1) There's more optimism on race relations in the US since the election of Barack Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/politics/03race.html
And in Brooklyn, Shel Harris, a black man, said he dropped his “skeptical, more on guard” attitude toward whites after working alongside so many on the Obama campaign.
“Whenever they said something, I was always looking out for their ulterior motives,” said Mr. Harris, 62, a retired phone company worker. “Now I find that I take white people’s statements more on face value.”
I really want to comment on that statement
Think about this: In one day , 29 people were nice to you, 1 was mean to you.
Guess which one would you think about the most?
It's not the 29 people!
Our minds seem to programmed to dwell on the negative experiences more than positive experiences.
Now, let's pretend you're a racial minority. A few members of a racial majority called you a racial slur!
That might make you paranoid about the majority! Even when other members to the racial majority are very friendly to you, you might think "they got ulterior motives, they might be calling me racial slurs behind my back"
What Mr Harris has learned is this "When those Caucasians were nice to me, THEY REALLY MEANT IT! THEY HAD NOTHING TO HIDE!"
I'm a racial minority where I live. I am part-Latino/part-European, but look mostly Latino. I'm surrounded by Asians and Pacific Islanders.
I know Asians and Pacific Islanders well enough to know that when they're nice to me, THEY'RE SINCERE ABOUT IT! THERE'S NO HIDDEN MOTIVES! Most of them are nice to everyone!
I also noticed, when a few Asians and Pacific Islanders were mean to me, I noticed those same individuals were also mean to members of their own race!
I noticed that most nice people are nice to everyone regardless of race, whereas most mean people are mean to everyone regardless of race!
2) Walter Williams,Americans of African ancestry, claim that they rather have his people called "black", instead of "African-American"
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams051309.php3
Here's what I wrote to Walter Williams
You say you prefer "your people" to be called "black" instead of African-American!
But if we are talking about black-skinned people, we could be talking about people from southern India , Sri Lanka , Papua New Guinea , Micronesia , etc. They're just as dark as Africans.
In fact, many Indians, Melanesians and Micronesians have skin that's DARKER and BLACKER than the "blacks" that you might find in Harlem or Chicago 's South Side!
But you're not Indian, Melanesian or Micronesian! You are an American of AFRICAN ancestry. Or in other words --- African American!
Let's look at Joe Biden. You might call him "white". But many people in Japan & Korea are as white-skinned as a person from Sweden ! In fact, many Japanese and Koreans have skin that is LIGHTER and WHITER than the so-called "whites" you might find in the Hamptons or the Appalachians . So we call people like Mr Biden "Americans of European ancestry". Or European-American!
Some Latinos talk about "Brown Pride". But many Polynesians, Filipinos and Middle Easterners are also brown!
So instead of talking about "brown people", we say "Latinos", "Mexican-Americans", "Polynesians", "Arabs", "Arab-Americans", etc, etc.
And I don't think that many Americans of Chinese ancestry would like to be called "yellows". They're called Chinese-Americans, even if many of their families have been in the US for more than a century. Even if many never been to China or many can't speak Chinese!
These labels of "black" and "white" are relics of an era when most Americans were either of Northern European and West African ancestry! Back then, 99% of Americans never met a super-dark guy from Sri Lanka or super-light guy from Japan !
But now that we got immigrants from super-dark Sri Lanka and super-light Japan, it's ridiculous that you want to cling on to the relics of "black" and "white" to describe those of West-African and Northern-European ancestry!
------
Some might find my letter condescending to Mr Williams. That's not my intention. My intention is to inform him the reason many people are moving away from labels like "white people" and "black people" towards labels like European-American, Caucasians, African-Americans, etc.
3) Amy Benfer of Salon writes about women bosses being mean to women employees.
Of course, some are saying "we women were oppressed, how could we do this to each other?"
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/05/11/mean_girls/index.html
Here's what I wrote in the comments section
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/05/11/mean_girls/view/index2.html?show=all
even the oppressed oppress
Most people just look out for themselves! They may not like being harassed, attacked, bullied, etc..... BUT they will harass, attack or bully others!
That not only explains women-on-women meanness, but black-on-black crime, Latino-on-Latino crime, the people of differing minority groups attacking each other during the LA riots, etc, etc.
It reminds me of the stories on Vietnamese gangs! Many of them were picked on when they immigrated to the US! The worst, racist bullying you can think of!Picked on, not only by whites, but those of African,Latin or Pacific Island ancestry! Those Vietnamese kids team up with each other for protection. But once they get power... guess what?
Many of those same Vietnamese youth commit armed robbery on weaker Vietnamese people! IT's the mentality of "dont f--- with me, but I'll f--- with anyone I feel like"
This is not a criticism of women, whites, blacks, Latinos (i'm part Latino),Pacific Islanders or Vietnamese. IT is a criticism of human nature!
--
Most of the female bosses I had were cool to everyone.
But the idea that female bosses are supposed to be exempt from being mean is BIZARRE!
Nice & Mean happens in both genders and all races!
Like Rodney King once asked "Can we all just get Along?"
'
4) Islamic fanatics vs our "libertine society"
Conservative pundit Mona Charen had an interesting editorial
http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2009/05/22/is_it_all_about_britney
In his book "The Enemy at Home," Dinesh D'Souza shows little patience with the leftists who reacted to 9/11 by declaring that America had it coming. And yet, his book is a variant on that theme. It was our cultural decadence, our foul popular movies, music and pornography, D'Souza argues, that enraged traditional Muslims worldwide and moved some to violence.
D'Souza is a thoughtful and interesting writer, and many of his observations about the cultural left worldwide, and particularly about the dismaying state of popular culture in America, got vigorous head nods from conservative readers.
[skipped paragraphs]
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that America's cultural exports in the form of movies and music are the principal cause of Muslim hatred of the United States. This cultural rot did not set in, D'Souza acknowledges, until after the 1960s. Yet the godfather of the radical movement that spawned Osama bin Laden was the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, who formed his fanatical beliefs after living in the United States in the late 1940s.
Qutb was offended by everything about America, from its food to its delight in football and money, and particularly by what he saw as sexual libertinism. "Jazz is the American music," Qutb wrote, "created by Negroes to satisfy their primitive instincts -- their love of noise and their appetite for sexual arousal." Attending a church social in (dry) Greeley, Colo., in 1949, Qutb was revolted by what he saw: "Dancing naked legs filled the hall, arms draped around the waists, chests met chests, lips met lips, and the atmosphere was full of love."
So the America Qutb despised was one that most conservatives consider pretty tame. Yet it was to his eyes a sewer. This suggests the cultural divide between American conservatives and Muslim conservatives is more like a chasm.
Notice the racist stereotypes promoted by Mr. Qutb. Notice that regular ballroom dancing (seen as conservative and "old-fashioned" among young Americans) is a blasphemy to Mr Qutb.
This is the mentality we are currently dealing with in Afghanistan, and the tribal sections of Pakistan!
It's important we liberate those areas and not surrender against Al Quaida!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Jack Kemp (1935-2009)
Earlier this month, Jack Kemp passed away.
Kemp was known for many things. He was an NFL quarterback in the 1960s, a member of US Congress, the US Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, and the man who ran for Vice President with Bob Dole in 1996 (and loosing to Bill Clinton & Al Gore).
He was a believer in free-market economics, who helped wrote tax-cut laws that was signed by President Reagan, promoted enterprise zones in many inner city areas in hopes of bringing businesses back to many dying cities in the late 1980s/early 1990's.
He wanted the Republican Party to expend it's membership from being an overwhelmingly Eruopean-American party into one with more African-Americans and Latinos. Kemp understand that not every African-American or Latino is a far-left liberal; that some are church-going traditionalists, entrepreneurs, veterans who could relate to certain aspects of the conservative ideology! Kemp also understood that the growing Latino population makes it important that the Republican Party to NOT be a "whites only party".
While Reagan and Bush Jr. did have more Latino votes than most Republican politicians, too many other Republican supporters alienated Latinos with their anti-immigration proposals. Meanwhile, while some Republican politicians attempted to reach out to African-American voters, many African-Americans were alienated from the party due to politicians like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott who openly pandered to white segregationists.
Meanwhile, a combo of factors, including the housing crisis, Wall Street meltdown of 2008, and the charismatic leadership of Barack Obama has made the Democratic Party more powerful and the Republican Party in decline!
Now, the Republican Party is going through an identity crisis. Should it be a more centrist party or should it stick to its conservative principles?
If the Republican Party wants to survive in the 21st century, it doesn't have to abandon all conservative principles.
It does, however, need better marketing to non-white voters. Having Micheal Steele, its first African-American chairman, does help!
It does need to be more pro-immigration. The idea that "Republicans need to be more anti-immigration to win elections in the future is WISHFUL THINKING!". The California Republicans tried that in the 1990's. They won in 1994, but it only motivated non-voting Latinos to become voters, moderate Latinos to be alienated from the Republican Party, and motivated immigrants to take their citizenship tests so they could become eligible to vote. The Democrats benefitted from the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot! Afterwards, the Republicans have been in severe decline in California, with it's only bright moment being the election of Austrian immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor!
Meanwhile, in the 1990's, in Texas, another state with a large Latino population, and a Anglo population even more conservative than California's, George W. Bush understood that alienating Latino immigrant would hurt the Republican Party in the long run! He openly criticized the anti-immigration activists. Bush still sticked with conservative principles on moral, tax, energy, and defense issues! Because of this, Bush won TWICE as governor of Texas and won TWICE as the US president!
---
Here's what Clarence Page wrote on Jack Kemp.
http://jewishworldreview.com/0509/page050709.php3
Who in the world would bring the queen to a pubic housing project? I knew it had to be Jack Kemp, the former pro football star and Republican congressman from New York who had become secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the first President Bush.
Would anyone else in stodgy Washington have had the desire, the enthusiasm and the steamroller perseverance to bring the queen and a rare spotlight of public attention to America's vastly overlooked underclass? I think not.
To those who cared about the future of our cities, the stunt was "pure Jack." He would have done just about anything to bring attention to his urban "empowerment" agenda, which included tenant management and ownership of public housing, "liberated" from negligent, fraudulent or incompetent bureaucrats and government contractors.
[skipped paragraphs]
He scoured the country for "neighborhood assets," the ordinary men and women in every neighborhood who, given a chance, make better local leaders and organizers than government intermediaries do.
Kemp didn't just talk about blacks, Hispanics or the poor. He knew real people. He lunched in soup kitchens and spent nights in low-income apartments. Inside every "ghetto," he saw a neighborhood itching to be "empowered" and "liberated," perhaps with a little "seed corn" from government or private foundations.
Meanwhile, is President Obama willing to openly and consistently promote enterprise zones, and tenant ownership of public housing? Both were championed by Jack Kemp! Both could help inner-city ghettoes like the ones Obama used to work in at Chicago. Both could end the streotype of Obama as a "socialist"!
Kemp was known for many things. He was an NFL quarterback in the 1960s, a member of US Congress, the US Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, and the man who ran for Vice President with Bob Dole in 1996 (and loosing to Bill Clinton & Al Gore).
He was a believer in free-market economics, who helped wrote tax-cut laws that was signed by President Reagan, promoted enterprise zones in many inner city areas in hopes of bringing businesses back to many dying cities in the late 1980s/early 1990's.
He wanted the Republican Party to expend it's membership from being an overwhelmingly Eruopean-American party into one with more African-Americans and Latinos. Kemp understand that not every African-American or Latino is a far-left liberal; that some are church-going traditionalists, entrepreneurs, veterans who could relate to certain aspects of the conservative ideology! Kemp also understood that the growing Latino population makes it important that the Republican Party to NOT be a "whites only party".
While Reagan and Bush Jr. did have more Latino votes than most Republican politicians, too many other Republican supporters alienated Latinos with their anti-immigration proposals. Meanwhile, while some Republican politicians attempted to reach out to African-American voters, many African-Americans were alienated from the party due to politicians like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott who openly pandered to white segregationists.
Meanwhile, a combo of factors, including the housing crisis, Wall Street meltdown of 2008, and the charismatic leadership of Barack Obama has made the Democratic Party more powerful and the Republican Party in decline!
Now, the Republican Party is going through an identity crisis. Should it be a more centrist party or should it stick to its conservative principles?
If the Republican Party wants to survive in the 21st century, it doesn't have to abandon all conservative principles.
It does, however, need better marketing to non-white voters. Having Micheal Steele, its first African-American chairman, does help!
It does need to be more pro-immigration. The idea that "Republicans need to be more anti-immigration to win elections in the future is WISHFUL THINKING!". The California Republicans tried that in the 1990's. They won in 1994, but it only motivated non-voting Latinos to become voters, moderate Latinos to be alienated from the Republican Party, and motivated immigrants to take their citizenship tests so they could become eligible to vote. The Democrats benefitted from the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot! Afterwards, the Republicans have been in severe decline in California, with it's only bright moment being the election of Austrian immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor!
Meanwhile, in the 1990's, in Texas, another state with a large Latino population, and a Anglo population even more conservative than California's, George W. Bush understood that alienating Latino immigrant would hurt the Republican Party in the long run! He openly criticized the anti-immigration activists. Bush still sticked with conservative principles on moral, tax, energy, and defense issues! Because of this, Bush won TWICE as governor of Texas and won TWICE as the US president!
---
Here's what Clarence Page wrote on Jack Kemp.
http://jewishworldreview.com/0509/page050709.php3
Who in the world would bring the queen to a pubic housing project? I knew it had to be Jack Kemp, the former pro football star and Republican congressman from New York who had become secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the first President Bush.
Would anyone else in stodgy Washington have had the desire, the enthusiasm and the steamroller perseverance to bring the queen and a rare spotlight of public attention to America's vastly overlooked underclass? I think not.
To those who cared about the future of our cities, the stunt was "pure Jack." He would have done just about anything to bring attention to his urban "empowerment" agenda, which included tenant management and ownership of public housing, "liberated" from negligent, fraudulent or incompetent bureaucrats and government contractors.
[skipped paragraphs]
He scoured the country for "neighborhood assets," the ordinary men and women in every neighborhood who, given a chance, make better local leaders and organizers than government intermediaries do.
Kemp didn't just talk about blacks, Hispanics or the poor. He knew real people. He lunched in soup kitchens and spent nights in low-income apartments. Inside every "ghetto," he saw a neighborhood itching to be "empowered" and "liberated," perhaps with a little "seed corn" from government or private foundations.
Meanwhile, is President Obama willing to openly and consistently promote enterprise zones, and tenant ownership of public housing? Both were championed by Jack Kemp! Both could help inner-city ghettoes like the ones Obama used to work in at Chicago. Both could end the streotype of Obama as a "socialist"!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Jim Bolla FIRED!
Earlier this month, the University of Hawaii's women's basketball coach Jim Bolla got fired!
Usually, college coaches get fired for loosing too much!
This is WORSE THAN THAT!
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090356/-1/RSS02?source=rss_localnews
University of Hawai'i women's basketball coach Jim Bolla was fired after former players complained about a "pattern of verbal abuse."
UH dismissed the 57-year-old Bolla on Monday "for cause," meaning the university had a reason to fire him and is not bound to honor the remaining two years on his contract, which pays an estimated $120,000 a year.
Bolla, the Rainbow Wahine's coach since 2004, was placed on leave Feb. 13 after school officials investigated allegations he kicked one of his players.
Bolla also received a warning last year after school officials investigated allegations of verbal abuse from team members.
"There was a pattern of verbal abuse," said former UH player Pamela Tambini. "He played mental games. He basically tried to break us down and intimidate us.
"Girls hated going to practice. They dreaded going on the road. It was bad."
--
it gets worse
Former player Tanya Smith said Bolla mocked "almost every person on the team" for being gay. He also improperly obtained her medical records, which are protected under federal law.
"I understand coaches yelling and getting upset at players for things that pertain to basketball skills, but when it becomes personal and relates in no way to basketball, then it is a problem," Smith said in an e-mail from Australia, where she lives.
Tambini, who was reached by phone in Florida, said players complained for years about their treatment by Bolla to Herman Frazier, the former UH athletic director, but he apparently didn't take any action.
She said Bolla degraded players about their weight, made derisive comments about their sexuality and blamed losses on players such as herself who were recruited by former coach Vince Goo.
"Everybody knew about it and did nothing about it," Tambini said.
"We were going through hell. No student should have had to go through that. It's not fair."
--
however, it just wasn't at UH! Jim Bolla was alleged to have done similar things at his previous coaching job at UNLV!
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in December 1992 that Bolla struck a player during a practice.
The former UNLV player, Tracy Titus, told The Advertiser in February that Bolla struck her after he ordered her to run at him during a drill.
Titus said Bolla later apologized for the incident but maintained in a statement to the UNLV athletic director that Titus had "run into his hand."
Titus also said she saw Bolla grab another player "around the neck" during a game at UH during the 1992-93 season.
-----------
My commentary
Though I never been a coach, I do work as a substitute teacher!
So of course, there will be times where the kids give me a bad attitude and I had to be the disciplinarian!
There have times where I yelled at students, especially the ones @ middle school! That's when the attitudes are at their worst!
My supervisors advised me it's better not to yell! One said you gotta be Calm and Stern!
I only yell as a last resort, and I try other ways to settle students down without yelling!
I usually don't need to yell, however, once you do it, that's all everyone remembers!
So I gotta be Calm and Stern! That's what I want to be remembered for!
--
However, Jim Bolla goes WAY BEYOND discipline!
Most importantly, avoid hitting unless it's self-defense!
Sometimes you gotta physically restrain students (and in the case of preschoolers, carry them away from a dangerous situation), but you need to do in a safe way to prevent harm!
Another thin, I AVOID using name-calling and insults on my students!
I address their behavior! Calling the students names only aggravates things!
Students hear their teachers insulting their classmates names, and guess what? It encourages the students to do the same to their classmates!
Mocking your student's sexual orientation and weight has NOTHING to do with being a disciplinarian! It is being a bullying punk-ass, it's abusive and it's emotionally damaging!
And even if your student doesn't immediately respond to your humiliating tactics, it doesn't mean they'll forget about it!
They might publicly insult you if they become famous! They could sue you!
Or in the case of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it could turn deadly!
Any teacher/parent/coach/etc. who thinks "no student would want to violently retaliate against me" is delusional!
One way is to reduce the chance of that is to avoid the Jim Bolla tactics of insulting your students!
Show your students respect! If anything happens, address their behavior but don't use name-calling!
After all, part of your job is to help them become better human beings!
Usually, college coaches get fired for loosing too much!
This is WORSE THAN THAT!
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090356/-1/RSS02?source=rss_localnews
University of Hawai'i women's basketball coach Jim Bolla was fired after former players complained about a "pattern of verbal abuse."
UH dismissed the 57-year-old Bolla on Monday "for cause," meaning the university had a reason to fire him and is not bound to honor the remaining two years on his contract, which pays an estimated $120,000 a year.
Bolla, the Rainbow Wahine's coach since 2004, was placed on leave Feb. 13 after school officials investigated allegations he kicked one of his players.
Bolla also received a warning last year after school officials investigated allegations of verbal abuse from team members.
"There was a pattern of verbal abuse," said former UH player Pamela Tambini. "He played mental games. He basically tried to break us down and intimidate us.
"Girls hated going to practice. They dreaded going on the road. It was bad."
--
it gets worse
Former player Tanya Smith said Bolla mocked "almost every person on the team" for being gay. He also improperly obtained her medical records, which are protected under federal law.
"I understand coaches yelling and getting upset at players for things that pertain to basketball skills, but when it becomes personal and relates in no way to basketball, then it is a problem," Smith said in an e-mail from Australia, where she lives.
Tambini, who was reached by phone in Florida, said players complained for years about their treatment by Bolla to Herman Frazier, the former UH athletic director, but he apparently didn't take any action.
She said Bolla degraded players about their weight, made derisive comments about their sexuality and blamed losses on players such as herself who were recruited by former coach Vince Goo.
"Everybody knew about it and did nothing about it," Tambini said.
"We were going through hell. No student should have had to go through that. It's not fair."
--
however, it just wasn't at UH! Jim Bolla was alleged to have done similar things at his previous coaching job at UNLV!
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in December 1992 that Bolla struck a player during a practice.
The former UNLV player, Tracy Titus, told The Advertiser in February that Bolla struck her after he ordered her to run at him during a drill.
Titus said Bolla later apologized for the incident but maintained in a statement to the UNLV athletic director that Titus had "run into his hand."
Titus also said she saw Bolla grab another player "around the neck" during a game at UH during the 1992-93 season.
-----------
My commentary
Though I never been a coach, I do work as a substitute teacher!
So of course, there will be times where the kids give me a bad attitude and I had to be the disciplinarian!
There have times where I yelled at students, especially the ones @ middle school! That's when the attitudes are at their worst!
My supervisors advised me it's better not to yell! One said you gotta be Calm and Stern!
I only yell as a last resort, and I try other ways to settle students down without yelling!
I usually don't need to yell, however, once you do it, that's all everyone remembers!
So I gotta be Calm and Stern! That's what I want to be remembered for!
--
However, Jim Bolla goes WAY BEYOND discipline!
Most importantly, avoid hitting unless it's self-defense!
Sometimes you gotta physically restrain students (and in the case of preschoolers, carry them away from a dangerous situation), but you need to do in a safe way to prevent harm!
Another thin, I AVOID using name-calling and insults on my students!
I address their behavior! Calling the students names only aggravates things!
Students hear their teachers insulting their classmates names, and guess what? It encourages the students to do the same to their classmates!
Mocking your student's sexual orientation and weight has NOTHING to do with being a disciplinarian! It is being a bullying punk-ass, it's abusive and it's emotionally damaging!
And even if your student doesn't immediately respond to your humiliating tactics, it doesn't mean they'll forget about it!
They might publicly insult you if they become famous! They could sue you!
Or in the case of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it could turn deadly!
Any teacher/parent/coach/etc. who thinks "no student would want to violently retaliate against me" is delusional!
One way is to reduce the chance of that is to avoid the Jim Bolla tactics of insulting your students!
Show your students respect! If anything happens, address their behavior but don't use name-calling!
After all, part of your job is to help them become better human beings!
The demise of the SuperFerry
So many events, so little time to blog on them
Today, I got time!
Earlier this month, the SuperFerry was forced to shut down, due to a Hawaii Supreme Court decisions. In 2007, the state exempted the SuperFerry from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In 2009, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the state's action unconstitutional.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090317_Superferry_suspended.html
Because EIS tends to take a long time, it isn't feasible to keep the business in operation!
---
So the SuperFerry shut down and workers laid off
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090318_Layoffs_follow_high_court_ruling_on_Superferry.html
---
My take --- wouldn't having the SuperFerry continue running be a PERFECT way to have an EIS! That way we can see whatever environmental impacts occurs as it's happening, instead of just making predictions!
But that wouldn't make the special interest groups feel special. You think I'm kidding?
Check this Honolulu Advertiser editorial by Jay Fidell
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Apr/05/bz/hawaii904050338.html
When activist organizations get together, they are well-fueled and powerful. When they litigate and lobby together, they become intimidating. When asked what Sierra Club focused on, Jeff Mikulina said, "we stop things." Stopping Superferry was a war that lasted for years. In the end, it was a notable victory for the activists, whether or not deserved!
Yeah, we bad -- we stop things!
continue on
The EIS does help protect our environment. But it's also every activist's favorite weapon, and a blockbuster at that. The first step is to require an EIS for a project. The next step is to argue with the EIS, in both draft and final, in and out of court. That takes years and costs really big money. With good cause, the term EIS strikes fear into anyone building anything.
But were the activists really interested in the EIS findings, or just bent on stopping the ferry? Would they have been satisfied with an EIS that permitted the ferry to operate? No. It's not a question of finding impacts, only keeping the game in play until the project bleeds to death.
Because an entrepreneur follows the rules doesn't mean the activists won't attack him anyway. Once targeted, you get the full monty. Things become distorted and desperate. If you have no upstairs access, you're at the mercy of the bureaucracy, which freezes in the headlights. That being the case, activists can stop any project they like.
---
Now, because of those activists, we won't be able to ride a boat between the Hawaiian islands!
I wrote on the same issue back in 2007
In it, I discussed the nostalgia extremists on Kauai and their violent protests!
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#8120786639112286509
I also mentioned this
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!
----
Meanwhile, the NY based far-left magazine TheNation had an article on the SuperFerry written to trick gullible mainlanders on this issue!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090316/mander_paik
The article put scary innuendos about the SuperFerry being connected to the "scary military super-power" and acted as if those rude protesters in Kauai spoke for the majority (they didn't!)
However, here is the biggest LIE written in that article.
Three weeks after Nawiliwili, another huge throng filled the 1,500 seats of Kauai's War Memorial Convention Hall, with many more outside, for a "public meeting" called by Governor Lingle. Imperiously she warned that she would not discuss whether there would be a Superferry--that had been decided. Her purpose was to instruct people that if they repeated their protests, they would be charged under new anti-terrorism laws that carry prison terms up to five years and/or a $10,000 fine.
What those writers LEFT OUT ON PURPOSE was that in was reaction to the VIOLENT protests at Kauai harbors, where the SuperFerry passengers were faced with flying beer bottles, their items vandalized, their faces screamed at, and their lives THREATENED!
But the writers LEFT IT OUT ON PURPOSE to fool gullible mainlanders into thinking Lingle was threatening freedom of speech!
--
here's what 2 readers said
Well, they've done it. They've succeeded in stopping the SuperFerry. The ferry was actually a boon to the people of Hawaii, the opponents were definitely in the minority, as the reaction to the story on the forums of the Honolulu papers will attest. This decision will be a blow to the countless local families who have been using the ferry for trips to visit relatives, and to the countless local businesses that have been using it to transport their products between islands.
Could the EIS have been handled better? Of course. But why punish the people of Hawaii for this ?
Now more than ever in these uncertain times, we need an alternative to air travel and to the other monopolies.
And by the way, why should big giant cruise ships be allowed, and not a boat that benefits local people?
Everybody wants to "protect the environment," but the Sierra Club et al. should "choose their battles."
penny guinn
Honolulu, HI03/17/2009 @ 7:12pm
-----------
Fifteen hundred protesters on Kaua'i is hugely significant, in that it represents slightly less than 10% of the island's population!
hal muskat
Middletown , CA03/04/2009 @ 09:23am
Today, I got time!
Earlier this month, the SuperFerry was forced to shut down, due to a Hawaii Supreme Court decisions. In 2007, the state exempted the SuperFerry from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In 2009, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the state's action unconstitutional.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090317_Superferry_suspended.html
Because EIS tends to take a long time, it isn't feasible to keep the business in operation!
---
So the SuperFerry shut down and workers laid off
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090318_Layoffs_follow_high_court_ruling_on_Superferry.html
---
My take --- wouldn't having the SuperFerry continue running be a PERFECT way to have an EIS! That way we can see whatever environmental impacts occurs as it's happening, instead of just making predictions!
But that wouldn't make the special interest groups feel special. You think I'm kidding?
Check this Honolulu Advertiser editorial by Jay Fidell
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Apr/05/bz/hawaii904050338.html
When activist organizations get together, they are well-fueled and powerful. When they litigate and lobby together, they become intimidating. When asked what Sierra Club focused on, Jeff Mikulina said, "we stop things." Stopping Superferry was a war that lasted for years. In the end, it was a notable victory for the activists, whether or not deserved!
Yeah, we bad -- we stop things!
continue on
The EIS does help protect our environment. But it's also every activist's favorite weapon, and a blockbuster at that. The first step is to require an EIS for a project. The next step is to argue with the EIS, in both draft and final, in and out of court. That takes years and costs really big money. With good cause, the term EIS strikes fear into anyone building anything.
But were the activists really interested in the EIS findings, or just bent on stopping the ferry? Would they have been satisfied with an EIS that permitted the ferry to operate? No. It's not a question of finding impacts, only keeping the game in play until the project bleeds to death.
Because an entrepreneur follows the rules doesn't mean the activists won't attack him anyway. Once targeted, you get the full monty. Things become distorted and desperate. If you have no upstairs access, you're at the mercy of the bureaucracy, which freezes in the headlights. That being the case, activists can stop any project they like.
---
Now, because of those activists, we won't be able to ride a boat between the Hawaiian islands!
I wrote on the same issue back in 2007
In it, I discussed the nostalgia extremists on Kauai and their violent protests!
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#8120786639112286509
I also mentioned this
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!
----
Meanwhile, the NY based far-left magazine TheNation had an article on the SuperFerry written to trick gullible mainlanders on this issue!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090316/mander_paik
The article put scary innuendos about the SuperFerry being connected to the "scary military super-power" and acted as if those rude protesters in Kauai spoke for the majority (they didn't!)
However, here is the biggest LIE written in that article.
Three weeks after Nawiliwili, another huge throng filled the 1,500 seats of Kauai's War Memorial Convention Hall, with many more outside, for a "public meeting" called by Governor Lingle. Imperiously she warned that she would not discuss whether there would be a Superferry--that had been decided. Her purpose was to instruct people that if they repeated their protests, they would be charged under new anti-terrorism laws that carry prison terms up to five years and/or a $10,000 fine.
What those writers LEFT OUT ON PURPOSE was that in was reaction to the VIOLENT protests at Kauai harbors, where the SuperFerry passengers were faced with flying beer bottles, their items vandalized, their faces screamed at, and their lives THREATENED!
But the writers LEFT IT OUT ON PURPOSE to fool gullible mainlanders into thinking Lingle was threatening freedom of speech!
--
here's what 2 readers said
Well, they've done it. They've succeeded in stopping the SuperFerry. The ferry was actually a boon to the people of Hawaii, the opponents were definitely in the minority, as the reaction to the story on the forums of the Honolulu papers will attest. This decision will be a blow to the countless local families who have been using the ferry for trips to visit relatives, and to the countless local businesses that have been using it to transport their products between islands.
Could the EIS have been handled better? Of course. But why punish the people of Hawaii for this ?
Now more than ever in these uncertain times, we need an alternative to air travel and to the other monopolies.
And by the way, why should big giant cruise ships be allowed, and not a boat that benefits local people?
Everybody wants to "protect the environment," but the Sierra Club et al. should "choose their battles."
penny guinn
Honolulu, HI03/17/2009 @ 7:12pm
-----------
Fifteen hundred protesters on Kaua'i is hugely significant, in that it represents slightly less than 10% of the island's population!
hal muskat
Middletown , CA03/04/2009 @ 09:23am
Friday, March 20, 2009
Chris Brown, Rihanna, Gender & Violence
1) I remember the night of the Grammy Awards, during ad time, KGMB news mentioned Chris Brown was arrested for hitting a woman!
My first thought "I 'm surprised that Chris Brown to got arrested for ANYTHING"
Chris Brown's image was "the fun-loving guy that a girl can bring home with the approval of her father"!
To say this was shocking was an understatement!
2) What we heard so far about this incident
(warning: this ain't the Word of God, the real details might be off )
Chris Brown was in a car with Rihanna. Brown got a text message from another woman. Rihanna got real mad and pushed Brown. Brown got real angry, not just pushing back, but punching, choking and biting Rihanna!
This is a re-enactment, but this one using European-American actors
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/03/20/reenactment/print.html
3) This comes another point -- Hitting a woman in self-defense!
This happens more often than you think!
It's easy to say "I will never hit a woman". You might even believe yourself!
However, in real life, despite what some feminists say, some woman do hit men and do some real damage!
This is from a woman who admitted to hitting her boyfriend
http://jezebel.com/5173723/the-double+standard-is-women-hitting-men-ever-okay
The truth is, I've hit boyfriends in anger. I'm not proud of it, and I debated not writing about it at all, but it's not something I've seen talked about much. I'm not talking beating, but when confronted with infidelity, I've slapped a boyfriend across the face, hard, and more than once, and shoved and struck too. Now, you might say these were extraordinary circumstances, or that because I'm a fairly small woman striking a much larger man it's not so bad, but the fact remains that if the tables were turned, such behavior would be considered appalling.
When I sounded out some friends, several of them admitted to lashing out physically at a boyfriend, and while no one was exactly pleased with themselves over it, it also didn't seem like the Big Deal it obviously would be were a boyfriend doing the same thing. I can't speak for others, but in some ways, I feel like violence was encouraged in me; people always found my temper, with its foot-stomping, drink-tossing, vase-smashing theatrics, to be hilarious, largely because I am so small and because it comes out so rarely. Like my grandmother, I was "a spitfire," my grandpa always said approvingly. As a result, I didn't work to curb it as I should have, probably feeling in some way that it even denoted "spunk" or something, and doubtless there was some half-baked, unacknowledged idea of "lady's prerogative" at work, a double-standard I'd consciously have mocked.
(skip to middle of last paragraph)
I remember the look of shock on my shrink's face when I told him I'd struck my boyfriend; it was then that it really hit home (no pun intended.) There was no justifying it or explaining it away; it had been violence, pure and simple, and the accident of being small didn't change that fact. Mitchell says, "in a situation like this, a few whacks might be the only way a woman can hold onto her dignity." Well, take it from me: it doesn't make you feel dignified. And thank goodness for that.
---
and from the comments to that blog
This topic drives absolutely mad with rage sometimes. I've known a couple where the girl was seriously beating on the guy. Punches in the face and body that were seriously hard. He slapped her once in the face to get her to stop from the shock and then he was completely vilified by almost everyone else who was around (this happened at a party).
What the hell else is he supposed to do when she won't stop? And WHY is no one telling this woman that she is abusive?
--
This reminds me of the movie "Baby Boy" featuring Tyrese and Snoop Dogg. In the movie, Tyrese's character (Jody) had a girlfriend prone to angry, jealous rage. Jody was usually a calm, mellow guy. Anyways, the girlfriend had another jealous rage, yelling & slapping Jody at high speed.
Jody was so fed up with his girlfriend's physical assault, that he just slapped her face hard. Not even a second has passed when Jody was apologizing. You can sense it was "what have I just done, I'm not supposed to do that"
----
Another comment from that blog, this time from a tall woman
I've slapped a guy exactly once in my life, and immediately regretted it. And, as a tall Amazon who could probably do some damage if she wanted, no one is going to point to my small size as in the examples given above. Granted I was 17 at the time and a stupid kid, but still. Violence is not okay. Now I'm more likely to just yell.
---
Back to the self-defense thing, and the situation from the movie "Baby Boy". That part of the movie really hit home with me!
I grew up with the sense of "men shouldn't abuse women". I grew up outraged hearing stories of men abusing their wives.
However, I also knew some women can be VERY abusive and mean!
In the 9th grade, in English class, there was one girl who was shallow and rude. Stereotyped me as "lacking intelligence" when she first met me (and ironically asking me for help with an assignment in our senior year..... so much for her racist stereotypes).
One day, when a teacher was trying to settle the class down, I told that girl to "Shut Up"
She said "come say it to my face"
I didn't want to be seen as soft, so I walked to her desk and told her "Shut Up"
At that point, I really thought I was just go back to my desk with ZERO problem!
That girl had other plans.
Just as I was about to turn around and go back to my desk, she ran up and attacked me with full violent force!
At that point, you don't have time to think. You gotta defend yourself! I pushed her back and hit her in self-defense!
The reaction among my peers was mixed!
Some thought the whole incident was funny!
Some accused me of "being abusive" and said "you're not supposed to hit girls". I like to see what they would do if they were attacked by a violent woman!
Also, this whole idea of "you're not supposed to hit girls" is sexist crap!
Why didn't anyone tell that girl "you're not supposed to hit boys"?
Why not "you're not supposed to hit anyone (of any gender) unless they hit you"?
But what REALLY SURPRISED ME was when I was explaining the incident to a few girls who asked about it, they were actually smiling at me! I'm NOT making that up! I honestly did NOT expect that to happen!
I mean, before that, I thought all woman would automatically side with the girl in a fight with a boy No Matter What! I learned THAT'S NOT TRUE!
I never asked why they were smiling, and if I was to ask now, they might not even remember or even deny it!
I will guess that those girls thought that my attacker was a "b*****" and that I was the more honorable person in this whole mess!
They also probably remembered the times I was provoked by others and I kept my calm and never lashed out at those troublemakers, so they knew I wasn't some abusive punk-ass!
Anyways, the teacher in the class didn't send us to the office, probably fearing the administrators would believe the girl over me due to gender bias!
Ironically, as a substitute teacher, if anyone fights, I just send them to the office -- boy, girl, whatever. I just make sure to inform security/administrators if the girl hit first if that was the case! (and in all cases so far, it was the girl who hit the boy first)
4) If Rihanna did hit Brown first, the question was --- in self defense, how far is too far!
In my case, I did NOT choke or bite my attacker, as Brown was alleged to have done to Rihanna.
Here's what Tyra Banks said on this situation
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/03/12/oprah_domestic_violence/index.html
The episode did fail to thoroughly address one topic, however, that has been preoccupying me (and, I know, many Broadsheet readers): the rumor that Rihanna hit Brown first. When one high schooler mentioned it during the show, Tyra quickly pointed out that, if it's true, Brown should have been allowed to defend himself without using excessive force. It is, of course, inexcusable to slap your boyfriend. But choking your girlfriend, threatening to kill her and sending her to the hospital with a face full of blood and bruises elevates the situation to a dangerous extreme.
This is like any controversy over police brutality!
Police have to arrest guys who have violent tendencies and who ain't going to submit to an arrest without a fight! The police have to use some force!
However, sometimes, the police are so caught up in their frustrations, that they go beyond what's necessary.
Just like the Rodney King case, where 4 European-American cops brutally beat an African-American drunk driving suspect Rodney King.
At first, King was un-cooperative, and argued with police. He was hard to take down.
However, even when he was already down, in a situation where the cops could've just teamed and put handcuffs on King, the cops were going crazy with their batons, hitting his head repeatedly, kicking his head, still hitting him when he was non-responsive!
This was all videotaped.
While King was no angel that night, the police went overboard and made things worse than it should've!
Same with Brown. If the details were true, he might've been justified if all he did was pushed Rihanna away from him IF she hit him first! But Brown went overboard, went nuts in choking and biting her! That was brutality!
5) In the 1990's, the most legendary musicians were Kurt Cobain (lead singer of rock band Nirvana) and rapper Tupac Shakur (aka 2pac)
Both had emphasized that other rockers/rappers as well as their fans should treat women with respect!
However, real life sometimes get in the way!
Cobain was once arrested for hitting his wife. Cobain was married to Courtney Love, a female rock star who had a history of temper tantrums! Cobain was usually a mild-mannered person! So I wouldn't be surprised if Love started the fights, Cobain defended himself (or did what Tyrese's character did in Baby Boy) and was the one arrested due to gender bias!
As for 2pac he had a hit song "Keep Ya Head Up" which he expressed sympathy for woman who were abused or had to raise their kids without their father around! This was inspired by his mom having to struggle to raise him without a constant fatherly presence!
However, one night in 1993, 2pac was partying and met a female at the club. They were dancing together and 2pac brought her to his hotel room! His friends were at the hotel room! The details are murky, but Tupac was accused of rape! 2pac claimed the sex was consensual!
While 2pac was acquitted of rape charges, he was convicted of unlawful sexual contact (touching someone without permission) and had to spend about a year in prison!
This inspired some rappers to say that if they bring a girl to their room, they would videotape the whole thing, so they won't be "set up like 2pac was!
The people who knew 2pac said he was usually respectful around woman and was playful around them. They said 2pac was usually a friendly guy, but had serious problems controlling his anger, which got him into other legal trouble. Despite all this, most of the people who knew 2pac personally said they had a hard time believing he would rape someone!
The lesson is -- even for guys who preach respect for women, they still need to work at keeping themselves from lapsing into bad behavior!
It ain't easy being good all the time, but as in the case of Chris Brown, Tupac Shakur and Kurt Cobain, we don't want to be known as the "good guys who went too far!" We got to mentally prepared to respond to everything the correct way. It ain't easy, but it's necessary!
6) I'm running out of time, but I want to link to the Honolulu Advertiser's special report on domestic violence
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/section/domesticviolence
It talks about many details of domestic violence and the tragic stories behind them!
---
Also, another woman was killed by her ex-boyfriend earlier this week.
Even after all the chokings and kidnappings he committed, Toi Nofoa still wasn't in prison on March 17, 2009. He was free to roam the streets as if he did nothing wrong.
That day, he went near Royal Kaukani's home and shot her dead!
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090320/NEWS01/903200365/1001
My first thought "I 'm surprised that Chris Brown to got arrested for ANYTHING"
Chris Brown's image was "the fun-loving guy that a girl can bring home with the approval of her father"!
To say this was shocking was an understatement!
2) What we heard so far about this incident
(warning: this ain't the Word of God, the real details might be off )
Chris Brown was in a car with Rihanna. Brown got a text message from another woman. Rihanna got real mad and pushed Brown. Brown got real angry, not just pushing back, but punching, choking and biting Rihanna!
This is a re-enactment, but this one using European-American actors
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/03/20/reenactment/print.html
3) This comes another point -- Hitting a woman in self-defense!
This happens more often than you think!
It's easy to say "I will never hit a woman". You might even believe yourself!
However, in real life, despite what some feminists say, some woman do hit men and do some real damage!
This is from a woman who admitted to hitting her boyfriend
http://jezebel.com/5173723/the-double+standard-is-women-hitting-men-ever-okay
The truth is, I've hit boyfriends in anger. I'm not proud of it, and I debated not writing about it at all, but it's not something I've seen talked about much. I'm not talking beating, but when confronted with infidelity, I've slapped a boyfriend across the face, hard, and more than once, and shoved and struck too. Now, you might say these were extraordinary circumstances, or that because I'm a fairly small woman striking a much larger man it's not so bad, but the fact remains that if the tables were turned, such behavior would be considered appalling.
When I sounded out some friends, several of them admitted to lashing out physically at a boyfriend, and while no one was exactly pleased with themselves over it, it also didn't seem like the Big Deal it obviously would be were a boyfriend doing the same thing. I can't speak for others, but in some ways, I feel like violence was encouraged in me; people always found my temper, with its foot-stomping, drink-tossing, vase-smashing theatrics, to be hilarious, largely because I am so small and because it comes out so rarely. Like my grandmother, I was "a spitfire," my grandpa always said approvingly. As a result, I didn't work to curb it as I should have, probably feeling in some way that it even denoted "spunk" or something, and doubtless there was some half-baked, unacknowledged idea of "lady's prerogative" at work, a double-standard I'd consciously have mocked.
(skip to middle of last paragraph)
I remember the look of shock on my shrink's face when I told him I'd struck my boyfriend; it was then that it really hit home (no pun intended.) There was no justifying it or explaining it away; it had been violence, pure and simple, and the accident of being small didn't change that fact. Mitchell says, "in a situation like this, a few whacks might be the only way a woman can hold onto her dignity." Well, take it from me: it doesn't make you feel dignified. And thank goodness for that.
---
and from the comments to that blog
This topic drives absolutely mad with rage sometimes. I've known a couple where the girl was seriously beating on the guy. Punches in the face and body that were seriously hard. He slapped her once in the face to get her to stop from the shock and then he was completely vilified by almost everyone else who was around (this happened at a party).
What the hell else is he supposed to do when she won't stop? And WHY is no one telling this woman that she is abusive?
--
This reminds me of the movie "Baby Boy" featuring Tyrese and Snoop Dogg. In the movie, Tyrese's character (Jody) had a girlfriend prone to angry, jealous rage. Jody was usually a calm, mellow guy. Anyways, the girlfriend had another jealous rage, yelling & slapping Jody at high speed.
Jody was so fed up with his girlfriend's physical assault, that he just slapped her face hard. Not even a second has passed when Jody was apologizing. You can sense it was "what have I just done, I'm not supposed to do that"
----
Another comment from that blog, this time from a tall woman
I've slapped a guy exactly once in my life, and immediately regretted it. And, as a tall Amazon who could probably do some damage if she wanted, no one is going to point to my small size as in the examples given above. Granted I was 17 at the time and a stupid kid, but still. Violence is not okay. Now I'm more likely to just yell.
---
Back to the self-defense thing, and the situation from the movie "Baby Boy". That part of the movie really hit home with me!
I grew up with the sense of "men shouldn't abuse women". I grew up outraged hearing stories of men abusing their wives.
However, I also knew some women can be VERY abusive and mean!
In the 9th grade, in English class, there was one girl who was shallow and rude. Stereotyped me as "lacking intelligence" when she first met me (and ironically asking me for help with an assignment in our senior year..... so much for her racist stereotypes).
One day, when a teacher was trying to settle the class down, I told that girl to "Shut Up"
She said "come say it to my face"
I didn't want to be seen as soft, so I walked to her desk and told her "Shut Up"
At that point, I really thought I was just go back to my desk with ZERO problem!
That girl had other plans.
Just as I was about to turn around and go back to my desk, she ran up and attacked me with full violent force!
At that point, you don't have time to think. You gotta defend yourself! I pushed her back and hit her in self-defense!
The reaction among my peers was mixed!
Some thought the whole incident was funny!
Some accused me of "being abusive" and said "you're not supposed to hit girls". I like to see what they would do if they were attacked by a violent woman!
Also, this whole idea of "you're not supposed to hit girls" is sexist crap!
Why didn't anyone tell that girl "you're not supposed to hit boys"?
Why not "you're not supposed to hit anyone (of any gender) unless they hit you"?
But what REALLY SURPRISED ME was when I was explaining the incident to a few girls who asked about it, they were actually smiling at me! I'm NOT making that up! I honestly did NOT expect that to happen!
I mean, before that, I thought all woman would automatically side with the girl in a fight with a boy No Matter What! I learned THAT'S NOT TRUE!
I never asked why they were smiling, and if I was to ask now, they might not even remember or even deny it!
I will guess that those girls thought that my attacker was a "b*****" and that I was the more honorable person in this whole mess!
They also probably remembered the times I was provoked by others and I kept my calm and never lashed out at those troublemakers, so they knew I wasn't some abusive punk-ass!
Anyways, the teacher in the class didn't send us to the office, probably fearing the administrators would believe the girl over me due to gender bias!
Ironically, as a substitute teacher, if anyone fights, I just send them to the office -- boy, girl, whatever. I just make sure to inform security/administrators if the girl hit first if that was the case! (and in all cases so far, it was the girl who hit the boy first)
4) If Rihanna did hit Brown first, the question was --- in self defense, how far is too far!
In my case, I did NOT choke or bite my attacker, as Brown was alleged to have done to Rihanna.
Here's what Tyra Banks said on this situation
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/03/12/oprah_domestic_violence/index.html
The episode did fail to thoroughly address one topic, however, that has been preoccupying me (and, I know, many Broadsheet readers): the rumor that Rihanna hit Brown first. When one high schooler mentioned it during the show, Tyra quickly pointed out that, if it's true, Brown should have been allowed to defend himself without using excessive force. It is, of course, inexcusable to slap your boyfriend. But choking your girlfriend, threatening to kill her and sending her to the hospital with a face full of blood and bruises elevates the situation to a dangerous extreme.
This is like any controversy over police brutality!
Police have to arrest guys who have violent tendencies and who ain't going to submit to an arrest without a fight! The police have to use some force!
However, sometimes, the police are so caught up in their frustrations, that they go beyond what's necessary.
Just like the Rodney King case, where 4 European-American cops brutally beat an African-American drunk driving suspect Rodney King.
At first, King was un-cooperative, and argued with police. He was hard to take down.
However, even when he was already down, in a situation where the cops could've just teamed and put handcuffs on King, the cops were going crazy with their batons, hitting his head repeatedly, kicking his head, still hitting him when he was non-responsive!
This was all videotaped.
While King was no angel that night, the police went overboard and made things worse than it should've!
Same with Brown. If the details were true, he might've been justified if all he did was pushed Rihanna away from him IF she hit him first! But Brown went overboard, went nuts in choking and biting her! That was brutality!
5) In the 1990's, the most legendary musicians were Kurt Cobain (lead singer of rock band Nirvana) and rapper Tupac Shakur (aka 2pac)
Both had emphasized that other rockers/rappers as well as their fans should treat women with respect!
However, real life sometimes get in the way!
Cobain was once arrested for hitting his wife. Cobain was married to Courtney Love, a female rock star who had a history of temper tantrums! Cobain was usually a mild-mannered person! So I wouldn't be surprised if Love started the fights, Cobain defended himself (or did what Tyrese's character did in Baby Boy) and was the one arrested due to gender bias!
As for 2pac he had a hit song "Keep Ya Head Up" which he expressed sympathy for woman who were abused or had to raise their kids without their father around! This was inspired by his mom having to struggle to raise him without a constant fatherly presence!
However, one night in 1993, 2pac was partying and met a female at the club. They were dancing together and 2pac brought her to his hotel room! His friends were at the hotel room! The details are murky, but Tupac was accused of rape! 2pac claimed the sex was consensual!
While 2pac was acquitted of rape charges, he was convicted of unlawful sexual contact (touching someone without permission) and had to spend about a year in prison!
This inspired some rappers to say that if they bring a girl to their room, they would videotape the whole thing, so they won't be "set up like 2pac was!
The people who knew 2pac said he was usually respectful around woman and was playful around them. They said 2pac was usually a friendly guy, but had serious problems controlling his anger, which got him into other legal trouble. Despite all this, most of the people who knew 2pac personally said they had a hard time believing he would rape someone!
The lesson is -- even for guys who preach respect for women, they still need to work at keeping themselves from lapsing into bad behavior!
It ain't easy being good all the time, but as in the case of Chris Brown, Tupac Shakur and Kurt Cobain, we don't want to be known as the "good guys who went too far!" We got to mentally prepared to respond to everything the correct way. It ain't easy, but it's necessary!
6) I'm running out of time, but I want to link to the Honolulu Advertiser's special report on domestic violence
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/section/domesticviolence
It talks about many details of domestic violence and the tragic stories behind them!
---
Also, another woman was killed by her ex-boyfriend earlier this week.
Even after all the chokings and kidnappings he committed, Toi Nofoa still wasn't in prison on March 17, 2009. He was free to roam the streets as if he did nothing wrong.
That day, he went near Royal Kaukani's home and shot her dead!
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090320/NEWS01/903200365/1001
Friday, March 06, 2009
Honolulu Weekly articles on race & sexual orientation
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!
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, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)