One week ago was the 8 decade anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
This attack by Japanese warplanes was deemed an attack on national security and there was an aggressive response.
Any external threat to our way of life is deemed a threat to national security.
But internal threats are glossed over like it's almost nothing.
Red Hill, which is basically just up the hill from Pearl Harbor is the location of fuel storage tanks built by the US military in the years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Those fuel tanks are just about 100 feet above the aquifers that provide water to Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii, and it's largest city.
Those fuel tanks are old, outdated, and are currently leaking petroleum into our water supply.
People living in the military bases nearby already had to evacuate due to the illnesses they received from using that water.
Businesses that operate in nearby areas had to shut down indefinitely, furloughing workers who already had to struggle during the pandemic.
Yes, the Navy is currently trying to contain the leak but the damage is already done.
If a foreign power did that to our water, it would be deemed a threat to national security, and it would be considered an act of war.
But since the US military has been negligent with those fuel tanks, it's not considered a threat to national security.
But it sure is a threat to the people on the island of Oahu.
The fuel in those tanks needs to be moved out of there ASAP!
Yes, the logistics are easier said than done, but it must be done.
-------
PS: an Independent Hawaii would have much more incentive to remove those fuel tanks than the US government would. After all, the US government is based in DC, Hawaii's concerns are too "out of sight, out of mind" for them. An independent Hawaii would have to be responsive to environmental concerns, especially with the water supply that reaches a population center.
I mean what good is it to say "we need the US to protect us from China" if Red Hill is the perfect target for China's missiles. Those fuel tanks are making us sitting ducks for an attack by internal and external attacks. Move those damn fuel tanks already!
Many people assume trials (and court cases in general) are about the morality of the situation. Actually, it's all about the technicalities of the situation. It's all about the technicalities of the individual case, not about sending a moral message to society.
In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant is guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The defense attorney doesn't really have to prove anything, they only need to plant a seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors. If the juror has a reasonable doubt, he/she/etc has to acquit.
People who are acquitted were not really proven innocent, it's just that the prosecutors didn't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I remember being a juror in a restraining order case. The defendant was accused of approaching his ex at a nightclub and moving in an intimidating manner. The defendant's friend said that never happened and to "check the cameras". The prosecutor didn't provide us video footage from the nightclub. That itself gave the entire jury reasonable doubt. Some of us acknowledged that the defendant could be a "douchebag" but there is still reasonable doubt because if the incident happened, the prosecutor would've shown us a video and it would've been an easy slam dunk for the prosecution. One of the jurors mentioned about the ex's safety, but still, there was reasonable doubt. Therefore, we had to acquit the defendant. Not because he was "proven innocent" but because we had reasonable doubt. The defendant wasn't proven innocent, the prosecution just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
This came to mind due to two legal decisions this month.
First was the Honolulu prosecutor's decision to not put Chris Deedy on trial for a 3rd time for the killing of Kollin Elderts in 2011. The first time ended with a hung jury in a case where the jurors could only decide if it was murder, not allowed to decide if it was manslaughter. The second time was a hung jury on a manslaughter charge.
It's been 10 years already, and prosecutors can't just keep trying to convict the same person over the same incident.
This has nothing to do with whether Chris Deedy is a "good person". Prosecutors couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deedy didn't kill Elderts in self-defense.
Deedy made the wrong decision to get drunk while armed on his first night in Hawaii. Deedy should've tried de-escalation instead of just approaching Elderts with a badge. But once Elderts attacked Deedy, it was on! And going on technicalities, you can't call this incident "murder".
Activists claimed that Deedy is a white colonizer and that Elderts is on his own native ancestral land. But the technicalities of the case has NOTHING to do with whether "white is right" or "white is wrong", it's about treating them as individuals who made choices, and how those choices fit the technicalities of the law. So even though Deedy made some bad choices, the trial isn't about those bad choices before he shot Elderts, the trial is about why he shot Elderts. Deedy claimed self-defense, the video showed self-defense, some of the jurors agreed. Because of that, he faces no prison time.
And also this month, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of homicide.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident last year, was in Kenosha, Wisconsin armed with a rifle his friend gave to him to defend a business his friend once worked for when riots broke out in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Blake was approached by Kenosha police for violating a restraining order while he walked off towards his car. The police shot him in the back paralyzing him. Because Blake was African-American, the cops were European-American, and the incident happened a few months after George Floyd's death, this set off riots in the city.
Because the riots were in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, some people had the mistaken assumption that Rittenhouse came to the scene to shoot "black protesters". But the people he shot were NEITHER African-American NOR were they peaceful protesters.
The 3 people Rittenhouse shot were rioters (who happened to be of European-American ancestry) who attacked him when he fell down. The video proves that Rittenhouse was running away from the crowd, the video proves that Rittenhouse was being attacked after he fell down, the video proves Rittenhouse only shot the people who attacked him and DID NOT SHOOT ANYBODY ELSE.
See the video here
Chicago Sun-Times video "GRAPHIC: Video allegedly shows 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shooting 3 people, 2 fatally in Kenosha"
As you may recall, I mentioned that trials are about the technicalities of the situation.
In this case, it's whether Rittenhouse committed murder instead of self-defense.
The technicalities of the case were NOT about whether Rittenhouse made good choices before he was attacked.
Rittenhouse was 17 years old, he should've stayed home and let the adults handle the situation dealing with the business in the riot zone. But that's not what the case was about.
Rittenhouse should've avoided hanging out with the Proud Boys after he was released on bail. But the trial wasn't about that.
The trial was about whether Rittenhouse committed murder or was it self-defense.
Now some activists do have legit concerns about Kyle Rittenhouse and white privilege.
After Rittenhouse shot the 3 rioters, he ran off with his rifle still strapped around him and ran towards a police car with his hands in the air.
I doubt anybody of African-American or Latin-American ancestry with a rifle could run toward a police car without being shot by police. I would advise any civilian (especially those of non-European ancestry, but anybody really) to not run toward a police car while having a rifle strapped around you. Rittenhouse (and anyone in that situation)should've stayed in place as soon as they see police cars coming in their direction. Stay in place, keep your hands up, wait for the police to approach you, and follow police orders when they approach you. If the police are being jerks, fight the issue in court, not in the streets.
But even then, some people wouldn't give African-Americans the benefit of the doubt. Whereas Kyle Rittenhouse was able to run toward a police car with a real rifle strapped around, 12-year old Tamir Rice was shot for having a FAKE gun and wasn't even given a chance to put the FAKE gun down when confronted by police.
Marissa Alexander wasn't given the benefit of acquittal for self-defense when she was arrested for firing a warning shot when confronted by an abusive ex. She was sentenced to 20 years for "assault" (apparently, the technicalities called a warning shot against an abuser an "assault") but was paroled after 3 years.
On the same day that Rittenhouse was acquitted, Andrew Coffee, an African-American man, was acquitted of killing his wife and a cop after it was found that he was victimized in a no-knock raid and defended himself against what he thought was a home invasion. However, he was convicted for being ex-felon being in possession of a gun.
The case was similar to the Breona Taylor case in which the police committed a no-knock raid in which the police shot & killed her while her boyfriendKenneth Walker shot back at what he thought was a home invasion by burglars. The case against Walker was dismissed, but he is currently filing a lawsuit again the police.
And going back to the city of Kenosha, there is a pending case for Chrystul Kizer, an African-American female who was charged with murder when she was 17 years old (the same age as Rittenhouse in his incident. Kizer says that she was defending herself against an attempted rape. The person she killed, Randall Volar, had previous sex abuse charges for which he wasn't convicted.
Because of these cases, many feel that Kyle Rittenhouse benefitted from white privilege, whereas those of non-European ancestries were treated with suspicion and even punished for self-defense. They worry that white jurors would assume non-European defendants to be "thugs" and wouldn't give them the same benefit of the doubt they would give to someone like Kyle Rittenhouse. Defense lawyers do have extra hurdles to acquit non-European defendants due to juror biases, and prosecutors also take advantage of this juror bias. Kyle Rittenhouse also had access to funds from sympathizers to pay for his attorney, whereas those without money don't have access to good lawyers.
But even with racial inequalities, this doesn't mean that Deedy or Rittenhouse are worthy to be found guilty, even if they do benefit from white privilege.
The goal for anti-racist activists is to get more European-Americans to not just assume that non-Europeans are "thugs" and to give them a fair judgment. In other words, give non-Europeans the same benefit that Deedy and Rittenhouse got!
------
Meanwhile, in Georgia,Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan (all of whom are European-Americans) was convicted for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery (who is African-American). The McMicheals and Bryan were videotaped chasing Arbery as he was jogging through the neighborhood, then shot him. They claimed they were chasing a burglary suspect, even though there was no evidence of Arbery committing burglary. They also claimed "self-defense" when it was they who started the confrontation with Arbery.
While some activists claim that the Rittenhouse case & the Arbery case are similar, due to the fact that the suspects were European-Americans, it really isn't that similar.
Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect a business his friend once worked for. He ran from a confrontation, and only fired his weapon when he was physically attacked. The video proves that.
Meanwhile, it was the McMichael's and Bryan who started their confrontation with Arbery and shot him. The video proves that.
Things obviously get more tricky if there's no video recording, and it is harder for the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which was partly why the jury I was in had to acquit the defendant suspected of a TRO violation. (as mentioned earlier, it was in a nightclub and the defendant's friend said "check the camera" but the prosecutor didn't show video evidence).
And in case anyone is wondering, both the defendant and the accuser in the TRO case are of European ancestry. The defendant's friend looks as if he could be mixed-race, his background wasn't revealed in the trial. None of that is relevant, because we're supposed to judge people as individuals.
And that's the important thing: people have to be judged as individuals who made choices. They are not symbols of anything! They are individuals.
And laws aren't really about morality, it's whatever the lawmakers deem appropriate to satisfy whatever constituents they are appealing to.
And that that is why trials are about the technicality of the situation, not the morality of the situation.
30 years ago today, legendary singer Freddie Mercury died from AIDS!
He was mostly known as the lead singer of Queen, though he also had some solo records as well!
He was a man ahead of his time in so many ways.
His music crossed multiple genres. He defied industry pressure to stick to a formula. While his band was mostly known as a rock band, he could also do opera, disco, synthpop and so much more. He could do the baddest rock songs ever (like "We Will Rock You") and then sing the most inspirational ballads "We are the Champions"). He could even do multiple genres in one song like "Bohemian Rhapsody". He could do gangsta lyrics alongside a disco beat in "Another One Bites the Dust" a decade before gangsta rap became mainstream.
Had he lived longer, I believed he would've performed with rappers too! His music was already sampled by Vanilla Ice and Ice Cube, but it would've been epic if he shared the stage with someone like Jay-Z, Outkast, or Missy Elliott!
While he did some synthpop (like "Radio Gaga", whose title inspired the stage name for Lady Gaga), it would've been epic if he also did some other electronic music genres that appeared after he died. Imagine him doing dubstep and making appearances with Skrillex! He might've also worked well with Avicci, another legend who died young!
-----
Freddie Mercury shied away from speaking about his ethnic background. Mercury, born with the name Farrokh Bulsara in Zanzibar (an island off the coast of Tanzania) of Parsi descent (Parsis were descendants of Persian refugees who escaped from Persia to India in the 7th century). He moved a lot during childhood, going from Zanzibar to India, back to Zanzibar. His family escaped Zanzibar when the Arab and Indian populations were being attacked by African rebels in 1964. That was when he moved to the United Kingdom.
However, Mercury didn't want to talk about his non-Western background.
Fast-forward a couple decades, and a man born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father, and spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii became the President of the United States. That would be Barack Obama. He was able to do so even with all these birther conspiracy theories. He wrote a book about his unique background! He used his story to connect with people of various backgrounds.
Mercury also shied away from speaking about his bisexuality. He was in the closet for most of his life, only going public when he was dying. This even though it seemed that he was in the most transparent closet known to humanity, as he was not afraid to show his feminine side. But then again, Prince wasn't afraid to show his feminine side, but he only had sexual relations with women.
Fast-forward a couple decades and many musicians come out of the closet early in their careers with pride. Lil Nas X is now one of the biggest stars in rap music even while doing the most raunchy gay music videos. Meanwhile, his rival Boosie is looking like a sore loser in launching many homophobic verbal attacks on Lil Nas X!
Mercury also only publicly announced that he got AIDS less than 24 hours before his death. Such a major contrast to the announcement from Magic Johnson a few weeks earlier that he tested positive for HIV.
I get that Freddie Mercury, despite his flamboyant persona on stage, was private about his personal life. But it would've been interesting if he was more open about his non-Western background and his LGBT status. He could've been more public about his HIV status. But then again, maybe by leading by example, by making great music, that might be enough for the following generations to take the baton further along in the representation of minority populations in popular media.
=====
As for the "where were you when you found out" questions, I honestly didn't know who he was when he died. It was 1991 and I was in the 5th grade. It also happened to be the first year I paid attention to MTV. By then, it's been years since Queen made a hit record. Yes, I already heard that "We Will Rock You" song as you can always hear in the background on televised sports games. But I was totally unaware of their other songs.
But in the following months, I sure caught up in knowing who he was. I learned where Vanilla Ice got the beat from. I learned of "We are the Champions". There was the televised tribute concert from Wembley Stadium. And of course, in early 1992, there was the movie "Wayne's World" where the characters were singing Bohemian Rhapsody while riding in a car. And because of that movie, the music video for that song got heavy MTV airplay the next few months as if it was a new track.
And every few years, a new generation gets introduced to Freddie Mercury and Queen! Whether it's because another of their songs get sampled, another movie used their song in the soundtrack, Adam Lambert joined the band on their tours, a singer naming herself after a Queen song (that would be Lady Gaga), and of course, the biopic featuring Rami Malek.
And now, a generation born after Mercury's death knows his songs by heart!
While Freddie Mercury died too soon, his legend lives on!
One of my favorite opinion writers is John McWhorter, a linguistics professor at Columbia, and author of many books and articles. In addition to linguistics, he writes about race relations and the evolution of cultures.
Like me, he is very skeptical of the Radical Left and the Radical Right. While he self-identifies as a Democrat, he is also very critical of the "woke" ideology that has dominated academic and activist spaces. He can critique the "woke" without resorting to the juvenile antics of right-wing nutcases like Candace Owens. Anybody who can do that is my hero!
But I have a respectful difference of perspective on McWhorter's recent article in the New York Times, titled "If You Have Something to Say, Then Say It"
In that article, he states that schools should spend more time encouraging students to become better public speakers rather than become better writers. He also stated this
A lot of people really hate writing. It’s an unnatural activity, as humanity goes.
As a blogger, I have some feelings towards that statement. Not because McWhorter is totally wrong, but because I feel that the power of writing is under-appreciated.
And when I mean "the power of writing", not only the power of writing on the reader but also the power of writing for the one doing the writing. Especially for me, being that I have speech impediments.
I wrote the following letter to John McWhorter
Dear John McWhorter,
I'm a huge fan of your writing and your thinking. I love the way you dismantle the "woke" cliches of the Radical Left without resorting to the tired cliches of the Radical Right. I really wish your works are recommended in academic spaces as often as the works of Ta-Nehisi Coastes and Ibram X. Kendi to showcase true diversity of thought.
However, I do have a different perspective on writing vs speaking.
You see, when I started blogging back in 2003, I assumed that more people would take up blogging. (shameless plug: check out https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com)
When I started using social media, I assumed that former classmates who were so vocal in person would be writing their thoughts on a regular basis in their facebook posts, but oddly, I find very few did. I assumed maybe they have become more private as they got older. Or maybe that they were so traumatized by having their writings corrected so brutally as students when they were in school that they never wrote again once their school days were over.
But your article helped me understand The Why that more people aren't blogging or writing their thoughts on social media posts. Writing doesn't come naturally to most people.
Whereas for me, writing is more natural to me. I started talking late (at the age of 5) and have a speech impediment that makes it hard to speak clearly, even though that didn't stop me from being a substitute teacher (from 2005 to 2018).
Writing is also more natural to me because I have some time to think of what to add (or subtract) from the final product before submitting it to be read by the reader. I also love writing because I can express myself without being interrupted like I would in a spoken conversation.
I can also express myself more clearly in writing about very emotional topics without breaking down into a crying fit or a loud rage like I would in a spoken conversation.
Writing has been a major miracle in expressing my grievances towards my parents and have actually helped them understand my side of the story that they wouldn't have gotten in a spoken conversation that tends to get a lot of interruptions. By writing those letters to my parents, it had made follow-up spoken conversations much easier. On the other hand, my father, for whom English is a second language and hasn't learned to type has a harder time expressing himself and I do feel bad for him.
Now, I do realize not everyone likes reading like I do, so I do have a YouTube channel (another shameless plug:
https://tinyurl.com/ydfdep3a) to reach out to those who don't like reading blog posts. Some of my learning disabled friends have mentioned about seeing my videos but haven't mentioned about reading my blogs.
But as you might hear in my videos with my speech impediments, and compare it to the clarity of my blogs, blogging and writing is me in my more natural element compared to my YouTube videos.
Anyways, I apologize if this letter makes you feel like a trauma dump, as if you're a therapist dealing with a stranger's problem. I just wanted to share a different perspective from someone who prefers writing over speaking. I hope that more students can embrace writing as it can bring wonders to their mental health like it did for me.
Maybe we can improve the teaching of writing by having teachers more gentle in their corrections, that way students aren't so traumatized that they no longer write after finishing school.
I look forward to reading more of your writings and I hope more people can rise up against both the "woke" left and the Alt-Right like we do :)
Sincerely,
Pablo Wegesend
=========
Now I do worry that if I could no longer write, type, or see, it would cause a major disadvantage for me to communicate and express myself!
I fear becoming the character in "Johnny Got His Gun", a novel and film about a veteran who loses his limbs, sight, voice, and hearing, and now has a hard time communicating with others. This inability to communicate and express has caused the character to go insane.
(note: the story also inspired Metallica's classic song & video "One")
But as long as I'm able to write, type, and speak, I will continue to use my voice to express myself and give my insight to the world.
For many people, going to the dentist can be very intimidating. Someone is doing something to your teeth with equipment while you can't speak.
But it wasn't intimidating with Dr. Clifford Park. He puts you at ease, tells you what he is going to do, and kindly explains the situation to you. Even if it means him encouraging you to drink less sugary drinks.
I became Dr. Park's client because he was my parent's dentist. In fact, sometimes I meet my parents at his office because we would sometimes have appointments the same day.
My mother met him before I was born when she was a client of another Dr. Park who was retiring and referred her to Clifford Park. Both my mom and Dr. Clifford Park shared a collective trauma from a pediatric dentist who used to work at Palama Settlement who had horrible attitude toward the kids he worked with. From that trauma, Dr. Park set out to be a better dentist for his clients.
When it was my turn to see Dr. Park, he would sometimes to talk to me about the letters I have written to the local newspaper or he would ask me about my adventures as a substitute teacher.
The last time I saw Dr. Park was in August of this year. I had an appointment with him the same day as my parents. He seemed very healthy.
So it was a shock when I got a letter in the mail saying that he had passed away, The letter didn't state the cause of death.
The letter did promise some sort of transition to a new dentist, but that is still in the works. My next scheduled appointment is this coming February. Hopefully, by then, arrangements can be made for me to have a dentist as great as Dr. Clifford Park.
Back in February, I wrote a blog post AND a letter to the local newspaper saying that Hawaii's unemployment insurance (UI) office should reopen as soon as possible.
In a humane world, the state Unemployment Insurance office would’ve been one of the first places to reopen to the public during the coronavirus crisis. However, in the real world, reopening bars, arcades, banquet halls and stadiums were given higher priority, all because they service those with money to spend.
But the Unemployment Insurance office, which is designed to service those who don’t have much money left, is the last place to reopen to the public. A shameful snapshot of what our priorities really are.
Pablo Wegesend
That the Unemployment Insurance office took this long to reopen is total negligence!
And the person who is in charge of Hawaii's Department of Labor & Industrial Relations (DLIR), from which the UI office falls under, is probably the most tone-deaf people in our state government (and that's saying a lot, being that our government officials are notorious for being tone-deaf). DLIR's director isAnne Perreira-Eustaquio.
n the absence of in-person help, Liriano says she’s spoken to many workers who have simply given up on getting the money they’re due.
“By the time (unemployment is) calling back people, people have literally lost their phone service. It’s been so many months,” she said. “They’re living on the streets or in their cars.”
Perreira-Eustaquio said people who need computer help can use Hawaii libraries, and questioned how many people aren't able to access the online application.
“I don’t know of one person who doesn’t own a phone,” she said. “Nowadays everyone has a phone.”
WTF? Anne Perreria-Estaquio is implying that everyone has internet access, everyone has a smartphone!
A person who is that OUT OF TOUCH with the reality of poverty SHOULD NEVER be in charge of ANY social service agency!
Just because everyone in your clique has the latest iPhone doesn't mean everyone does. Just because everyone in your clique is experienced with Zoom/Skype/etc, doesn't mean everyone is.
I know MULTIPLE people who don't have a smartphone. In fact, I know MULTIPLE people who lack even basic computer skills.
Yes, even in 2021!
And a person who is desperate for help from the UI office definitely isn't able to afford the latest technology.
There are MANY people out there whose jobs don't even involve any computer technology.
I remember working at a school a few years ago, and some of the custodians and security guards had trouble even doing an online survey that all school staff had to do. That's because their jobs don't require using a computer or a smartphone on a day-to-day basis.
If those same exact people got laid off, do you think they're able to do a Skype session with the UI office? OF COURSE NOT!
But yet, Anne Perreria-Estaquio thinks everyone is a computer expert now. She thinks everyone is addicted to the smartphone like she is.
And remember, she is in charge of the department (DLIR) that supervises the UI office.
I think deep down, she is too nervous to take the necessary precautions to reopen the UI offices, NEVERMIND THAT NEARLY ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS already implemented those precautions to make their services accessible.
I mean, at this point, even the new football stadium on the University of Hawaii campus already implemented some sort of precaution policies to engage public access. And that stadium can hold 9,000 people.
But Anne Perreria-Estaquio took this long to figure out how to make the UI office accessible to the public?
That's the sad thing! Our society prioritizes those who are so spoiled that they demand to attend expensive events, instead of prioritizing those who are facing eviction and starvation.
3 decades ago today, on November 7, 1991, basketball superstar Magic Johnson announced that he tested positive for HIV.
It was a major shock for the sports world. Johnson was one of the biggest stars in the NBA. He won multiple championships, and it was only a few months after his Los Angeles Lakers lost the Finals to Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. People were expected them to compete again for an encore the following post-season.
But it was not meant to be. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, has shown no mercy to those infected! Many have died slow painful deaths from a weakened immune system.
I was in 5th grade when the announcement was made. This was a topic of class discussion. We all thought Magic Johnson would be dead by the year 2000.
But yet, it's 2021, and Magic Johnson is still alive. He was lucky with the timing and the fortune he had to have access to medications that reduced the effects of HIV.
He did retire from the NBA after the announcement, but he did play in the 1992 Olympics as part of the USA Dream Team, the first group of NBA play in the Olympics. (Previously, the Olympics was reserved for amateur athletes).
He did return to play in the NBA in 1996 and then retired for good.
Magic Johnson did became a successful entrepreneur with his chain of movie theaters, as well as his partnership with other companies which he encouraged to set up shops in African-American communities.
He also tried his luck as a TV talk show host, record label executive, sports commentator, real estate investor, and a sports team executive. Some of those ventures worked out better than others.
Magic Johnson is still physically fit and still has his happy smile.
But just because some people can thrive after an infection, that doesn't mean everyone can be so lucky. Something to think about in this covid-era.
======
Learn more about Magic Johnson's HIV announcement and its impact since then at
