The End of Border's Books

This summer, Border's Books and Music has announced that it will be shutting down operations.



This has been a big downfall for what used to be the biggest bookstore company in existence. It was once a company that was feared due to draining away business from smaller bookstores.


But sometimes, even the mighty fall down, due to inside and outside influences.


Some have criticized the way the company's management has run things.

But a bigger factor is from outside competition. For one, Barnes & Nobles is still in business, and is now the biggest bookstore out there!

There is Amazon, an online company which can ship hard to find books straight to your house!

There are e-books, which some people find more convenient. (though I rather read from a paper than a computer screen, and I usually print stuff that I see online, so I can easily read while on the bus)

There has been less interest in reading books by a younger generation who can easily find tons of information on the internet!

And there's the US economy which has been declining the last few years. People have less money to spend these days!

All those things add up!
-------

Also, just like I did whenever I visited Tower Records, I didn't always go there to buy something! Whereas at Towers, I was mostly there for the listening stations (remember, that was before YouTube came out and re-released hard-to-find classics), I usually went to Borders just to read the books. Many times, I just went there just to look at books that have been publicized, just so I can see if they lived up to the hype! Or I found books I didn't hear about earlier, but they were very interesting, sometimes I even bought them!

Some have criticized people like me who go to stores just to check out stuff, but not buy them! But you have to inspect such stuff before you spend hard-earned money on them!

I have only limited amount to spend with luxury items, and limited space to store them! I did buy CD's at Towers and I did buy books at Border's. But I was very picky with what I buy! It has to be very valuable before I spent my hard-earned dollars on them!
But even when I didn't buy anything during the visit, I did learn a lot of things just reading those books I didn't buy! I also have valuable memories just reading on various topics during my visits, and I did have some valuable memories seeing people I knew when I visited Border's!


Now, they will only be memories!

I will miss Border's and I truly gave thanks to all those who worked at Border's for their valuable services throughout all those years!



===

PS: My goodbye post on Tower Records can be viewed at http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2006/12/end-of-era-tower-records-will-soon-be.html

Facebook and Pop Culture is GREAT for the world!

Even in 2011, there are still a few people who say stuff like "facebook is a waste of time", "there's nothing positive about it", "your facebook friends aren't real", blah,blah, blah, blah!

And 99% of those people have NEVER used facebook! They didn't even give it a chance! Yet, they're just Soooooooooo certain it's all bad!

Just like one of my uncles who I mentioned in my unusually short blog post from May 2011

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-debate-with-facebook-hating-uncle.html


That blog post totally disprove this bull-waste about "facebook making us more isolated". Also, because of facebook, I made peace with someone accused of talking trash behind my back, I finally told off another jerk from the old days with comebacks I wish I thought off back in the days, I apologize to another classmate I disrespected, and much, much more! I wouldn't have had the chance to do those things without facebook, because we would've never come into contact post-school-days if it wasn't for facebook.


I also had birthday guest and was a birthday guest for one classmate that I wouldn't have re-united with if it wasn't for facebook! I bet it happened to millions worldwide!
--------

But there's more benefits by facebook then just meeting former classmates!

For one thing, it can gave you info that save lives

But hey, don't you just call your doctor for that?


Well, doctors aren't perfect people, and sometimes they miss some serious warning signs. Deborah Copaken Kogan had that experience concerning her son, and it turned out when she shared photos of her sick son, her facebook friends told her that her son's illness was more serious than her doctor made it out to be!


http://www.slate.com/id/2297933/?gt1=38001

While Paul, in his normal state of denial, dressed for work, I snapped a dozen iPhone photos of Leo from various angles to send to our family doctor via MMS, the least frightening of which I posted on Facebook so as not to alarm my (Facebook friend) mother. "Swelling worse," I typed, "especially eyes and chin. Fever still crazy high. Poor baby." Was I consciously trying to find an answer out there in the hive mind? No, but some subconscious part of me must have been wondering whether one of my hundreds of "friends" might be privy to some expertise on the befuddling Nutty Professor syndrome that had my child in its grips.


Ten minutes later, I received a call on my cell phone from Stephanie, a film actress and former neighbor. "I hope you'll excuse me for butting in," she said, "But you have to get to the hospital. Now." Her son Max had had the exact same symptoms, and was hospitalized for Kawasaki disease, a rare and sometimes fatal auto-immune disorder that attacks the coronary arteries surrounding the heart. "The longer you wait," she said, "the worse the damage."

(skipped paragraphs)

My cousin Emily, a pediatric cardiologist who often has to deal with the fallout from untreated Kawasaki, also called after seeing the photo, urging me to go to the hospital. "The damage begins as early as five days after the onset of symptoms," she said. At this point, we were well into day three or perhaps even day four, depending on when the symptoms had begun. I wasn't sure. I'd spent all day Saturday working on my book, and my husband doesn't notice rashes and fevers.


I called my family doctor and told him I was heading to the hospital. "I just have a Spidey sense," I said, "that he's really sick." Not a lie, but not the whole truth, either, though what was I going to say? Three of my Facebook friends think my kid has an extremely rare childhood auto-immune disorder which I just read about on Wikipedia, and since they all contacted me after I posted a photo of him on my wall, I'm going? It seemed … wrong! Reactionary. And yet as much as I wanted to be my usual mellow self, the immediacy of the Facebook feedback was enough to push me out the door.


From the hallway in triage, I finally called our family doctor. Admitted what I'd done—furtively filling in the reason-for-visit blank on the hospital form with "possible Kawasaki disease"—and why I'd done it. "You know what?" he said, "I was actually just thinking it could be Kawasaki disease. Makes total sense. Bravo, Facebook."

Over the next three weeks, as Leo was treated, released, retreated, and rereleased for, yes, first Kawasaki disease and then the Kawasaki-triggered liver disease from which he's still recovering, Facebook transformed from my son's inadvertent lifesaver to the most valuable tool in my arsenal: to keep family and friends abreast of his ever-mutating condition without having to steal time and emotional energy away from him; to pepper both Beth, the pediatrician, and Emily, the pediatric cardiologist, with an endless series of random questions with which I was too embarrassed to bother my own doctors; to feel connected—profoundly connected—to the human race while living, breathing, eating and sleeping in the isolating, fluorescent-lit bubble of a children's hospital ward, where any potential humans I might have "friended" on our floor were too distraught over the fates of their own children to make any room in their hearts for strangers.

-----------



Again, this was from http://www.slate.com/id/2297933/?gt1=38001
Show that article to any loser who thinks facebook is all negative! 

Because of the people Ms Kogan was in contact via facebook, she gained important information that her all-so-expert doctor overlooked! Even if her facebook friends might've made the wrong guess, it would've inspired Ms Kogan to get 2nd or even 3rd opinions from different doctors, that could save her child's life!


The more people you're in contact with, the more information you have access to! And facebook makes very easy to contact a lot of people all at once via updates!




----


Facebook doesn't just save one live, it can even be the road to peace, something that could save millions of lives!

The following link is about how facebook has allowed Israelis and Palestinians to communicate with each other. Remember, those 2 groups live really segregated lives, with security measures making it hard to interact with each other, even though they live a few miles from each other.



From New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html

Moad Arqoub, a Palestinian graduate student, was bouncing around the Internet the other day and came across a site that surprised and attracted him. It was a Facebook page where Israelis and Palestinians and other Arabs were talking about everything at once: the prospects of peace, of course, but also soccer, photography and music.

“I joined immediately because right now, without a peace process and with Israelis and Palestinians physically separated, it is really important for us to be interacting without barriers,” Mr. Arqoub said as he sat at an outdoor cafe in this Palestinian city.


It has been nearly two years since Israeli and Palestinian leaders have negotiated their peoples’ future and, with the region in turmoil and prospects for peace dim, interaction between Israelis and Palestinians is increasingly limited to Israeli military checkpoints in the West Bank.


But over the past month, the Facebook page has surprised those involved by the enthusiasm it has generated, suggesting that the Facebook-driven revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt may offer guidance for coexistence efforts as well.

(skipped paragraphs)

But most interesting so far have been the interactions online. At a time when Arabs generally shun contact with Israelis, those on the site speak openly about their desire to learn more about one another.


“This is my first contact with Israelis,” said Lyth Sharif, an 18-year-old Palestinian student at Birzeit University in the West Bank who comes from Dura, a town near Hebron. “A friend of mine told me about it, and I think it’s cool. I joined a few days ago. It helps me understand the difference between Israel and the occupation.”


Unlike members of his parents’ generation who worked in Israel, learned some Hebrew and watched Israeli television, Mr. Sharif has never set foot inside Israel or Jerusalem, a result of the security barrier and Israeli regulations.
Mr. Arqoub, who is 29, knows Israel better. As a youth he sneaked into Israel and worked for a family he grew to love. Later he was imprisoned by the Israelis for two years without explanation, he said. But he rejected bitterness.

Salah al-Ayan, a Palestinian Authority official and a friend of Mr. Savir’s who is helping with the site, said the lack of interaction today between Israelis and Palestinians about ordinary things was alarming.


“Believe me, they don’t know each other at all,” he said in his Ramallah office. “Our goal is to start by talking about art and sports. Since Israelis and Palestinians don’t meet face to face anymore, this is a virtual place to meet. I was happy when I saw that some Palestinians had voted for Israeli photos in the contest.”

(skipped paragraphs)

He said: “I asked one Egyptian why he had contacted me and why he was taking part in this, and he said: ‘After the revolution, everything is permitted. I want to see what Israelis are like.’ ”


Nimrod Ben Ze’ev, a 25-year-old student of Middle Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University, said much of the interaction on the site was still rather wooden — what he called “a peace dialogue mentality.” But he is optimistic.

---

So much for this nonsense about "facebook keeping us isolated". Facebook and other social networks allow for a social bridge between groups that have been traditionally divided! Younger people who are ready to ignore the bigoted attitudes of their family can go online and interact with those of other cultural groups. They can find out the other groups aren't as scary as the stereotypes make them out to be!


While face-to-face communication is great, online social networks can create social interaction when face-to-face interaction is impossible!


Online social networks are still a new thing! If it can encourage Israelis and Palestinians to interact with each other in 2011, imagine what that can mean for the peace process in the future! It could also mean other people of rival ethnic groups can communicate with each other online, learning each other's side of the story, learning how their life is!

Look, 4 decades ago, most people couldn't imagine an African-American president of the USA! Today, it's reality! Sports, entertainment and other media forms gave exposure of African-American role models to millions of Americans who don't live around that many African-Americans! It's hard to be an anti-black racist if your favorite team has an African-American star, or if the song that makes you dance is sung by an African-American! It will also be harder for the younger generation to be anti-Latino with Dora on the TV and Pitbull on the radio!

And pop culture doesn't just unite cultures in the US! Bollywood films have both Muslim and Hindu stars, often appearing in the same films. It also has bridged the divides between India & Pakistan!

From Shikha Dalmia
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/27/bollywood-vs-jihad

India is a country riven with religious, linguistic, socioeconomic, and regional clashes. But the battle that split the country in two last year concerned a far more basic, existential question: Munni or Sheila?

These are the screen names of the sex sirens who danced and lip-synced in Bollywood’s two biggest hit songs not just of 2010 but likely in the Indian film industry’s entire 112-year history: “Munni Badnam Hui,” from the blockbuster Dabangg, and “Sheila Ki Jawani,” from Tees Maar Khan.

Bollywood has done MORE to counter-act against the Muslim fanatics than all the US military power in the world! Bollywood has done MORE to counter-act against the Muslim fanatics than ALL of the FoxNews/right-wing talk radio/Islamophobic blogs COMBINED!

Islamic fundamentalists have long worried about the threat that Bollywood poses to their puritanical demands. Of late, they have even taken to making videos—rap videos, no less—condemning Bollywood movies as being the product of an infidel culture trying to brainwash Muslims against their own religious values and duties. They have ample reason to be worried: About 3 billion people, or half the planet, watches Bollywood, and many of them live in the Islamic world. By depicting assimilated, modernized Muslims, Bollywood—without even trying—deromanticizes and thereby disarms fanatical Islam. If you can have Munni and Sheila in this world, why on earth would you want to strap bombs to your waist and blow yourself up for the sake of 72 theoretical virgins?


For a decade now, America has been fighting the scourge of Islamist terrorism by deploying its considerable hard power.


Washington has launched wars in two allegedly hostile countries, launched drone attacks in allegedly friendly countries, tortured countless terror suspects, and unleashed Transportation Security Administration inspectors to grope and fondle its own citizens. But with the debt and deficit spiraling out of control and with civil libertarians up in arms over the loss of liberties for a war that has no conceivable end, American hard power is arguably maxed out.

And pop culture also did MORE to counter-act communist propaganda in Cold War era Eastern Europe than all the nuclear weapons in the world!

Not that hard power is all it’s cracked up to be anyway. It is widely recognized that the West won the Cold War in at least some significant part because its music and culture won the hearts and minds of Eastern Bloc youth. But the kind of Western soft power that proved so crucial in bringing down the Soviet empire—jazz, Hollywood, the Beatles—is arguably less relevant in the struggle against fundamentalist Islam. American culture, despite its alleged ubiquity, doesn’t have the same resonance in Eastern countries that don’t share the West’s ethnic, religious, and cultural background. While hip hop and heavy metal have helped inspire some of the street protesters demanding more freedoms across the Middle East and northern Africa, outside of the hardcore early adopters these cultural subgenres remain more voyeuristic than aspirational. Their popularity arguably stems more from a curiosity about how exotic people in alien countries live than from an inclination to emulate them.

On Bollywood's influence in bridging the divides between India and Pakistan, even during times when Pakistani government banned Indian films.

The Muslim country most in the grip of Bollywood mania is Pakistan, India’s cultural twin in every respect but religion. The more aggressively that Pakistani authorities have tried to purge it from their soil, the more Bollywood’s popularity has grown. During the country’s four-decade-long ban on Indian movies, Pakistanis watched them via satellite dishes and smuggled VHS tapes. When the ban was finally lifted in 2008, the Bollywood scene in Pakistan exploded. Not only have Bollywood movies been playing to packed houses, but Indian movie stars are treated like demigods, despite Islam’s taboo against idol worship. The latest fad among Pakistan’s urban nouveau riche is Bollywood theme weddings in which the bride and groom dress in outfits worn by a particular movie’s stars and hold their wedding reception in elaborate tents constructed to resemble movie sets.

True changes within the cultures has to come from within! Invasions from foreign powers can only do so much!

It’s hard to emulate—and adulate—a cultural form while simultaneously rejecting its message. And Bollywood’s message is profoundly at odds with the strictures of Islamic extremism. At the simplest level, women who don Bollywood outfits, even when adapted for more modest sensibilities, are resisting the Islamic strictures that would shroud them in a burqa. At a deeper level, Bollywood movies offer a compromise between tradition and modernity that resonates with ordinary Muslims while subverting Islamist designs.

Take romantic movies. You might have expected Hollywood’s more sexually explicit romances to pose a bigger threat to puritanical Shariah law than Bollywood’s tamer approach. You’d be wrong. Both Hollywood and Bollywood idealize true love that conquers all. But the obstacles that Hollywood couples face—previous lovers, infidelity, commitment phobia, baggage from broken marriages—have little to do with the concerns of people in traditional Muslim countries. They can relate far more with Bollywood’s paramours, whose chief impediment is familial objections, given that arranged marriage is still a revered institution in that part of the world.

And just like how movies, TV sports and music has given star-power to the African-Americans in the US, Bollywood has done the same for the Muslim minority in India!

There is another key reason for Bollywood’s appeal to the Islamic world. Since its inception, some of the Indian film industry’s biggest stars, both male and female, have been Muslims. Currently, the three highest grossing male leads are Muslims, all with the recognizably Muslim surname Khan. Bollywood’s most respected music composer—A.R. Rahman, who won an Oscar for the score of Slumdog Millionaire—is also a Muslim, as are many of Bollywood’s best lyricists and screenwriters.

 (skipped paragraphs)

The best Sufi music these days is arguably coming not from the Mideast but from the Indian subcontinent, thanks in no small part to Bollywood Muslims. By showcasing these artists and their work, the Indian film industry demonstrates to Muslims everywhere that adapting to modernity does not require them to abandon their faith and traditions. In fact, it can be a vehicle for preserving and promoting them.

--------

On pop culture's influence in collapsing the communist power in Eastern Europe
From John Stossell
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/28/what-we-dont-know-can-hurt-us/print

I told him that I thought that the Soviet Union collapsed because the Soviets spent so much trying to keep pace with Ronald Reagan's military buildup


On the contrary, Russell said, "it collapsed from within. ... People simply walked away from the ideology of communism. And that began especially when American popular culture—jazz and rock and roll—began infiltrating those countries after World War II."


I demanded evidence.


"American soldiers brought jazz during World War II to the eastern front. Soviet soldiers brought it back. Eastern European soldiers brought it and spread it across those countries. ... Stalin was hysterical about this."


The authorities were particularly concerned about young people performing and enjoying sensual music.


"Any regime at all depends on social order to maintain its power. Social order and sensuality, pleasures of the body, are often at odds. Stalin and his commissars understood that."


American authorities 30 years earlier also feared the sensuality of black music, said Russell, attacking it "as primitive jungle music that was bringing down American youth. Stalin and his commissars across Eastern Europe said exactly the same things with the same words later."


Then rock and roll came.


"That was even more threatening," Russell said. "By the 1980s, disco and rock were enormously popular throughout the communist world."


The communists realized they had to relax the rules or risk losing everything, but it was too late. One of the most amazing and significant spectacles was Bruce Springsteen's concert in East Germany in 1988, when a crowd of 160,000 people who lived behind the Iron Curtain sang "Born in the USA."

And Stossel said this!

People want choices, and you can't indoctrinate that out of them.

AMEN TO THAT!



As the internet age moves along, people can chose to be exposed to more cultures, more ideas, more information more options. Through social networks, they can interact with people they usually don't have much of a chance to interact face-to-face! They can be exposed to more information that can even save the life of their loved ones! They can be exposed to information about other cultures, and learn not to fear them! This can lead to fewer rivalries, more unity, and more lives saved through peace!




Those who want to remain in the old days, and hate on the internet, facebook or pop culture can continue to live in misery and ignorance! The rest of the world has moved on!

Women's World Cup (and other related topics)

Earlier this month, Germany had hosted the Women's World Cup!


Germany was favored to win it all in front of the home crowd!

But as we all know, it wasn't meant to be.

They lost to the eventual champion - Japan.

Japan was the sentimental favorite, due to the tragedies that country faced from the earthquakes and tsunamis on March 11th of this year.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/20110718_Lifting_Cup__country.html


All tournament long the teammates poignantly reminded the world they were playing for their battered country, still reeling from the devastation of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.


Did they ever.


They held the gleaming trophy high above their smiling faces as confetti swirled around the podium, flecking their hair with gold.


"Before we went to the match tonight we had some commentary on television and we heard comments on the situation in Japan," coach Norio Sasaki said. "We wanted to use this opportunity to thank the people back home for the support that has been given."


This was Japan's first appearance in the final of a major tournament, and they had not beaten the Americans in their first 25 meetings, including a pair of 2-0 losses in warm-up games a month before the World Cup. But the Nadeshiko pushed ahead, playing inspired soccer and hoping their success could provide even a small emotional lift to their nation, where nearly 23,000 people died or were reported missing.


After each game, the team unfurled a banner saying, "To our Friends Around the World — Thank You for Your Support." On Sunday, they did it before the match and afterward they had a new sign to display: Champion — the first Asian country to win this title.

--------


In the championship game, Japan played the USA - a country they have never beaten in women's soccer in all of the previous 25 times they played!

The first half of the game was filled with close calls, but no goals.

However, things heated up near the end of regulation time! USA scored first! Japan answered back with their own goal.

Now for over-time. USA scored! Then Japan scored again!

The game can't go on for ever, but there needs to be a winner for the championship game!


So, it was on for the penalty kicks. While Abby Wambach scored a goal for the USA, most of her team-mates missed! Now, it was time for Saki Kumagi to score! She made it, and now Japan are the world champions!


----------


It was the first time an Asian team won the Women's World Cup!


There has been a common stereotype that "East Asians are at a disadvantage in sports due to their lack of height". But soccer is more about speed, ball-handling, and team-work than size! Sweden's team was very tall, but that meant nothing when playing against smaller-sized Japan.


On the men's side, South Korea and Japan have been the only Asian teams that have a consistent record of success in international competition. They usually make all the Men's World Cup tournaments, and South Korea even came close to making it to championship game back in 2002.

The Japan's women's team will most likely inspire more Asian teams (men's and women's) to excel in international competition!

After all, East Asian teams already do well in baseball and softball, and China has had some success in basketball!

Future shall be brighter for other Asian teams to step up and prosper in the big stages of sports!


----


USA's women's soccer team did very well, except for the 1st round game against Sweden, and except for the championship game against Japan.

However, it has been seen as a disappointment to many Americans, since the last time the USA won the Women's World Cup was in 1999. That was the legendary game against China, that took place at the Rose Bowl. It was also the game in which Brandy Chastain scored the penalty kick, and most of us remember what happened after that!


Well, there's always the next tournament!

---------


After every other World Cup (men's and women's) there has been a debate over how popular soccer will be!

Soccer has been growing in popularity, but this is a slow process. These things take time!


Some say that soccer hasn't been popular because "the low scoring game isn't exciting". But it sure is more exciting than baseball, in which 1/2 the game is just waiting for something to happen!

It's got nothing to do with "low scoring" and everything to do with habits!

Most people just don't have the time to follow every sport that's out there! So people just follow the sports they grew up watching! In the USA, it's tackle football, basketball and baseball.


Since most of us don't have time to follow every sport, and we just follow the sports we grew up watching, many US Americans aren't going to spend much time following soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, cricket, rugby, water polo or the other sports. Nothing personal, but most people just follow the hype and those sports just don't have the level of media hype that is given to tackle football, basketball and baseball!

However, I do think soccer will grow in popularity in the USA, just not to level of tackle football and basketball.

The growth factors include the increasing Latino population. That is true with my family, with my Mexican father being a big fan of soccer! He loves to watch international matches! He loves to watch teams not only from Mexico, but also from England, Spain, Italy and even the US's own Major League Soccer. Growing up in that household got me interested in following the World Cups, probably a lot more than those growing up in non-Latino households that focus more on tackle football, baseball and basketball.

Also, with the many cable channels out there, many Americans are exposed to games showing professional teams from England, Spain and other games. You even see US Americans wearing jerseys from foreign teams like Manchester United, Real Madrid, AC Milan and FC Barcelona!

Interest in women's professional teams will also face a slow growth. It took a few decades for college women's basketball to have the popularity it has now! The WNBA has also gained some increased popularity! It will also take some time for people's habits to go towards watching women's pro teams in softball and soccer too!
----

And with anything dealing with women's sports, there is the usual whining about women athletes who posed for sexual photos.

The Nation's Dave Zirin is a good example of that whining
http://www.edgeofsports.com/2011-07-18-636/index.html



Yes, it’s been a marvelous month for soccer but any assessment of this triumph would be incomplete without taking stock of the raunch culture that stalked the tournament’s every step. In the sporting context, “raunch culture” is when women athletes buy into the idea that it’s somehow empowering to display their naked bodies for men’s magazines. These great athletes put themselves before the photographers’ lens in positions both seductive and prone. They claim that they are not only promoting their sport but also proving to the world that their attractiveness and (straight) sexuality is not to be questioned. After posing for their country’s edition of Playboy, five players were kicked off the German under-20 World Cup team. Player Kristina Gessat made plain her motivation, saying, "With these photos, we want to disprove the cliché that all female footballers are butch.”

Here is my response :



sex & sports


Dave Zirin,


I respect the athletic talents of any athlete, male or female, who can win on the big stage!


But I'm tired of you & the Radical Feminists who go ballistic when female athletes pose nude!

(by the way, I haven't heard you or the Radical Feminists complain about the covers of Dennis Rodman's book, or the male soccer stars posing in their undies in a well-known fashion magazine around the same type as the Men's World Cup!)

Look, women, like men, are multi-dimensional people. Even the athletes.


So yeah, a female athlete can have a serious side, a fun side, a risk-taking side, a vulnerable side, an intellectual side, a spiritual side, a compassionate side and a (oh my god.......nooooooooooh!) a sexual side too!




It's unrealistic for you and the Radical Feminists to expect female athletes to act asexual just because they're athletes!


I'm NOT saying we should force female athletes to pose for sexual photos! However, if they CHOSE to do so, either 1) lighten up and enjoy the ride or 2) ignore it and get a life!




Oh yeah, by the way, if you're wondering why many young women don't call themselves "feminists", IT IS NOT a desire to be oppressed! It is because TOO MANY WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS FEMINISTS are the same ones who go ballistic when a female athlete pose for sexual photos!


The reality is that many young women would LOVE to be the female athlete who poses for sexual photos. It's got nothing to do with patriarchy or capitalism or whatever! Most young women love to see themselves as tough and sexually attractive. Those female athletes represent that!


You want a world in which women don't want to pose for sexual photos? You might as well start a genetic engineering project, because your Radical Feminist rhetoric will NEVER over-ride evolution, will NEVER over-ride women's desire for an image of "tough and attractive".




If feminism is about "respecting people's choice regardless of gender" THEN START RESPECTING women athletes who pose for sexual photos! They're just doing something fun on the side! You shouldn't expect them to be serious all the time! Lighten up!


Sincerely,


Pablo Wegesend


----

Well, anyways, I'm looking forward to next Women's World Cup in 2015, which will take place in Canada! Hopefully, the USA can win in it's northern neighbor's territory!

The Police Can't Protect You Everytime - Norway's edition!

Last week's bombings and shootings in Norway was a big surprise for a country that is one of the most peaceful countries in the world!

There's a few comments I want to make on this

1) The Police WILL NOT always save you!

Especially if they're unarmed. That's right, most of the police in Norway don't have their own guns! I'm not kidding!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/europe/26police.html

Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon

Now the most stupid statement in that same article is right here, highlighted like this!

Some experts worry that arming police officers all the time will only lead to an escalation of violence as criminals arm themselves in response. For many, though, resistance to the idea has more to do with national pride.

“I would prefer to live in a society where police normally work unarmed,” said Johannes Knutsson, a professor of police research at the Norwegian Police University College. “It is a very forceful and symbolic sign to the citizens that this is a peaceful society.”

Someone needs to tell those people LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD DAMMIT!

The criminals will ALWAYS be in an arms race against the police! ALWAYS!

  If Norway's police aren't dedicated to winning that "arms race", then they're worthless!
 
For all the tax money we pay for the police, WE PAY THEM TO WIN!  A police that's not dedicated to winning the battles on the street is a WASTE OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY!  If the cops aren't armed, that means they're dedicated to surrender to worst of humanity! 
 
And this stupid crap about "I would prefer to live in a society where police normally work unarmed" and "It is a very forceful and symbolic sign to the citizens that this is a peaceful society"! START LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD! An unarmed police is a "symbolic sign" that the bad guys can do what they like as long as they're tough enough to beat people up! An unarmed police is a "symbolic sign" that  anyone with a gun can shoot and cause havoc without worrying about someone stopping them!
 
Look, in the real world, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO HARM!  Those people ENJOY causing massive pain to others! It's fun for them! If the police aren't prepped for it, THEN THEY ARE TOTALLY WORTHLESS!
 
And i'm tired of this horse-crap that people commonly hear from the anti-gun fanatics is "you don't need a gun, the police will help you"
 
Help me? You mean like how Norway's police took MORE THAN AN HOUR to save the kids at the camp? MORE THAN AN HOUR!
 

It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya Island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.

When someone attacks, they can cause severe damages IN A FEW SECONDS!  WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THE POLICE!

-------
This isn't the 1st time I wrote about how the police won't protect you


From Dec. 20, 2008
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2008/12/police-cant-protect-you-everytime.html

From that blog post

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!

Then I went on about the police DID NOTHING as chaos had hit Mumbai, Athens, Los Angeles and New Orleans!

After I described those incidents, I mentioned this

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!

----

Think about that the next time someone tells you to "rely on the police"

Defend America 1st

If you're a blogger like me, you sometimes find in your past blogs, some predictions that didn't come true!

The one that stands out to me the most was this one from February of this year!

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/02/dictators-going-down-in-muslim-world.html

What happens next in North Africa or the Middle East will be up to their people. The US is pretty much done invading countries to liberate them. The people are pretty much liberating themselves these days.


Yet, the following month, the US government decided it was NOT DONE with invading foreign countries to liberate them. The US Air Force started its attack on Libya, for the purpose of stopping Muamar Quaddafi from killing anti-government protesters and rebels.

The US didn't send troops on the grounds, knowing that the US citizens were already growing impatient with US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan!

But some of President Obama's staff were also staff members under President Clinton. Some of those staff members felt some guilt when President Clinton didn't send troops to try stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994!

However, I, among many US citizens have been feeling the like US can only do so much for others.  We are already at 2 wars right now! Our economy has been in decline. Our government's deficits are growing.

We just don't have the time or resources to save everybody!

------------

I did support the USA's fight in Afghanistan since that was where Al Quaida was headquartered at the time of 9/11!  Somebody had to go after Osama bin Laden, and why not us? Our towers got attacked so let's find the guys who planned it!

I also supported US troops secretly going inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden!  Why should we get permission to go after the guy who attacked our cities?  Pakistan's government is dysfunctional!

As for Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11, I still felt that he was thinking about retaliating against the US over our intervention to stop Iraqi troops who invaded Kuwait! So I didn't mind having the US go after Hussein.

But as we now know, the invasion didn't go as planned. Overthrowing Hussein was easy, stopping the brutal civil war afterwards was the hard part!  From 2006, when President Bush FINALLY listened to advisers who have been telling him we need more troops on the ground, did things calm down!

----------

The war in Iraq have made many US Americans feel like we need to stop being the "world's police-force". This feeling has intensified since the economic meltdown!

More people here are raising questions  like "Why in the hell do we still have military bases in Europe and East Asia?"

Europe has been free-loading off us when it comes to defense for decades! It was one thing to have US troops during WW2 (against Hitler) and the Cold War ( to protect against Soviet communists). But the Cold War has been over for 2 decades already! It's time for Europe to be fully responsible for defending themselves already!

As for Japan and South Korea, they are already rich enough to be fully responsible for defending themselves.  Also, some South Koreans are resentful about US troops in their country? Let's have an election on the issue! If they vote us out, FINE! We can leave, and they will be on their own when it comes to North Korea!  And North Korea would be less of a threat to the US, since they'll be less paranoid about South Korea being a "US puppet".

As for those who feel the USA should be the ones providing troops to stop civil wars in foreign countries?

We can only do so much!

We as Americans honor our military, we honor our fallen soldiers. This is something sacred to us!

But we want them to defend the USA !!!

If another country or a terrorist agency is attacking us, YES we want to punish the hell out of them!  We did that to Japan and Germany in World War 2!  We destroyed Osama bin Laden and dumped him in the ocean. You mess with us, we can be very brutal!

But we're tired of fighting other people's battles!

What difference does it make to the average American which dictator is running Vietnam? What difference does it make to the average American which dictator is running Libya?

Some pundits and bloggers demand that the USA continue to be the world's "police officers"! If they feel the world needs a "police force", why don't they get off their rears, start their own mercenary force, and do the dirty work themselves, instead of just being a bunch of "editorial office heroes"?

(credit Tomas Sowell for that "editorial office hero" quote! An "editorial office hero" is the same thing as a "studio gangsta" as far as I'm concerned! Tough talk, no action! )


Stop begging the taxpayers to pay for their adventures already! We're already taxed enough, and we're tired of having our friends and relatives being sent to die for someone else's battles!

Pay cuts superior to layoffs

You would think that's common sense, right?

Especially if you have a job that pays a MIDDLE CLASS salary, that allows you to afford a middle class home (in places like Mililani, Kapolei, Hawaii Kai, Kaneohe, etc), your own personal automobile, and travel to exotic locations.

But certain members of the Hawaii State Teacher's Association (HSTA) think they should be immune from the effects of a slowing economy. They refuse to compromise with reality and accept a pay-cut!
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110709_HSTA_mounts_legal_challenge.html

They think we should charge higher taxes on the rich! But the rich can leave at anytime, and when they do, they don't have to pay any taxes. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Sooner or later, those who do the hiring (that'll be the "rich") and leave for greener pastures that have lower taxes.  That means less taxpayers and less taxes in the long run!

Look, you price something too much, less people would buy! And you'll see less money in the long run!
You keep raising taxes, less people will stick around! And you'll see less money in the long run!

HSTA needs to understand that! The private sector in Hawaii has faced major declines. They're not able to afford more employees!

So, being that there's less money, there's only 2 realistic choices when it comes to spending on teachers' salaries 1) give them a pay cut or 2) lay off some teachers.

Sometimes in life, you gotta take lesser of 2 bads.  Pay cut it shall be!

Of course, teachers will cry poverty!

NONSENSE!

I work as a substitute teacher and a para-pro tutor in our public school system. I've listened in to conversations involving full-time teachers. In those conversations, those teachers talk about living in places like Mililani, Kapolei, Kaneohe, Kailua and even upper-class Hawaii Kai. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GHETTO ABOUT THOSE PLACES!  Those teachers are NOT living in places like Kuhio Park Terrace, Kam IV or Mayor Wright's!

Nearly every Full-Time teacher arrives to school in their own personal car! THAT'S NOT POVERTY! 

I also hear full-time  teachers talk about trips to Las Vegas, California, Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Europe, etc.  You can't afford those trips (involving plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc) while living under the poverty line!

If there's anyone who is truly under-paid in this business, it is the substitute teachers and para-professional tutors. As a substitute teacher, your work hours are NOT guaranteed! You could have weeks where you work 5 days a week, and the next week  - NOTHING! It all ebbs and flows. And getting called to work the first and last few weeks of the semester is RARE!

As for par-pro tutors, you only work if the student you're assigned to shows up to school. If he/ she is  absent (and especially your student is a chronic absentee), you're only getting paid the first hour of the school day, and you're sent home!

You want to buy a middle class home with a substitute teacher or para-pro tutor salary? You want to buy a car with a substitute teacher or para-pro tutor salary? You want to afford vacations to exotic locations with a substitute teacher or para-pro tutor salary?  You might as dream about purple oceans and pink dirt while you're at it!

Yes, some of my thoughts are envy related! But that "envy" is what made me want to enroll in a master's program that could qualify me to be a full-time teacher. (if all goes to plan, I'll start that program in late August)

I respect that teachers are working hard! That was why I was reluctant to become a full-time teacher when I first started being a substitute! But being a substitute is nowhere as profitable as being a full-time teacher, so that's why I want to change directions!

But even with all that, the HSTA and its members need to look at the big picture! The state is going broke! Full-time teachers make a middle class  (NOT poverty) salaries.  If it comes down to a pay-cut or a layoff, they should just take the pay-cut already and save themselves (or their colleagues) from getting laid off!

Your senator doesn't want to read the bill

Do you believe your senator or representative should read the bills before they vote on it?

Well, if you're from Hawaii, one of your senators ADMITTED that it's not a good idea that he be required to read the bills before voting on it.

Through the Downsize DC website ( http://www.downsizedc.org/), I e-mailed all my Congressional representatives (Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, Representative Colleeen Hanabusa)  on voting for "Read the Bills Act"  that (gasp......omg.....noooooooh!) would require all members of Congress to read the bills before making them law.


For more info on the Read the Bills Act, check out https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

And this is the response I got from Senator Daniel Inouye

----------

Dear Mr Wegesend,

Thank you for your communication regarding the proposal for legislation to impose restrictions on legislative activity.

At this time, the Read the Bills Act, legislation proposed by Downsize D.C., has not been introduced in either the House or Senate. I believe Members of Congress should understand the various implications legislation may have on their constituents, as well as the United States as a whole. However, I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposal are the most effective means of achieving  Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.

Having each bill read aloud to a quorum of Members would consume so much time that it would hinder efforts  to develop and pass legislation and meet our oversight responsibilities. Moreover, the change in procedural rules requiring publication of legislation seven days  prior to a vote would prevent the Congress from addressing time-sensitive matters and hinder the amendment process.

While I am concerned with the last-minute insertion of controversial provisions in legislation, I do not support the draft Read the Bills Act. Although we do not agree on the best way to improve our legislative process, I appreciate that you took time to share your views with me.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this matter.

Aloha,
Daniel K. Inouye
United States Senator

-----

In other words, Inouye is defending corruption with all bunch of useless excuses.

Let's go over such useless excuses.

Inouye said:

Having each bill read aloud to a quorum of Members would consume so much time that it would hinder efforts  to develop and pass legislation and meet our oversight responsibilities

My response:
The senators, the lobbyists and other such people have MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to write up 1,000+ pages into a law that ALL OF US ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW yet Inouye is worried about the time spent having the bill read aloud?

If Inouye is worried about how long it would take to "having each bill read aloud", then the bills are too long!

If ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, then how we do expect the average citizen to memorize 1,000 + pages of Ph.D. level vocabulary?

This shows that Inouye doesn't care about the effects of the law? He cares about just voting for whatever law that has an appealing title, just so he can brag about it come election time!

----------
Inouye said:

Moreover, the change in procedural rules requiring publication of legislation seven days prior to a vote would prevent the Congress from addressing time-sensitive matters and hinder the amendment process.

My response:
How often does Congress vote on "time-sensitive matters"?

Congress usually stall for months on various bills, giving lobbyists, activists, and legislative staff to add a  whole bunch of restrictions, special favors, and other stuff to be described with Ph.D. level vocabulary, which ends up to 1,000+ pages of boring material that you can't expect the average high-school graduate to comprehend it.

After they're done with all that, they don't even give us time to understand the bill before they vote on it!

This  "time-sensitive matters" nonsense is just an excuse for Inouye and his pals to corrupt the process!

This is proven when Inouye objected to "requiring publication of legislation seven days prior to a vote".

In other words, Inouye DOES NOT WANT US TO HAVE THE TIME to understand the law Congress is about to vote on!  Inouye just wants to "pass the law and get it over with" before people can have time to read the laws and figure out the negative side effects of the law! In other words, Inouye wants to pass the law before people can speak out against it! Inouye is supporting tactics that would basically silence the opposition. Inouye wants us to be uninformed about the laws he is voting on before it's too late!

There's no other to interpret it: Inouye is defending corruption!

And sadly, this is normal in the US Congress. They let their staff, lobbyists, activists, etc put all kinds of junk into 1,000+ page bills that most of us obviously have no time to read! Then they refuse to let us have the time to learn about what's in the 1,000+ pages before they vote on the bill!

There's no other way to interpret it: Members of Congress want us to be UN-INFORMED citizens.

-------

Herman Cain, a former CEO who is trying to run for president has proposed that all laws be only 3 pages long.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/herman-cain-i-wont-sign-any-bill-more-than-three-pages-long.php

Cain said:

Don't try to pass a 2,700 page bill. And even they didn't read it! You and I didn't have time to read it. We were too busy trying to live, send our kids to school. That's why I am only going to allow small bills -- three pages. You'll have time to read that one over the dinner table.

For saying that, Cain has been ridiculed as "someone who doesn't like to read" by John Stewart and other comedians!

But look at the main point: Cain believes that bills should be something an average person can understand BEFORE Congress can vote on it! Cain wants bills so easy to understand that "You'll have time to read that one over the dinner table". 

 It isn't "ignorant" or "illiterate" to turned off by the idea of reading a 1,000+ page bill. Most people don't even have time to read 100+ pages a day, much less 1,000+ pages. As Cain implies, most of us are too busy working and taking care of our family to read over a 1,000+  page bill!

Many of us want to be informed citizens. But many of us have to deal with multiple distractions on a daily basis. For many of us, watching the news is the only time we have to get informed. And even then, the news isn't obligated to tell us everything. After all, they have ratings to think about!

This is why Cain and others believe in shorter bills that most of us can read or print from the internet and that we can understand it before it becomes long.

 I will be a bit more lenient, and say that all bills should have a maximum of 10 pages, all typed in 12-sized font (preferably Times New Roman or other easy to read fonts).

Anything that "requires" more than 10 pages shall be divided into different sections that SHALL BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY!  (In other words: Law Part 1 (10 pages), Law Part 2 (the next 10 pages) all VOTED ON SEPARATELY!

Anything more than that can EASILY BE CORRUPTED by politicians, lobbyists, activists, etc who want us to be uninformed about the bills they're trying to manipulate!

If their idea is so great, why not just keep it simple! If they can't do that, maybe their idea wasn't so great to begin with!

----------

As I mentioned earlier Members of Congress almost NEVER vote on a bill based on what's truly within the 1,000+ pages of the bill. The vote based on "does it make me look good come election time?"

So let's pretend if you're a member of Congress, and you got this 1,000+ page bill in front of you that you got to vote on! You like certain parts of the bill, but other parts you don't like! You tried to talk with the other members of Congress about it, but not enough of them were convinced. So you're voting on that bill - ALL OR NOTHING! What would you do?

You vote for it, the negative parts of the bill become law, and the side effects of that bill will be a reality that caused people to suffer, and YOU VOTED FOR IT!

 But if you vote against that bill (even though you like some parts of it), your next political opponent will tell the voters you voted against this bill with a Great Sounding Title, and that you're a bad guy for it?

So what would you do? If you're like most members of Congress, whatever side effects of the law come up doesn't matter. What matters is your next election is coming up, so just vote for that 1,000+ page bill! 

That's why we really should do away with 1,000+ page bills. That's why I prefer a system of each bill being only 10 pages. 

Anything that "requires" more than 10 pages shall be divided into different sections that SHALL BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY!  (In other words: Law Part 1 (10 pages), Law Part 2 (the next 10 pages) all VOTED ON SEPARATELY!

That way if you like Law Part 1 (the first 10 pages) but don't like Law Part 2 (second ten pages), you can vote that way a lot easier, than just vote "ALL OR NOTHING" on a 1,000+ bill!

---

STICKING TO THE SUBJECT

Coincidentally, a few days after I started a draft for this blog post, I got another letter from Senator Dan Inouye.

This time, it's about the "One Subject At a Time Act", which will make each bill being voted on to (....... omg........noh!) to just stick to one subject!

Otherwise, it will be easier for bills to stacked with laws dealing with totally different issues, and members of Congress just voting for it, ALL OR NOTHING, just based on the title of the bill!

For more info on "One Subject at a Time Act", check out http://www.downsizedc.org/osta-legislation

Here's what Inouye wrote

---

Dear Mr. Wegesend,
Thanks for your communication regarding the proposal for legislation to impose restrictions on legislative activity.

At this time, the One Subject at a Time Act, legislation proposed by Downsize D.C.,  has not been introduced in either the House or the Senate. I believe members of Congress should understand the various implications legislation may have on their constituents, as well as the United States as a whole. However, I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposals are the most effective means of achieving Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.

I appreciate that you took the time to share your views with me. Please, be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should similar legislation come before the full Senate for consideration.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this matter.

Aloha,
Daniel K. Inouye
United States Senator

---------

Inouye said :

I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposals are the most effective means of achieving Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.

Well, what is the most effective means of limiting federal spending or the size of our government? Inouye doesn't have an answer for that, because that's not a concern of his! His main concern is getting re-elected based on what sweet-titled bills he voted for, and how much taxpayer's money come back to Hawaii. Which by the way, only happens because of this "I'll vote to fund this project in your state, ONLY IF you vote to fund this project in my state that most of your voters would probably never visit in their lifetime".
 
No, Inouye doesn't want to stick to one subject per bill, because that reduces HIS power to manipulate the process! He wants him and his allies to put multiple issues under one 1,000+ bill without having us to understands what's in the bill! 

Having us understand what's in the bills REDUCES HIS POWER! 

Giving us time to understand AHEAD OF TIME of what Inouye is about to vote on, will REDUCE HIS POWER! 

Having him just focus on one subject per bill will REDUCE HIS POWER!
 
Which is why Inouye and other members of Congress will NEVER agree to have short bills,  will NEVER agree to have the bill read aloud so that there's a public audio recording (that can be on YouTube) before they vote on it, will NEVER agree to give the general public time to understand the bill before it gets voted on, and will NEVER agree to stick to one subject per bill!
 
While the US Constitution is great in that limited the government's power, it didn't limit it enough. The biggest flaw with the US Constitution is  that it didn't require bills to be of limited length, it didn't require a 7-day notice to the public on the bill before it gets voted, and  it didn't require  bills to just stick to one subject!


 
A whole bunch of headaches could've prevented!