Associated Press on the McKinley/Honolulu High School name controvery

 A few days ago, the Associated Press (AP) published an article on my alma mater's name controversy.

My alma mater's official name is currently McKinley High School, but it was AND SHOULD BE AGAIN named Honolulu High School

You can read the AP article at 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-school-named-for-us-leader-muddles-alumni-identity/ar-AA10faTx

here's a brief summary of what the name controversy is about from that article

But for some, answering that question gets complicated when the school bears the name of President William McKinley, who many Native Hawaiians disdain for his role in the annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States. And now a proposal to change the name of Honolulu's McKinley High School has sharply divided graduates, often along generational lines.

 

I was actually contacted by email to interview for this article. I did the interview via phone but my quotes didn't make the final draft.

But I did record the interview with my webcam. I did it just in case if I quoted out of context.

Anyways, I posted the video of the interview, which you can watch at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e7262z_cGo

"Associated Press phone interview on the McKinley/Honolulu High School name"

In that interview, I basically said that the school's original name was Honolulu High School and that it was given the William McKinley name as a middle finger toward those who opposed the annexation of Hawaii into the USA!  I noted that it was common imperial practices for the conquerors to force their names on the already existing places they have conquered. It's like "yeah, we put our names and statues on your place, what you're gonna do about it?"

I also mentioned that we are now watching Russia invade Ukraine in real time and that there would be outrage if the Russians start imposing the name of Vladimir Putin on the schools and other locations within Ukraine.

It would've been nice if all of that was quoted in the article. But then again, the reporter couldn't fit quotes from everybody into an article that was probably given a word limit by the editors.

When it comes to those who support keeping the McKinley name, here is the most ridiculous one quoted in the article. 

But even talking about changing the school’s name makes 1979 graduate Suzanne Chun Oakland cry.

“It was like stabbing me in the heart,” the former state lawmaker said of hearing about the effort. “It’s like going into your family and saying you have to change your family name.”

Excuse me? Suzanne Chun Oakland likes to identify herself as a liberal Democrat (she's a former state legislator), but it would make her cry and feel "stabbed in the heart" if the school no longer has the name of the man who is like Donald-Trump-on-steroids? 

Do you know who really feels stabbed in the heart and have a legit reason to cry? The Native Hawaiians when their nation was stolen by outsiders in the 1890s! 

And yet, this alleged liberal (who used to represent the district I grew up in) wants to attach her identity to a man who, like Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin, took over lands without the consent of the people who were living there?

I don't want to attach my identity to a maniac madman who not only took over Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines without the consent of the people, but also betrayed & inflicted brutality on the Filipinos who fought to be independent from both Spain and the USA. 

I want to identify with the name Honolulu High School. After all, my high school is in the center of Honolulu. 

And it shouldn't be so difficult for anyone from our school to start identifying themselves as Honolulu Tigers! 

To learn more about why McKinley High School should be renamed Honolulu High School, check out this blog post from 2018!

https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2018/05/put-tiger-statue-on-oval.html

=======

The following was a written testimony I sent in March 2022 about the proposed resolution to change the school's name.

To the members of the Hawaii State House of Representatives,

My name is Pablo Wegesend, a 1999 graduate of the school currently known as McKinley High School. I bleed the school colors Black & Gold. I am a major fan of the school's Tiger spirit. The school is the home of some of my very wonderful memories. I have organized the 15th & 20th year reunions for my classmates. Nobody can question my school spirit.   However, I believe it is time to give the school back its original name of Honolulu High School.

McKinley High School was named after  William McKinley, who was the US president when Hawaii was annexed into the American empire without the consent of the Hawaiian people.

Imagine how it feels to have your country taken over, and to have the conquering leader have his name and a statue on the high school located in the urban center where everyone can see it! The name & the statue is like a middle finger towards the Hawaiians who protested against the conquest and annexation of Hawaii. We as the people of Hawaii should no longer accept that white supremacist imperialist middle finger in silence. 

In 2022, we are watching in real time as Vladimir Putin has sent Russian troops into Ukraine against the will of the Ukrainian people. If Vladimir Putin had force schools in Ukraine to be named after him, the world would be outraged at this attempt of forcing the people of Ukraine to accept Russian control.  We need to have the same exact outrage towards having a school in Hawaii named after a Putin-like character William McKinley who imposed American colonialism against the will of the Hawaiian people.

It is time for Hawaii to take a stand against white supremacy, racism, colonialism and imperialism. It is time for Hawaii to stop with its inertia that tends to allow the status quo to go unchallenged! 

 It is time for Hawaii to be an inspiration to the world with a powerful example of peaceful change that corrects the wrongs of the past. Removing the statue of William McKinley from the school will be that powerful example of peaceful change. Removing the William McKinley name from the school and renaming it Honolulu High School will be that powerful example of peaceful change. 

And may I suggest that after the McKinley statue is removed, that we can replace it with a statue of the school's mascot : The Tiger. That statue will be a major boost of school spirit for the students and alumni of the school.

Place have the honor and  bravery to approve HR24 and HCR26! It's the right thing to do.

====

BONUS PICS 

Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, maniac madman who sent troops to invade Kuwait to satisfy his lust for power & empire.

William McKinley, president of the U.S.A., maniac madman who sent troops to invade Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico &Guam to satisfy his lust for power & empire.

And to to top it all off, McKinley conquered more land than Saddam Hussein ever did! 

And yet, people insist we continue to have a public high school in Hawaii named after him? 

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

Vladmir Putin, Russian dictator who sent troops to invade Ukraine to satisfy his lust for power & empire.

William McKinley, American president who sent troops to invade Hawaii, Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico to satisfy his lust for power & empire.

It it's insane to rename things in Ukraine after Vladimir Putin, THEN IT'S ALSO INSANE to rename an already established high school in Hawaii after William McKinley. 

 

which is better for your kid: private or public school?

The school year is beginning in Hawaii! 

As of now, I'm not working at a school!

But I was working as a substitute teacher for 13 years in both public & private schools. 

As for the question: "which is better for my kid: private or public school?" ............. I'm going to need more information before I even dare attempt to answer that question.

There is NO SUCH THING AS "a school that's a perfect fit for everyone"

Sure, some school administrators try their best to make their school a good fit for everyone that's enrolled.

But it's nearly impossible to be all things to all people.

-----

Earlier today, I saw this advice column by Carolyn Hax from a mother who wants to send her child to a private school, but the father is adamant about sending him to public school.

Here is a part of Hax's response

https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2022/08/01/carolyn-hax-private-public-school-dad/

Which fit is best for your kid? The “better” private school would be heaven for some, and a torture chamber to others. Is it sports mad and you have a theater kid? Is it four AP classes a semester or else and your kid wants to be a firefighter?

Yes to this!

Some students would thrive at a preppy private school like Punahou or ʻIolani!  But others would burn out there

Some would benefit from smaller class sizes provided by smaller private schools like ASSETS.

Whereas for others, they need access to more school activities that are available at larger public schools. For someone like me, being at a large public school was exciting, others felt overwhelmed & lost there!

Some who had trouble in a mainstream public school have benefitted from transferring to a more culturally relevant charter school (for example, Halau Ku Mana or Ka Waihona)

And if your son is the hyper-masculine type, being at Saint Louis School would be a perfect fit. And you can drop off your daughter at nearby Sacred Hearts Academy!

But you can't just rely on stereotypes.

If you think a private school will be a bully-free environment for your kids, IT IS NOT! Some of the private school students I've dealt with are rude & sassy as hell!

And there are some very wonderful students & teachers in public schools located near public housing complexes. That was definitely the case when I was working as a Library Assistant at Kalākaua Middle School! (I'm just glad the head librarian I was working with is now gone)

Also, your child could benefit from being at the same schools as the friends they already have. They need a layer of protection, and good friends are that layer.

It was why I insisted on attending the high school my friends were attending even though my parents moved out of the district right before high school. Though using my grandma's address was a pain in the rear! Which was why I turned against my parents for moving out!

This is why you need your child's input!

After all, it's your child who has to deal with the teachers, peers, and the whole school environment all day, NOT YOU!

They know the conditions on the ground, you most likely don't (unless you work at the same school your child is attending)!

You can encourage your kids to consider a private school, even take a tour. But if they're adamant about attending the same public school as their peers, let 'em! Unless it's the same group that gets your kid in trouble, then pull 'em out!

Sometimes, you may have to try different schools if the first one doesn't work out!

Again, there's no easy answers!

new video: in defense of affordable housing in Hawaii

Earlier this year, I had  a blog post titled "Thoughts on Affordable Housing in Hawaii"

https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2022/04/thoughts-on-affordable-housing-in-hawaii.html

And now, I followed up with a video speech where I take on the NIMBY fanatics who oppose affordable housing units in the community. 

I also take on the xenophobes on the left & right who blame "outsiders" (ie. European-Americans, Micronesians) for the scarcity of affordable housing in Hawaii.

It is NOT the outsiders who are to blame for the scarcity of affordable housing in Hawaii, it's the Local NIMBYs who are to blame for the scarcity of affordable housing in Hawaii.

Learn more by watching this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEZ3tvMPkEc

"In defense of affordable housing in Hawaii"

thoughts on Supreme Court decision on abortion

 Earlier today, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision to require all states to keep abortion legal at least for the early stages of pregnancy.

It is now up to each state to decide what its abortion policy is going to be.

Some states already had a law banning abortion as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned.  

Abortion appointments had to be canceled in many states today. 

Some people thought this day will never come.

On my Facebook news feed, I've seen MULTIPLE people expressing thoughts like this

Veterans for Libertarianism

11h  · 

I have to admit that I was one of those people who said things like, "Calm down, they're not going to overturn Roe v Wade and 50 years of established precedent."

Clearly, I was wrong, and I apologize to those who I accused of overreacting when they were worried about Trump's Supreme Court picks.

And that's the thing, people underestimated how badly the religious fanatics wanted to ban abortion!  

Too many people were complacent!

They looked at polls claiming that most people want some form of legalized abortion. This gave them a false sense of security. 

But the religious fanaticss DON'T CARE how unpopular their agenda is, they'll implement it any chance they get.

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas already stated that he is ready to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions on contraception and same-sex marriage.

This is a declaration of war from the Religious Right!  They're out for blood! They're in it for the long-haul. 

--------

This might be a boost for Democrats if they know what to do with the opportunity.

Democrats got lucky in 2020 because Trump mishandled the coronavirus crisis in his last year in office.

But they've been struggling for momentum since due to inflation and high gas prices.  

If the Democrats are disciplined, they can use the recent Supreme Court decision to constantly remind voters that Republicans are beholden to religious fanatics who will stop at nothing to ban abortion, contraception, or even basic LGBT rights. 

thoughts on the Uvalde school shooting (one month later)

(note: I actually planned to write on this weeks ago, but I rarely had time to focus on blogging)

One month ago today, the school year was about to end, and it was time to celebrate.

However, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, someone ensured that there'll be nothing to celebrate for a long time. A man went into the school and murdered 19 students and 2 students. 

This echoed another incident from a decade ago in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

--------

In an emergency, you don't have much time to think. You have to act under severe duress. It's unrealistic to expect that no mistakes will be made in attempting to protect the children in such situations. It can be easy to forget to lock a door you aren't even sure is unlocked. That is understandable and forgivable. 

But the police were too slow to act. They stood around the campus and were rougher on the understandably impatient parents than they were on the shooter. The police claimed that they didn't want to put themselves in danger. But we pay them to put themselves in danger in these circumstances. Firefighters and lifeguards are known to risk death to save someone else's life.  But much of police training is focused more on protecting themselves than the civilians. 

And my guess is some of the cops wanted to just get in there and stop the shooter but didn't because they had to obey the commander. This in itself will traumatize those cops for life.

The commander is supposed to be brave and encourage the subordinate officers to be brave against the shooter. That's what we pay them to do. 

------

And this incident sparked additional demands for more gun control. 

Because the shooter was 18 years old, anti-gun activists want laws to limit gun sales to those over 21. I think that's the wrong approach. 18-year-olds are old enough to join the military and carry big guns. If that's the case, then 18-year-olds without a criminal record should be allowed to buy a gun.  

I believe in a consistent age of adulthood. If 18 is the age of adulthood, then an 18-year-old should be able to vote, join the military, buy a gun, smoke, buy beer, have sex with adults, and do other things without getting their parents' permission.

(* note: I discourage people from drinking alcohol or smoking, but if it's legal for adults and 18-year old are adults, then they should be allowed to do it)

I also think we should allow school staff to be armed, and not just security.  I don't think it should be required because some staff might be squeamish around guns. But the ones who want to be armed should be allowed to get trained and then be allowed to be armed on campus.

Gunphobes say "why don't we just ban guns?"  Guns are already invented and it's too late to stop now. And throwing an eraser at a killer isn't going to work. Someone needs to be there to shoot that guy. Especially since it'll take forever for the police to come, and even then, they may not always be much help.

It's best for the shooter to wonder "will the school employee shoot back?"  instead of thinking "school employees ain't going to do s**t, and the police is not here yet".

School shooters LOVE gunphobes because gunphobes make schools defenseless against people with guns. School shooters want to inflict maximum damage. But if an office clerk, teacher, librarian, custodian, or cafeteria worker shoots back, then the damage is minimized.

-------

There's also talk of mental illness. Yes, schools need more mental health professionals. The ones already employed are overwhelmed with the # of students assigned to them. 

But we also have to be realistic that mental health professionals can only do so much. Some people don't want to be helped.

And in school shootings, this isn't someone who just snapped. These attacks are planned. 

Or as Mark Follman wrote 

Extensive case history shows that mass shooters don’t just suddenly break — they decide.

https://www.havasunews.com/opinion/mark-follman-mass-shooters-aren-t-mentally-ill-people-who-suddenly-snap-they-decide-to/article_15458d4c-dcba-11ec-8053-77c6f65f5c20.html

Follman also  mentioned this

Blaming mental illness for mass shootings inflicts a damaging stigma on the millions of people who suffer from clinical afflictions, the vast majority of whom are not violent.

And that's the problem with ideas like "ban mentally ill from getting guns", this further stigmatizes people who are suffering through no fault of their own.

Some say "get rid of the 2nd Amendment". 

I say we rewrite it like this

 Self-defense being a basic human right, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed without due process.

If someone is deemed "too dangerous" to have a gun, then that should be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But too many on the Left talk a good game about "criminal justice reform", but their anti-gun squeamishness causes them to put all sense of due process on the side, and causes them to view all those who want a gun to be "guilty until proven innocent".

I support the recent Supreme Court decision against New York's law that require applicants for concealed weapon permit to "prove" they have a special need to be armed in public.

(note: Hawaii has a similar law)

Excuse me, prove they have a "special need"?

How about "BECAUSE I EXIST AND I WANT TO CONTINUE TO EXIST"?

That should be good enough for a law-abiding citizen to be armed in public. 

If there's anything that needs to be proven, it should be the police who need proof that a person is too dangerous to be armed in public.

And a person who is too dangerous to be armed in public is most likely a person who is too dangerous to be in public.

A dangerous person without a gun can still stab you, knock you out, or put you in a chokehold.

A person who is proven to have committed an unprovoked act of violence is most likely too dangerous to be in public.  

But in too many liberal cities, repeat offenders are released from jail in the name of "compassion".

Real compassion ALLOWS people a means to defend themselves.

There's NOTHING compassionate about releasing proven repeat offenders from custody while keeping their victims defenseless. 

Those who don't know me will assume that I'm a "right-winger" even though I'm 

•  pro-choice (not happy with today's Supreme Court decision)
•  pro-immigration (I'm more pro-open-borders than most Democrats)
• pro-safety net 
• pro-legalization of marijuana, gambling, and consensual sex among ADULTS (again, more liberal than most Democrats)
• for all workers to be offered union membership upon hire
• anti-imperialism (make Hawaii independent again)
• for stricter accountability standards for police officers 
• still taking the coronavirus crisis seriously (still wearing my surgical mask in public)

But I don't understand what is so "right-wing" about the right to defend oneself by all means necessary! 

And what is so "right-wing" about "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, symbols and individuals

 When it comes to highly publicized cases, activists want to make symbols of the people in the case to advance their narrative.

But the people in the cases aren't symbols of anything, they are individuals with a mind of their own, who make choices, whose choices have consequences, who have positive & negative qualities, and who may or may not fit a stereotype.

 Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are not symbols of everyone of their gender. They are not symbols of a politically convenient narrative. They are individuals with a mind of their own, who made choices, whose choices have consequences, who have positive & negative qualities, and who don't always fit a stereotype. 

And because of this, their case doesn't neatly fit the politically correct narrative of the activists. 

I'm not going to pretend to know everything about the case.

But we all know about the viral video clips of Depp's lawyer Camille Vasquez aggressively questioning Amber Heard.

That's what I will demand every lawyer I hire to be like before deciding to hire them.

Meanwhile, Heard's lawyer just didn't question Depp or his witnesses effectively or aggressively.  If they did, it would've gone viral. 

---------

One of Depp's lawyers said that his case is a #metoo without a #metoo.

Meaning, that even in the 6 years since the allegations surfaced, no other person said that Depp abused them. This includes Depp's multiple celebrity dates from over the decades. 

Meanwhile, there are multiple allegations against other celebrities like Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, Bill Cosby, Jerry Sandusky, Donald Trump, and other slimebags.

This is not to say Depp is perfect. He is an admitted drug addict and had past allegations of vandalizing hotel rooms.  Depp was also recorded hitting cabinets in front of Heard. 

Meanwhile, Amber Heard had multiple inconsistencies that just didn't hold up under scrutiny. She also has other allegations of violent behavior towards others over the years. She was also recorded admitting to hitting Depp and telling him to stop being a baby. 

People siding with Depp isn't just "misogyny", "celebrity culture", "stans & fans",  paid bots" and other cliches. We all saw the viral clips of Camille Vasquez questioning Amber Heard. That sealed the deal. Why couldn't Heard's lawyers aggressively question Depp? 

And nobody likes a person who didn't keep one's promise to donate their declared amount to a children's hospital. If you want to be known as a humanitarian, you have to keep that kind of promise. 

And even if you're mad at a person for legit reasons, please don't exaggerate.

It's like the Duke Lacrosse case. The male lacrosse players hosted a party and some were being rude to the strippers they hired. But the stripper claimed she was raped, but there was no DNA evidence that matched the men who were at the party.  She had legit reasons to be mad at the men for their rude comments at the party, but there was no rape. She exaggerated because she was angry and thought that just simply telling the truth wasn't going to punish them enough. She wanted to make them look worse than they really are. But her exaggerations backfired! 

I'm sure Amber Heard had legit reasons to be angry at Johnny Depp but she most likely exaggerated details to make him look worse than he really is.  That backfired. 

Some activists worry that the televised trial and the verdict would discourage real victims from coming forward. But trials are about the technicalities of an individual situation, not about "sending a larger message". 

When questioned about this, Camille Vasquez noted that abuse has no gender and encouraged abuse victims to come forward and have their case in court.  Hopefully, for abuse victims, their lawyers will be aggressive like Camille Vasquez against their abusers.

=====

PS: I doubt Jussie Smollett's story of being a hate crime victim turning out to be a hoax has led to real victims being reluctant to come forward.  Even if it did, it is Jussie Smollett who needs to apologize for allowing that to happen.

coming (maybe) soon

 As usual, I've been busy with so much stuff. 

Work, trying to find new work, organizing stuff at home, trying to find time to exercise, etc

That's why I haven't had time to blog about the Uvalde shooting and the Depp/Heard trial.  I have thoughts, haven't had time to compile them in a cohesive blog post. I'll post when I'm ready, there's no set timeline.