but many people went along with it, and Bush's public support never recovered!
The failure in the recovery after Hurricane Katrina was NOT due to racism. People of various racial groups were dying! The failure from Bush was 1) hiring inexperienced people to run FEMA, and 2) being slow to understand that the hurricane hitting New Orleans comes with worse PR than a hurricane hitting Florida
Bush's hiring of Micheal Brown to run FEMA was one of the worst decisions any President could make. Brown had ZERO experience in dealing with a massive natural disaster! Managing an emergency response to a major natural disaster is a high-stress job that requires knowing what to do, making fast decisions, and knowing who needs what! This was something Brown never experience before running FEMA!
Choosing someone to run FEMA shouldn't be based on political connections. It should be based on experience in saving massive amounts of lives after a major emergency! This is the one mistake Bush would never recover from!
Meanwhile, had the hurricane hit Florida, it wouldn't come with the same PR embarrassments as if it hit Louisiana. Florida, despite whatever flaws it may have, doesn't have the level of corruption & government incompetence that was common in Louisiana.
Florida has been hit by so many hurricanes, that the state government has many people experienced in dealing with such things!
However,the state government of Louisiana and city government of New Orleans has been corrupt for decades. People are hired more based on political connections rather than competence! This has been true no matter what political party has been running Louisiana!
Louisiana also had corrupt law enforcement, high poverty and high crime rate! Helping this state recover from a hurricane is more chaotic than helping Florida!
So massive mistakes were also made @ the city and state level when it came to helping New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina!
There were school buses that were in the parking lot sitting un-used! The mayor could've ordered them to be used to evacuate people! HE DIDN'T DO SO! The mayor later regretted not doing so!
But because the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans were both Democrats, they didn't get a strong backlash that Bush got!
Also, because the mayor of New Orleans is of African-American ancestry, Kanye West didn't go after him like he did Bush!
Look, the people at all 3 levels (city,state, federal) all needed to be held responsible for the failure of the recovery of New Orleans!
Another hurricane hit New Orleans in 2008, while the governor was different, the mayor & president were the same as in 2005. While the damage wasn't so bad, the mayor and the president were able to learn from experience and managed the recovery better this time!
Meanwhile, Kentucky recently suffered a snow storm!
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131528.html
The ice storm that slammed the American mid-south in the last weekend of January and then moved onward to the East Coast has left an estimated 1.3 million people without power. And nowhere was hit harder than Kentucky, where some 700,000 people lost electricity and 24 deaths were attributed to the storm. Yet President Barack Obama only declared the state a major disaster area this week. What took so long? Where is the presidential compassion for the victims of this tremendous disaster?
The answer is that nothing is wrong and President Obama surely feels for each and every person hurt or put out by the storm. The reality is that even after the emergency management reforms allegedly implemented after Hurricane Katrina, help from far-off Washington still does little in times of fast-moving crisis. This view may be heresy in the age of federal bailouts, but it is still true.
4) The Economy
Many on the Left blamed the economic downfall on Bush!
But was it all Bush's fault? Maybe some of it was, but the Democrats aren't blameless!
Remember back in 2001, everyone thought the economy would die after 9/11. It actually recovered.
It wasn't until 2007-2008 when the economy went down again!
Part of it was rising oil prices (many Democrats didn't want to help the supply part by increasing offshore drilling, the same thing done in liberal European countries like the UK & Norway), rising food prices (caused partially by Midwest politicians of both parties demanding the corn supply be funnelled from the food supply to ethanol supply)!
But what really killed the economy was the housing & investment bubbles bursting!
Part of the reason many real estate related business went down was because many liberal Democrats in Congress pressured them to give loans to people who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for them!
Look, in most cases, when banks lend $$$, they want to make those receiving the loan can pay it back! Otherwise, the bank looses $$$! This is basic economics.
But in the so-called interest of so-called "social justice", many Democrats wanted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other mortgage lenders to lend more $$$ to low-income people. However, those same low-income people couldn't re-pay those loans. Because of that, many of them got kicked out of their houses that they just moved in, houses they couldn't afford in the first place!
After the housing bubble bursts, many conservative & libertarian pundits pointed out too many loans were being given to those who couldn't afford them. Many liberal pundits abused the race card by calling those non-leftist pundits "racists"!
Look, what I consider racist, is conning thousands of ethnic minorities into taking loans they couldn't afford. What I also consider racist is covering up for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac until it was too late! That's what Congressional Democrats like Chris Dodd & Barney Frank did!
So what did Bush do? He tried to something about The failures of Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, but was blocked the mostly Democrat Congress!
From former Bush advisor Karl Rove
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush's goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.
The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government privilege. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn't be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off.
4) Race Relations
Back to Kanye West's nonsense comment "George Bush doesn't care about black people".
I already noted that the crappy emergency response had A LOT to do with the incompetence of city/state/federal emergency response officials. It has NOTHING to with "racism".
Someone should ask Kanye West which president hired USA's first 2 secretary of states of African-American ancestry? Answer: George W. Bush
Bush trusted the USA's national security & diplomatic powers to Collin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. In other words, Bush trusted 2 African-Americans with our national security!
This is the total opposite of what Kanye West thinks!
Bush also hired a Mexican-American to run the Justice Department, Asian-Americans to run our Transportation & Labor Department!
In fact, Bush tried to help the Republican Party reach out to non-whites!
Bush's experience as the governor of Texas informed him that the Republican Party can't survive much longer if it's just a "white man's party"! While Texas is known for having many evangelical Christians, energy sector workers and gun-owners (all of which makes Texas mostly Republican). Bush understood that the Republicans shouldn't alienate the state's growing Mexican-American population!
During the 1990's, the California Republicans tried to gain support by riling up anti-Mexican immigrant sentiments. They shot themselves in the foot because though they won in 1994, it only motivated many Latino non-voters into becoming voters, and motivated Latino immigrants to finally take their US citizenship tests! This hurt the California Republics BIG TIME!
Bush understood that immigrant bashing is a bad strategy in the long-run! He wanted to modernize the Republican Party by welcoming non-whites instead of bashing them!
Back in 2000, Bush tried to increase the support of non-whites! He not only reached out to Latinos, he also recruited African-American preachers to recruit African-Americans, and made the Republican convention more diverse.
While Bush was unsuccessful in getting major African-American support in 2000, and it only increased in tiny amounts in 2004, he had a lot more success in gaining Latino voters. Bob Dole only 21% Latino support in 1996. Bush got 35% in 2000 and 45% in 2004!
However, in 2007 some Republicans still wanted to bash immigrants for votes! McCain took the Bush route and was pro-immigration!
However, the economic downturn in 2008 made voters of all races reluctant to support the Republicans, so McCain only got 35% Latino support as well as 35% Asian support!
5) "Morality Issues"
Issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and drug policy is what keeps me from being a Republican, even though I defended Bush on other issues!
I think abortion is a personal decision, and government should stay out of it! Bush interfered too much on this issue!
While Bush didn't say anything viciously anti-gay like many in his party did, I still think his "marriage should be between a man & a woman" to be condescending!
As for drug policy, his militaristic policy on illegal drugs, while no different from Bill Clinton's policy, is counter-productive.
While marijuana does have side effects and shouldn't be sold to minors, some people have benefited from the pain-relieving effects! I think adults should decide for themselves what side effects they can risk!
I think the feds using major artillery against marijuana growers is stupid and counter-productive! Obama hinted at changing this, but so far, hasn't used his speaking talents on this issue!
Also, Bush's militaristic drug war alienated many in Latin America, helping the cause of leftist leaders like Evo Morales of Bolivia. While I think Morales is too socialist, he had a point in mentioning that the US sponsorship of using heavy artillery against cocoa growers made the situation worse!
6) Size of Government
It grew under Bush, who claimed to be for smaller government!
His bailouts has only encouraged Obama to make more bailouts, more deficit spending!
If Bush believed in smaller government, he should've expressed his thoughts on this more! But I guess the red states are just as dependent on government spending as blue states. The red states just want government spending to come with religious rhetoric, whereas blue states want government spending to come with secular rhetoric!
For more read
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131264.html
George W. Bush has certainly taught us that government really can't be trusted to be very effective, or open, or smart. He has also taught us that government can always get bigger on every level and every way. It's a sad lesson that we'll be learning for many years to come.
Meanwhile, liberals would be happpy when a president spends more tax $$$ on AIDS relief, education, and Medicare, right? Bush DID ALL OF THAT AND MORE!
7) Conclusion
There's a lot more that could be written about the George W. Bush presidency.
While he made some serious mistakes, I don't think he's the "root of all evil"! I came to the same conclusion at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and I'll most likely say the same thing if I live to see the end of Barack Obama's presidency!
But these blog posts take hours to write & edit, and I don't always have the time! Today I do!
Plus, it's easier to write legacy post after it's over than just before it's over like many pundits did!
----
What is the legacy of President George W. Bush?
Like many presidents, some of his decisions benefited the USA, while others were counter-productive and made some things worse!
Many on the Radical Left think of Bush as the root of all evil in the world! That's ridiculous!
While Bush made some wrong decisions, he's not the root of all evil in the world. In fact, he attempted to protect us from the real evil of the world -- people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il.
Let's go over the many aspects of the George W. Bush presidency
1)War on Terror
Many on the Radical Left blame 9/11 on Bush! It would've happened no matter who was president. After all, terrorist incidents happened in the Clinton years too!
But it's got nothing to do with Clinton or Bush!
There are people out there who want to inflict terror on this world.
A lot of those people are Radical Muslims!
They want the whole world to submit to their ultra-conservative Islam, and if it means using extreme violence, they'll do it and they did it!
Attacking Al Qaida bases in Afghanistan showed the world that we refuse to be submissive & soft in the face of Radical Islamic terror!
While the federal government was unable to stop the 9/11 attacks, it was able to protect us from extra terrorist attacks since then! Let's give Bush at least some credit here!
From Thomas Sowell
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011609.php3
President Bush's number one achievement was also the number one function of government— to protect its citizens. Nobody on September 11, 2001 believed that there would never be another such attack for more than seven years.
Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks.
2) The war on Iraq
While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, there was a concern that Hussein wanted to violently retaliate against the US for kicking Iraqi troops out of Kuwait back in 1991!
This isn't Bush/Cheney paranoia, this was also a concern to Bill Clinton as well. It's just that Clinton wasn't going to attack Iraq unless it did something to the US again!
George W. Bush didn't want to take that risk!
However, mistakes were made!
Within George W. Bush's administration, there were disagreements about how to do it!
Collin Powell said we would need a large amount of troops to invade, then keep the peace after the fall of Hussein! Eric Shinseki said the same thing to Congress!
However, Donald Rumsfeld said we didn't that many troops in Iraq to get the job done!
Unfortunately, Bush took the advice of Rumsfeld instead of Powell.
So while overthrowing Hussein was easy, keeping the peace was difficult. The Sunnis & Shiites were fighting over control of Iraq. Meanwhile, militants from outside of Iraq were pouring in! It got to the point where people thought the USA would loose Iraq like it did in Vietnam!
Bush realized too late that Powell & Shinseki were right all along! Bush should've sent an overwhelming force in the beginning to keep things under control!
It was only in late 2006 when Bush decided to have a "surge" in the amount of US troops in Iraq! That dramatically improved the situation in Iraq!
Too bad it didn't happen earlier, or lives would've been saved!
It would've also made stabilizing Afghanistan easier had the surge in Iraq happened earlier!
For more read:
Condi On the Record
Barack Obama is lucky he isn't inheriting Saddam Hussein.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904339882300339.html?mod=rss_Potomac_Watch
3) Hurricane Katrina
While Bush was facing controversy and dwindling support over his Iraqi strategy, it wasn't enough for Kerry to defeat Bush in 2004!
However, in the following year, a storm hit Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama! It was Hurricane Katrina.
The emergency response was slow and people were dying. Images were broadcast worldwide!
This is what even former Bush advisers said damaged Bush's legacy forever!
And for the ultimate kill, rapper Kanye West said "George Bush doesn't care about black people"! It was an inaccurate statement, but many people went along with it, and Bush's public support never recovered!
The failure in the recovery after Hurricane Katrina was NOT due to racism. People of various racial groups were dying! The failure from Bush was 1) hiring inexperienced people to run FEMA, and 2) being slow to understand that the hurricane hitting New Orleans comes with worse PR than a hurricane hitting Florida
Bush's hiring of Micheal Brown to run FEMA was one of the worst decisions any President could make. Brown had ZERO experience in dealing with a massive natural disaster! Managing an emergency response to a major natural disaster is a high-stress job that requires knowing what to do, making fast decisions, and knowing who needs what! This was something Brown never experience before running FEMA!
Choosing someone to run FEMA shouldn't be based on political connections. It should be based on experience in saving massive amounts of lives after a major emergency! This is the one mistake Bush would never recover from!
Meanwhile, had the hurricane hit Florida, it wouldn't come with the same PR embarrassments as if it hit Louisiana. Florida, despite whatever flaws it may have, doesn't have the level of corruption & government incompetence that was common in Louisiana.
Florida has been hit by so many hurricanes, that the state government has many people experienced in dealing with such things!
However,the state government of Louisiana and city government of New Orleans has been corrupt for decades. People are hired more based on political connections rather than competence! This has been true no matter what political party has been running Louisiana!
Louisiana also had corrupt law enforcement, high poverty and high crime rate! Helping this state recover from a hurricane is more chaotic than helping Florida!
So massive mistakes were also made @ the city and state level when it came to helping New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina!
There were school buses that were in the parking lot sitting un-used! The mayor could've ordered them to be used to evacuate people! HE DIDN'T DO SO! The mayor later regretted not doing so!
But because the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans were both Democrats, they didn't get a strong backlash that Bush got!
Also, because the mayor of New Orleans is of African-American ancestry, Kanye West didn't go after him like he did Bush!
Look, the people at all 3 levels (city,state, federal) all needed to be held responsible for the failure of the recovery of New Orleans!
Another hurricane hit New Orleans in 2008, while the governor was different, the mayor & president were the same as in 2005. While the damage wasn't so bad, the mayor and the president were able to learn from experience and managed the recovery better this time!
Meanwhile, Kentucky recently suffered a snow storm!
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131528.html
The ice storm that slammed the American mid-south in the last weekend of January and then moved onward to the East Coast has left an estimated 1.3 million people without power. And nowhere was hit harder than Kentucky, where some 700,000 people lost electricity and 24 deaths were attributed to the storm. Yet President Barack Obama only declared the state a major disaster area this week. What took so long? Where is the presidential compassion for the victims of this tremendous disaster?
The answer is that nothing is wrong and President Obama surely feels for each and every person hurt or put out by the storm. The reality is that even after the emergency management reforms allegedly implemented after Hurricane Katrina, help from far-off Washington still does little in times of fast-moving crisis. This view may be heresy in the age of federal bailouts, but it is still true.
4) The Economy
Many on the Left blamed the economic downfall on Bush!
But was it all Bush's fault? Maybe some of it was, but the Democrats aren't blameless!
Remember back in 2001, everyone thought the economy would die after 9/11. It actually recovered.
It wasn't until 2007-2008 when the economy went down again!
Part of it was rising oil prices (many Democrats didn't want to help the supply part by increasing offshore drilling, the same thing done in liberal European countries like the UK & Norway), rising food prices (caused partially by Midwest politicians of both parties demanding the corn supply be funnelled from the food supply to ethanol supply)!
But what really killed the economy was the housing & investment bubbles bursting!
Part of the reason many real estate related business went down was because many liberal Democrats in Congress pressured them to give loans to people who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for them!
Look, in most cases, when banks lend $$$, they want to make those receiving the loan can pay it back! Otherwise, the bank looses $$$! This is basic economics.
But in the so-called interest of so-called "social justice", many Democrats wanted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other mortgage lenders to lend more $$$ to low-income people. However, those same low-income people couldn't re-pay those loans. Because of that, many of them got kicked out of their houses that they just moved in, houses they couldn't afford in the first place!
After the housing bubble bursts, many conservative & libertarian pundits pointed out too many loans were being given to those who couldn't afford them. Many liberal pundits abused the race card by calling those non-leftist pundits "racists"!
Look, what I consider racist, is conning thousands of ethnic minorities into taking loans they couldn't afford. What I also consider racist is covering up for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac until it was too late! That's what Congressional Democrats like Chris Dodd & Barney Frank did!
So what did Bush do? He tried to something about The failures of Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, but was blocked the mostly Democrat Congress!
From former Bush advisor Karl Rove
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush's goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.
The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government privilege. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn't be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off.
4) Race Relations
Back to Kanye West's nonsense comment "George Bush doesn't care about black people".
I already noted that the crappy emergency response had A LOT to do with the incompetence of city/state/federal emergency response officials. It has NOTHING to with "racism".
Someone should ask Kanye West which president hired USA's first 2 secretary of states of African-American ancestry? Answer: George W. Bush
Bush trusted the USA's national security & diplomatic powers to Collin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. In other words, Bush trusted 2 African-Americans with our national security!
This is the total opposite of what Kanye West thinks!
Bush also hired a Mexican-American to run the Justice Department, Asian-Americans to run our Transportation & Labor Department!
In fact, Bush tried to help the Republican Party reach out to non-whites!
Bush's experience as the governor of Texas informed him that the Republican Party can't survive much longer if it's just a "white man's party"! While Texas is known for having many evangelical Christians, energy sector workers and gun-owners (all of which makes Texas mostly Republican). Bush understood that the Republicans shouldn't alienate the state's growing Mexican-American population!
During the 1990's, the California Republicans tried to gain support by riling up anti-Mexican immigrant sentiments. They shot themselves in the foot because though they won in 1994, it only motivated many Latino non-voters into becoming voters, and motivated Latino immigrants to finally take their US citizenship tests! This hurt the California Republics BIG TIME!
Bush understood that immigrant bashing is a bad strategy in the long-run! He wanted to modernize the Republican Party by welcoming non-whites instead of bashing them!
Back in 2000, Bush tried to increase the support of non-whites! He not only reached out to Latinos, he also recruited African-American preachers to recruit African-Americans, and made the Republican convention more diverse.
While Bush was unsuccessful in getting major African-American support in 2000, and it only increased in tiny amounts in 2004, he had a lot more success in gaining Latino voters. Bob Dole only 21% Latino support in 1996. Bush got 35% in 2000 and 45% in 2004!
However, in 2007 some Republicans still wanted to bash immigrants for votes! McCain took the Bush route and was pro-immigration!
However, the economic downturn in 2008 made voters of all races reluctant to support the Republicans, so McCain only got 35% Latino support as well as 35% Asian support!
5) "Morality Issues"
Issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and drug policy is what keeps me from being a Republican, even though I defended Bush on other issues!
I think abortion is a personal decision, and government should stay out of it! Bush interfered too much on this issue!
While Bush didn't say anything viciously anti-gay like many in his party did, I still think his "marriage should be between a man & a woman" to be condescending!
As for drug policy, his militaristic policy on illegal drugs, while no different from Bill Clinton's policy, is counter-productive.
While marijuana does have side effects and shouldn't be sold to minors, some people have benefited from the pain-relieving effects! I think adults should decide for themselves what side effects they can risk!
I think the feds using major artillery against marijuana growers is stupid and counter-productive! Obama hinted at changing this, but so far, hasn't used his speaking talents on this issue!
Also, Bush's militaristic drug war alienated many in Latin America, helping the cause of leftist leaders like Evo Morales of Bolivia. While I think Morales is too socialist, he had a point in mentioning that the US sponsorship of using heavy artillery against cocoa growers made the situation worse!
6) Size of Government
It grew under Bush, who claimed to be for smaller government!
His bailouts has only encouraged Obama to make more bailouts, more deficit spending!
If Bush believed in smaller government, he should've expressed his thoughts on this more! But I guess the red states are just as dependent on government spending as blue states. The red states just want government spending to come with religious rhetoric, whereas blue states want government spending to come with secular rhetoric!
For more read
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131264.html
George W. Bush has certainly taught us that government really can't be trusted to be very effective, or open, or smart. He has also taught us that government can always get bigger on every level and every way. It's a sad lesson that we'll be learning for many years to come.
Meanwhile, liberals would be happpy when a president spends more tax $$$ on AIDS relief, education, and Medicare, right? Bush DID ALL OF THAT AND MORE!
7) Conclusion
There's a lot more that could be written about the George W. Bush presidency.
While he made some serious mistakes, I don't think he's the "root of all evil"! I came to the same conclusion at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and I'll most likely say the same thing if I live to see the end of Barack Obama's presidency!
Friday, January 30, 2009
2nd post of 2009
So many opinions, not enough time to go over them
1) Obama's inauguration.His oath was shown live on TV 7am Hawaii time. That happens to be the same time so many people here tend to be stuck in rush hour traffic, so not everyone got to see the 1st Hawaii-born President take the oath!
As for me, after Obama took the oath of office, I had to leave home or I would've been late for work.
However, the bus I took that morning was so fast(most days I'm not so lucky), when I walked into the school's office, the worker's computers were playing Obama's inaugural speech live!
Also, on the bus ride, I passed by the apartment building where Obama's grandma lived until her death. I could see downstairs, people huddled around a TV!
I got to see the re-runs of the whole thing live in the afternoon!
It was history in the making
2) Where was I on 11/4/2008, when it was announced Obama won the Election?
I was at home @ 6pm Hawaii time. I was watching several stations to see how they covered the results.
The TV was on Fox, and I was about to wash the dishes.
Then Sheppard Smith made a special alert! Barack Obama was going to be President Elect!
Obviously, the dishes waited a few hours as I watch history unfold @ Chicago, Phoenix (McCain's concession speech) as I watched pundits on Fox, NBC, and CBS discuss the results
3) Earlier this decade, some on the Left claimed requiring IDs for voting is "disenfranchising minorities" . (Nevermind that the most non-white state, Hawaii, required voters to show ID -- without a problem)
The results are in --- States with voter ID seen INCREASED turnouts in the polls!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html
The two states with the strictest voter ID requirements are Indiana and Georgia. Both require a government-issued photo ID. According to figures released by Prof. Michael McDonald of George Mason University, the overall national turnout of eligible voters was 61.6%, the highest turnout since the 1964 election.
(skipped paragraphs)
So what happened in Georgia where the ACLU, the NAACP and other such groups claimed the state's photo ID law was intended to depress black turnout? According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.
(skipped paragraphs)
The claim that Republican legislatures in Georgia and Indiana passed voter ID to depress Democratic turnout is demonstrably false. But even if it were true, they obviously failed miserably to achieve that objective given the huge increases in Democratic and minority turnout in both states.
I guess liberals will now claim that their historic increases in turnout would have been even higher if not for voter ID laws. But that would be an absurd argument, given the states' performance in comparison to other states without voter ID laws.
With every election that has occurred since states have begun to implement voter ID, the evidence is overwhelming that it does not depress the turnout of voters. Indeed, it may actually increase the public's confidence that their votes will count.
--
If you're truly dedicated to voting, you would get your ID's. Sure getting an ID can be an inconvenience, since you might have to take time away from work. But MILLIONS of Americans of all races have done it! In the bigger scheme of things, it's not the most difficult thing in the world
4) I'm running out of time! Have a nice day
1) Obama's inauguration.His oath was shown live on TV 7am Hawaii time. That happens to be the same time so many people here tend to be stuck in rush hour traffic, so not everyone got to see the 1st Hawaii-born President take the oath!
As for me, after Obama took the oath of office, I had to leave home or I would've been late for work.
However, the bus I took that morning was so fast(most days I'm not so lucky), when I walked into the school's office, the worker's computers were playing Obama's inaugural speech live!
Also, on the bus ride, I passed by the apartment building where Obama's grandma lived until her death. I could see downstairs, people huddled around a TV!
I got to see the re-runs of the whole thing live in the afternoon!
It was history in the making
2) Where was I on 11/4/2008, when it was announced Obama won the Election?
I was at home @ 6pm Hawaii time. I was watching several stations to see how they covered the results.
The TV was on Fox, and I was about to wash the dishes.
Then Sheppard Smith made a special alert! Barack Obama was going to be President Elect!
Obviously, the dishes waited a few hours as I watch history unfold @ Chicago, Phoenix (McCain's concession speech) as I watched pundits on Fox, NBC, and CBS discuss the results
3) Earlier this decade, some on the Left claimed requiring IDs for voting is "disenfranchising minorities" . (Nevermind that the most non-white state, Hawaii, required voters to show ID -- without a problem)
The results are in --- States with voter ID seen INCREASED turnouts in the polls!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html
The two states with the strictest voter ID requirements are Indiana and Georgia. Both require a government-issued photo ID. According to figures released by Prof. Michael McDonald of George Mason University, the overall national turnout of eligible voters was 61.6%, the highest turnout since the 1964 election.
(skipped paragraphs)
So what happened in Georgia where the ACLU, the NAACP and other such groups claimed the state's photo ID law was intended to depress black turnout? According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.
(skipped paragraphs)
The claim that Republican legislatures in Georgia and Indiana passed voter ID to depress Democratic turnout is demonstrably false. But even if it were true, they obviously failed miserably to achieve that objective given the huge increases in Democratic and minority turnout in both states.
I guess liberals will now claim that their historic increases in turnout would have been even higher if not for voter ID laws. But that would be an absurd argument, given the states' performance in comparison to other states without voter ID laws.
With every election that has occurred since states have begun to implement voter ID, the evidence is overwhelming that it does not depress the turnout of voters. Indeed, it may actually increase the public's confidence that their votes will count.
--
If you're truly dedicated to voting, you would get your ID's. Sure getting an ID can be an inconvenience, since you might have to take time away from work. But MILLIONS of Americans of all races have done it! In the bigger scheme of things, it's not the most difficult thing in the world
4) I'm running out of time! Have a nice day
Friday, January 16, 2009
1st post of 2009
Busy month, only now I'm posting in 2009
A few quick things
1) College football championship? Officially, it's the University of Florida! (and Hawaii had the honors of being the 1st opponent of the eventual "champions")
However, there's no playoff system for Division 1-A college football!
Utah was the only undefeated team in 2008! However, they're not in a "major conference"!
Southern California & Texas also have just 1 loss, just like Florida!
There's no playoffs, since the colleges make more $$$ from the bowls. Plus, bowl games like the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sun Bowl, and Cotton Bowl are traditions many don't want to give up!
However, it's not a real championship if it doesn't come with a playoff
2) Some parents are paranoid about their children playing with Barbies & Bratz
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/01/10/barbie/index.html
I responded to such paranoia, and most of those commenting within the following link agree -- LET THE CHILDREN HAVE A CHILDHOOD!
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/01/10/barbie/view/?show=all
Enjoy!
3) Israel & Gaza
I could spend more time commenting on this issue, but here's a short version
In 2005, the Palestinian Authority gotten full control of Gaza Strip!
Hamas ended getting elected to run Gaza!
Were their goals to make Gaza a prosperous place for it's future generations? NO!
Their goals was to get the Jews out of Israel! So they declared war on Israel, using Palestinian civilians as human shields!
Look, when Mexico became independent from Spain, Mexico didn't launch attacks on Spain!
When Algeria became independent from France, they didn't launch attacks on France! And this was after an 8 year war of independence. But the Algerian leaders understood that they won, and it was now their time to control their destiny!
When Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, he didn't launch attacks on Europe!
Whereas the Hamas demanded all Jews leave Gaza (as well as all of Israel), Mandela took a different route! Mandela encouraged descendants of European conquerors to stick around and help make South Africa a better place!
The Hamas had a chance to make Gaza a land of prosperity! They don't care about that!
Here's a great commentary on all this
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011309.php3
4) If the Palestinian community had it's version of Martin Luther King Jr, they would've likely gotten control of West Bank too!
Look, if Martin Luther King Jr. didn't have nonviolent protests, Barack Obama wouldn't be president in a few days!
Does anyone believe that had the African-American community sent suicide bombers to European-American hang-out spots, (which is what Hamas does to Jewish hang-out spots in Israel) that we would be having Obama as the next president?
That would've made the European-American community more paranoid!
Even the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and other similar groups didn't go that far!
Having Martin Luther King and his supporters showing restraint, showed European-Americans that they don't have to be afraid of African-Americans!
With the various African-American mayors, CEO's, as well as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Micheal Jordan, Tiger Woods, the whole Motown family, it made many non-blacks comfortable with African-Americans.
Even though most African-Americans didn't vote for George W. Bush, he appointed 2 African-American Secretary of States -- Collin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. He trusted our national security with African-Americans. That made many Americans comfortable with African-Americans in power.
I'll go as far as saying that Bush appointing Powell and Rice, made US Americans comfortable with the idea of voting for someone of African ancestry to be President!
Imagine had the Palestinian movement took the Martin Luther King route! Israel could've gotten it's 1st Palestinian president by now!
Happy Martin Luther King weekend and remember to watch Obama's inauguration if you can!
A few quick things
1) College football championship? Officially, it's the University of Florida! (and Hawaii had the honors of being the 1st opponent of the eventual "champions")
However, there's no playoff system for Division 1-A college football!
Utah was the only undefeated team in 2008! However, they're not in a "major conference"!
Southern California & Texas also have just 1 loss, just like Florida!
There's no playoffs, since the colleges make more $$$ from the bowls. Plus, bowl games like the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sun Bowl, and Cotton Bowl are traditions many don't want to give up!
However, it's not a real championship if it doesn't come with a playoff
2) Some parents are paranoid about their children playing with Barbies & Bratz
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/01/10/barbie/index.html
I responded to such paranoia, and most of those commenting within the following link agree -- LET THE CHILDREN HAVE A CHILDHOOD!
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/01/10/barbie/view/?show=all
Enjoy!
3) Israel & Gaza
I could spend more time commenting on this issue, but here's a short version
In 2005, the Palestinian Authority gotten full control of Gaza Strip!
Hamas ended getting elected to run Gaza!
Were their goals to make Gaza a prosperous place for it's future generations? NO!
Their goals was to get the Jews out of Israel! So they declared war on Israel, using Palestinian civilians as human shields!
Look, when Mexico became independent from Spain, Mexico didn't launch attacks on Spain!
When Algeria became independent from France, they didn't launch attacks on France! And this was after an 8 year war of independence. But the Algerian leaders understood that they won, and it was now their time to control their destiny!
When Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, he didn't launch attacks on Europe!
Whereas the Hamas demanded all Jews leave Gaza (as well as all of Israel), Mandela took a different route! Mandela encouraged descendants of European conquerors to stick around and help make South Africa a better place!
The Hamas had a chance to make Gaza a land of prosperity! They don't care about that!
Here's a great commentary on all this
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011309.php3
Why don't the Palestinians vote for some representatives who would make a lasting peace with Israel? Because any such candidates would be killed by the terrorists long before election day, so nobody volunteers for that dangerous role.
We don't know what the Palestinians really want — and won't know as long as they are ruled by Hamas, Hezbollah and the like.
Whatever the benefits of peace for the Palestinian population, what are the terrorists going to do in peacetime? Become librarians and furniture salesmen?
So-called "world opinion" has been a largely negative factor in this situation. Nothing is easier than for people living in peace and safety in Paris or Rome to call for a "cease fire" after the Israelis retaliate against people who are firing rockets into their country.
4) If the Palestinian community had it's version of Martin Luther King Jr, they would've likely gotten control of West Bank too!
Look, if Martin Luther King Jr. didn't have nonviolent protests, Barack Obama wouldn't be president in a few days!
Does anyone believe that had the African-American community sent suicide bombers to European-American hang-out spots, (which is what Hamas does to Jewish hang-out spots in Israel) that we would be having Obama as the next president?
That would've made the European-American community more paranoid!
Even the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and other similar groups didn't go that far!
Having Martin Luther King and his supporters showing restraint, showed European-Americans that they don't have to be afraid of African-Americans!
With the various African-American mayors, CEO's, as well as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Micheal Jordan, Tiger Woods, the whole Motown family, it made many non-blacks comfortable with African-Americans.
Even though most African-Americans didn't vote for George W. Bush, he appointed 2 African-American Secretary of States -- Collin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. He trusted our national security with African-Americans. That made many Americans comfortable with African-Americans in power.
I'll go as far as saying that Bush appointing Powell and Rice, made US Americans comfortable with the idea of voting for someone of African ancestry to be President!
Imagine had the Palestinian movement took the Martin Luther King route! Israel could've gotten it's 1st Palestinian president by now!
Happy Martin Luther King weekend and remember to watch Obama's inauguration if you can!
Saturday, December 27, 2008
UH sports update
1) Usually, Hawaii Bowl games are usually close
However, this past Hawaii Bowl was like last year's Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii got smashed, and its QB got sacked 8 times!
Meanwhile, the Notre Dame offense came alive!
Due to the inexperience of the offense, Notre Dame didn't live up to the hype during the regular season.
However, they did so well that they made their usually grumpy head coach smile
Being that most of those players will be back next year, Notre Dame should be able to become great again!
As for Hawaii, hopefully they'll be able to protect their QB a lot better next year! The offensive line was once the pride of UH football! However, they fell on hard times recently. Hopefully, they become the pride of UH football next season.
Most of this year's UH defensive starters are done this year! It will be re-building year for the UH defense in 2009!
Meanwhile, after all the coaching changes of the past year, and the loss of last year's QB & recievers -- UH still was able to make it to a bowl game!
2) UH women's volleyball didn't make it to the Finals this year.
4 seniors have now moved on!
Hopefully, the younger players can pick it up and bring UH women's volleyball back to the glory days of the 1980's!
AS for the men's volleyball team, it hit it's low last year. Can it go back to the glory days of the 1990's and early 2000's?
3) Basketball
The men's basketball team struggled early this season, but they seem to be coming together as a team!
Unfortunately, the women's basketball team has fallen on hard times!
Their coach, Jim Bolla has a reputation for being over-aggressive in his coaching style! It doesn't seem to be helping! If nothing improves this season, he might need to be replaced!
However, this past Hawaii Bowl was like last year's Sugar Bowl -- Hawaii got smashed, and its QB got sacked 8 times!
Meanwhile, the Notre Dame offense came alive!
Due to the inexperience of the offense, Notre Dame didn't live up to the hype during the regular season.
However, they did so well that they made their usually grumpy head coach smile
Being that most of those players will be back next year, Notre Dame should be able to become great again!
As for Hawaii, hopefully they'll be able to protect their QB a lot better next year! The offensive line was once the pride of UH football! However, they fell on hard times recently. Hopefully, they become the pride of UH football next season.
Most of this year's UH defensive starters are done this year! It will be re-building year for the UH defense in 2009!
Meanwhile, after all the coaching changes of the past year, and the loss of last year's QB & recievers -- UH still was able to make it to a bowl game!
2) UH women's volleyball didn't make it to the Finals this year.
4 seniors have now moved on!
Hopefully, the younger players can pick it up and bring UH women's volleyball back to the glory days of the 1980's!
AS for the men's volleyball team, it hit it's low last year. Can it go back to the glory days of the 1990's and early 2000's?
3) Basketball
The men's basketball team struggled early this season, but they seem to be coming together as a team!
Unfortunately, the women's basketball team has fallen on hard times!
Their coach, Jim Bolla has a reputation for being over-aggressive in his coaching style! It doesn't seem to be helping! If nothing improves this season, he might need to be replaced!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Police Can't Protect You Everytime
The gun control fanatics like to say "you don't need a gun, the police are there to protect you!"
But the police aren't perfect! They're not robots that appear at any moment of trouble! They're people with flaws, just like you & me! They can't save us in an instant!
Whenever there is a riot or a shooting spree, the police don't always do the most honorable thing!
Sometimes, the police back down in danger, and watch passively as things get out of hand!
1) It happened in last month's Mumbai shootings!
A media photographer Sebastian D'Souza said this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece
But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."
The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
To all you gun control fanatics who keep saying "you don't need guns, the police are here to protect us" READ THE 2 PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS AGAIN!
The police in Mumbai DID NOTHING even when the shootings were going on! They were just standing around! It was after plenty died, and hours passed when they finally did something!
It's not just Mumbai 2008! It's also Greece 2008, New Orleans 2005, and Los Angeles 1992!
The incident that was shown most on the TV news was the brutal attack on European-American truck driver Reginald Denny! He was dragged out of the trucks and rioters were throwing rocks at his head!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Denny's life was saved only because other African-Americans in the area were outraged by the anit-white hate crime, got Denny out of the area and drove him to the hospital!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny
While the attack on Denny was seen as "blacks attacking whites", the MAJORITY of victims being attacked at the same time were Latinos & Asians!
In one case, Feild Lopez, a Guatemalan immigrant was dragged out of his car, brutally beaten and had his genitals spray-painted as his attackers laughed!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Lopez's life was saved only because Rev. Bennie Newton, an African American minister, got Lopez out of there and took him to the hospital!
The TV news showed chaos in the LA streets and noticed no cops were around!
This encouraged other gang members to loot & attack!
While the 1st few hours of the riots were dominated by African-American rioters, the Latino gangs were thinking to themselves "why should the blacks have all the fun? What the fuck are we waiting for, let's break some shit up?"
By the time the riots were over, most of those arrested were Latino!
Meanwhile, stores owned by Asians (in this case, mostly Koreans) were attacked, looted & burned by African-American & Latino rioters!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Some Korean-owned stores got saved ONLY because their owners were carrying shotguns and rifles! They knew the police weren't going to help, so they took the initiative to protect themselves!
To learn more about the LA riots, the social conditions in LA before the riots, and the police INACTION during the riots, I recommend reading "Official Negligence" by Lou Cannon! If it doesn't horrify you, then nothing will!
4) New Orleans 2005
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
Even before that, New Orleans had one of the highest murder rates, and one of the most corrupt police departments! Definitely not a stable place!
After Katrina hit New Orleans, gang members took advantage of the chaos by looting stores and beating up anyone who they didn't like or anyone who was vulnerable!
Meanwhile, in Algiers Point, a European-American neighborhood, there were hate crimes committed against African-Americans who happened to be in the area!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson?rel=hp_picks
Where were the police?
Some left the city, some committed suicide, some even joined the looting!
There weren't enough police to take control of the long-out-of-control city!
It was so bad, that the National Guard had to intervene just so those bringing in humanitarian supplies can come in without getting attacked by rioters!
The prisons were damaged, and they needed to make a makeshift prison to jail the looters!
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4163081.html
NEW ORLEANS - As looters filled the streets and shots rang out, the city's overmatched police knew that whatever other endeavors Hurricane Katrina brought to a halt, crime wasn't one of them.
After being criticized for allowing lawlessness to spiral out of control in the days immediately following the storm, police began arresting people but then ran into a new problem - where to put them. With New Orleans' jails flooded, a temporary holding facility was set up at the city's train and bus terminal.
It held only 30 prisoners by Monday, but that number was likely to swell if police from neighboring Jefferson Parish deliver inmates they had held the past few days.
(skip paragraphs)
The prisoners are separated according to crimes. Inside "Cell 3, felony," some two dozen men milled around. Nearly all had been brought in for looting. Any stolen property valued above $300 was being treated as a felony.
"Believe me, we reviewed every case carefully," said one corrections department official who asked that she not be identified because of safety concerns. "These are not people who stole food. They stole drugs from pharmacies or TVs from stores."
5) So we looked at 4 cases, involving different continents, different racial groups, involving different provoking factors!
In all those cases, the police either backed down or outnumbered!
Is your town's police any better! There's ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT! The only way to find out is when it's too late --- after a riot or shooting spree has started!
Until then, your police department can give out PR statements saying "we will protect our communities", but until chaos happpens, it's all just talk!
In any emergeny, in the first 48 hours, you're on your own!
That means the police aren't going to protect you from 1) those bigger & stronger than you, 2) those on drugs, 3) large mobs of people, 4) those who armed with weapons!
So to the gun-control fanatics, still want to tell me "we don't need guns, the police will protect us"?
6) Enough about the police, I want to discuss the Plaxico Burress case.
Burress is an NFL player who accidentally shot himself at a nightclub!
Gun safety isn't as easy as it looks on TV!
However, I'm irritated by many commentary on this case!
Many commentators say "Burress broke the law (on gun possession), lock him up!"
Here is David Koppel's response to such comments!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself. Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.
The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
AMEN Mr. Koppel
Also, I noticed many conservatives are silent on this!
They claimed to be outraged when Obama said rural European-Americans "cling to their guns" as reasons to oppose the Democrats! Yet, those same pundits SAY NOTHING when the NBA & NFL place gun-control policies on their players!
You think NASCAR could get away with having gun-control policies on their drivers? NO WAY!
Their drivers & fans (mostly European-Americans from the South) will protest loudly against such policies! NASCAR could NEVER get away with it!
Yet, the NBA & NFL, with many African-American players, get away with gun-control policies! Both leagues have the support of Manhattan/Hollywood/SanFran limousine liberals and they have the silent support of conservative pundits (the same ones offended by Obama's "cling to their guns" comments)
You noticed that many conservative pundits are also silent when African-American rappers are on trial for "illegal gun possession". They didn't speak up for Snoop Dogg, Sean Combs, or DMX when they were on trial for "illegal gun possession", the same laws conservative pundits PRETEND to dislike!
Someone needs to speak up on this!
It's not enough to be outraged when a limousine liberal celebrity bashes rural white gun-owners! As Obama's election showed, YOU CAN'T RELY ON WHITE VOTERS ALONE anymore! The NRA needs to reach out to non-whites! I already see non-whites at gun shows! Why not give them a bigger voice?
After all, the 1st gun control laws were bans on Native Americans & African-Americans from having guns. This allowed the KKK to attack minorities with impunity!
If the KKK was to try attack a large non-white community today, they would get shot at! Their white sheets would turn red from blood!
From an earlier-linked article on India's gun control laws
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122877201598989093.html
One of the big obstacles to gun liberalization in India is the fear that more guns will lead to more violence, given that India is a tinder box of sectarian tensions ready to erupt at the slightest provocation. In fact, more gun ownership -- especially by India's minorities -- might have a deterrent effect.
In 2002, in the Indian state of Gujarat, Hindu mobs brutally attacked Muslim villagers with impunity!
Imagine if the Muslim villagers were armed. The Hindu mobs couldn't attack the Muslim villagers with impunity!
But the police aren't perfect! They're not robots that appear at any moment of trouble! They're people with flaws, just like you & me! They can't save us in an instant!
Whenever there is a riot or a shooting spree, the police don't always do the most honorable thing!
Sometimes, the police back down in danger, and watch passively as things get out of hand!
1) It happened in last month's Mumbai shootings!
A media photographer Sebastian D'Souza said this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece
But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."
The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
To all you gun control fanatics who keep saying "you don't need guns, the police are here to protect us" READ THE 2 PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS AGAIN!
The police in Mumbai DID NOTHING even when the shootings were going on! They were just standing around! It was after plenty died, and hours passed when they finally did something!
India has one of the strictest gun control laws, but it didn't protect Mumbai at all
From Shikha Dalmia
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122877201598989093.html
After all, what was particularly infuriating about the Mumbai attacks was not just that the Indian government failed to prevent them, even though it had received repeated warnings. Nor was it their tragic death toll; Mumbai, after all, experienced worse in the coordinated series of bombings in 1993 and 2006. Rather, it was that had there been anything resembling meaningful resistance, the attackers never would have been able to stage the kind of spectacle they did. Before they holed up in the Taj and Oberoi Hotels, they seemed to operate with almost complete impunity, freely moving from one target to another.
(skip paragraphs)
But if the hotel staff could take bullets, the question is why couldn't they return them? The reason, as P.R.S. Oberoi, chairman of Oberoi Group, noted, is that none of the hotel's security staff was armed, thanks to the country's strict gun laws that make it virtually impossible to obtain permits. This is also perhaps why the gunmen moved around the city as if they owned it without fearing that anyone would shoot back.
And don't give me this "Mumbai incident was just an isolated incident" CRAP!It's not just Mumbai 2008! It's also Greece 2008, New Orleans 2005, and Los Angeles 1992!
Let's go over these incidents
2) Greece 2008
On December 6, 2008, the Athens police killed a 15-year old boy, and riots spread throughout Greece.
What did the police do about the riots?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904354644400355.html?mod+djemEditorial%20Page
But soon the protests turned into ugly riots. Groups of masked anarchists set about an orgy of torching, looting and vandalism in Athens, Thessaloniki and other major cities in Greece.
What was unique about the events in Greece -- as opposed to, say, the riots in the banlieues of Paris a few years ago -- was the total withdrawal of the government and the security forces from the scene of the riots. Civil society was left alone and unarmed to fend off the violent attacks on their property by the hordes of predators. On Tuesday night, one of the worst nights of rioting, more than 400 shops were attacked in Athens: Some were torched, others looted and seriously damaged.
All of this took place while the security forces simply stood by and watched the disaster unfold. They were following the explicit orders of their political masters to assume a "defensive posture" -- which in effect meant that they did not try to prevent the orgy of destruction.
Anyone watching this absurd scene could be excused for concluding that a secret deal had been struck between the government and the rioters: We let you torch and plunder to your heart's content, and you let us continue pretending that we are in charge.
3) A similar thing happened in Los Angeles in the early 1990's.
In March 3, 1991, a man videotaped 4 European-American cops brutally beating an African-American drunk-driving suspect Rodney King! The beatings continued even when King stopped resisted arrest!
On April 29, 1992, 3 cops were found Not Guilty, the other cop got an indecisive decision from the jury!
Just like after the recent Greece incident, riots engulfed Los Angeles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
What did the police do after the riots started?
The police backed down!
The commanding police officers told their subordinate officers to get out of South Central LA!
Meanwhile, there were large amounts of hate crimes being committed and videotaped by helicopters!
News commentators were noticing ZERO police were in sight, as rioters attacked ANYONE who wasn't African-American!
The incident that was shown most on the TV news was the brutal attack on European-American truck driver Reginald Denny! He was dragged out of the trucks and rioters were throwing rocks at his head!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Denny's life was saved only because other African-Americans in the area were outraged by the anit-white hate crime, got Denny out of the area and drove him to the hospital!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny
While the attack on Denny was seen as "blacks attacking whites", the MAJORITY of victims being attacked at the same time were Latinos & Asians!
In one case, Feild Lopez, a Guatemalan immigrant was dragged out of his car, brutally beaten and had his genitals spray-painted as his attackers laughed!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Lopez's life was saved only because Rev. Bennie Newton, an African American minister, got Lopez out of there and took him to the hospital!
The TV news showed chaos in the LA streets and noticed no cops were around!
This encouraged other gang members to loot & attack!
While the 1st few hours of the riots were dominated by African-American rioters, the Latino gangs were thinking to themselves "why should the blacks have all the fun? What the fuck are we waiting for, let's break some shit up?"
By the time the riots were over, most of those arrested were Latino!
Meanwhile, stores owned by Asians (in this case, mostly Koreans) were attacked, looted & burned by African-American & Latino rioters!
What did the police do? NOTHING! They weren't even around!
Some Korean-owned stores got saved ONLY because their owners were carrying shotguns and rifles! They knew the police weren't going to help, so they took the initiative to protect themselves!
To learn more about the LA riots, the social conditions in LA before the riots, and the police INACTION during the riots, I recommend reading "Official Negligence" by Lou Cannon! If it doesn't horrify you, then nothing will!
4) New Orleans 2005
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
Even before that, New Orleans had one of the highest murder rates, and one of the most corrupt police departments! Definitely not a stable place!
After Katrina hit New Orleans, gang members took advantage of the chaos by looting stores and beating up anyone who they didn't like or anyone who was vulnerable!
Meanwhile, in Algiers Point, a European-American neighborhood, there were hate crimes committed against African-Americans who happened to be in the area!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson?rel=hp_picks
Where were the police?
Some left the city, some committed suicide, some even joined the looting!
There weren't enough police to take control of the long-out-of-control city!
It was so bad, that the National Guard had to intervene just so those bringing in humanitarian supplies can come in without getting attacked by rioters!
The prisons were damaged, and they needed to make a makeshift prison to jail the looters!
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4163081.html
NEW ORLEANS - As looters filled the streets and shots rang out, the city's overmatched police knew that whatever other endeavors Hurricane Katrina brought to a halt, crime wasn't one of them.
After being criticized for allowing lawlessness to spiral out of control in the days immediately following the storm, police began arresting people but then ran into a new problem - where to put them. With New Orleans' jails flooded, a temporary holding facility was set up at the city's train and bus terminal.
It held only 30 prisoners by Monday, but that number was likely to swell if police from neighboring Jefferson Parish deliver inmates they had held the past few days.
(skip paragraphs)
The prisoners are separated according to crimes. Inside "Cell 3, felony," some two dozen men milled around. Nearly all had been brought in for looting. Any stolen property valued above $300 was being treated as a felony.
"Believe me, we reviewed every case carefully," said one corrections department official who asked that she not be identified because of safety concerns. "These are not people who stole food. They stole drugs from pharmacies or TVs from stores."
5) So we looked at 4 cases, involving different continents, different racial groups, involving different provoking factors!
In all those cases, the police either backed down or outnumbered!
Is your town's police any better! There's ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT! The only way to find out is when it's too late --- after a riot or shooting spree has started!
Until then, your police department can give out PR statements saying "we will protect our communities", but until chaos happpens, it's all just talk!
In any emergeny, in the first 48 hours, you're on your own!
That means the police aren't going to protect you from 1) those bigger & stronger than you, 2) those on drugs, 3) large mobs of people, 4) those who armed with weapons!
So to the gun-control fanatics, still want to tell me "we don't need guns, the police will protect us"?
6) Enough about the police, I want to discuss the Plaxico Burress case.
Burress is an NFL player who accidentally shot himself at a nightclub!
Gun safety isn't as easy as it looks on TV!
However, I'm irritated by many commentary on this case!
Many commentators say "Burress broke the law (on gun possession), lock him up!"
Here is David Koppel's response to such comments!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself. Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.
The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
AMEN Mr. Koppel
Also, I noticed many conservatives are silent on this!
They claimed to be outraged when Obama said rural European-Americans "cling to their guns" as reasons to oppose the Democrats! Yet, those same pundits SAY NOTHING when the NBA & NFL place gun-control policies on their players!
You think NASCAR could get away with having gun-control policies on their drivers? NO WAY!
Their drivers & fans (mostly European-Americans from the South) will protest loudly against such policies! NASCAR could NEVER get away with it!
Yet, the NBA & NFL, with many African-American players, get away with gun-control policies! Both leagues have the support of Manhattan/Hollywood/SanFran limousine liberals and they have the silent support of conservative pundits (the same ones offended by Obama's "cling to their guns" comments)
You noticed that many conservative pundits are also silent when African-American rappers are on trial for "illegal gun possession". They didn't speak up for Snoop Dogg, Sean Combs, or DMX when they were on trial for "illegal gun possession", the same laws conservative pundits PRETEND to dislike!
Someone needs to speak up on this!
It's not enough to be outraged when a limousine liberal celebrity bashes rural white gun-owners! As Obama's election showed, YOU CAN'T RELY ON WHITE VOTERS ALONE anymore! The NRA needs to reach out to non-whites! I already see non-whites at gun shows! Why not give them a bigger voice?
After all, the 1st gun control laws were bans on Native Americans & African-Americans from having guns. This allowed the KKK to attack minorities with impunity!
If the KKK was to try attack a large non-white community today, they would get shot at! Their white sheets would turn red from blood!
From an earlier-linked article on India's gun control laws
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122877201598989093.html
One of the big obstacles to gun liberalization in India is the fear that more guns will lead to more violence, given that India is a tinder box of sectarian tensions ready to erupt at the slightest provocation. In fact, more gun ownership -- especially by India's minorities -- might have a deterrent effect.
In 2002, in the Indian state of Gujarat, Hindu mobs brutally attacked Muslim villagers with impunity!
Imagine if the Muslim villagers were armed. The Hindu mobs couldn't attack the Muslim villagers with impunity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)