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.

Summer Fun (instrumental track)

 The Summer of 2022 is just getting started, and Pablo the Mad Tiger Warrior is introducing a new instrumental track for the occasion! 

That instrumental track is titled "Summer Fun"

"Summer Fun" is ska-metal instrumental track (with a dash of reggaeton somewhere in the track) that is a perfect soundtrack for any summer activity.  Just enjoy it safely  😊😼

(note: pandemic is not over, follow safety guidelines! Pablo the Mad Tiger Warrior is not responsible for unsafe practices you chose to practice while playing this song)

You can download the track via iTunes at

https://music.apple.com/us/album/summer-fun-single/1626080434

You can also listen to it on Spotify at

https://open.spotify.com/album/34mR5tmT4aBMPeBhUYfwD5

The song will soon be on other platforms as well!

And here's the music video for the song, featuring tigers doing summer activities like dancing on the beach, surfing, playing volleyball, and riding mopeds.

"Summer Fun"

YouTube link is  https://youtu.be/UggJH2pj96g

The images from the video are also featured on merchandise available on RedBubble! Check them out at https://www.redbubble.com/people/madtigerwarrior/explore

-------

As for other music news,Pablo the Mad Tiger Warrior still has 2 more music videos for tracks from the "Science Fiction Music" album to complete. There is no set timeline!

Also, Pablo the Mad Tiger Warrior plans to release "Urban Honolulu Jams 2", another album of hip-hop instrumental tracks. Again, no set timeline, probably next year. Time and money are the main issues determining time of completion and distribution. Those who want to help out on the financial end can donate via PayPal at https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/pweg

College Loans & Student Debt

 We are still waiting on US President Joe Biden to announce his plan regarding student debt.

There is a movement to cancel all student debt.

But Joe Biden was never about radical change, his whole career is about incremental change.

What most likely will happen is that Joe Biden will cancel a certain percentage of student debt based on income.

He knows that canceling the entire debt for someone who makes more than a $100,000 a year will be political poison. He knows this will cause the Republicans to run ads saying "Democrats are giving goodies to the elite at the expense of the working class".

But I do predict (and hope) that he will cancel a high percentage of debt for those who are lower-income and/or unemployed/underemployed.  This will be consistent with the long-time Democrat message that they will help the working class. 

Some Republicans (and their sympathizers) think that canceling debt is about giving bailouts to "snowflakes who majored in oppression studies or comparative literature".

But many of us who are living with debt have done so because we borrowed money to major in something that could lead us to a desired occupation. But the pandemic has dried up opportunities. Even while things are opening up, some employers are hesitant to hire because lord knows what new expenses are coming up in the era of inflation. 

Back in 2013-2015, I went back to school to major in Library & Information Science (LIS), which is an occupation-related major.  Some of my tuition was covered by grants and scholarships (major shout-out to the Friends of the Library of Hawaii). But most of the money I borrowed was for living expenses. I was working as a substitute teacher, a job with major flexibility. I could take time off whenever I felt like it, especially when I had projects due, field trips to attend, internships to complete, or student activities to participate in. 

And that's the thing, for many students, much of the money they borrowed was for living expenses. It's hard to balance a full-time job with a college schedule. Borrowing for living expenses helped us balance our college schedule while also allowing us to take part-time jobs.

And while much of the focus on college activists is on the outlandish fools who scream about "cultural appropriation" and interrupt guest speakers, most of my activism during my LIS years was focused on getting the university's library to be open for longer hours during the summer.  I did convince the university's Graduate Student Organization (GSO) to pass a resolution for increased library hours during the summer.  However, even to this day, the university still hasn't budged. 

(learn more at  https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2015/07/gso-resolution-to-extend-summer-library.html) 

And after college, it took me a while to get a job in which I could use my LIS degree. I finally hit pay-dirt in 2019 with a library position at a middle school. The problem was the head librarian was a turd, and dealing with her nonsense was a detriment to my mental health. I left just when the pandemic was a few months old. Afterward, I did take some temp jobs and a position at a fashion retail store that I worked at before. Meanwhile, libraries have been reluctant to hire new staff throughout the pandemic, but are slowly opening up positions (at least according to current job listings). 

Others had less luck than me.  People got laid off, struggled to get unemployment insurance benefits, and had families to feed. Some could no longer take the pressure and ended their lives. 

People like us deserve a break. We deserve to have our slates wiped clean.  We worked our rears off, made sacrifices, and took risks in an ever-changing world.

Some right-wing nutcases will tell us "you made your choices, deal with it". Yet, at the same time, they demand that we give 2nd chances to racist sex-offenders like Donald Trump! The same guy who filed bankruptcy for this businesses because he didn't want to take responsibility to pay off the debts he originally agreed to. He also gave pardons to those who made stupid choices.

Some will say "I paid my student debt, therefore nobody should get relief!"   That is like saying 

• I suffered, and so shall you

or even worse

• I suffered, and you shouldn't get any relief even though you suffered more than me due to the different circumstances you're dealing with

If I was able to pay off my entire debts before the student debt relief program finally begin, I'm NOT going to be like "how dare others get the relief I didn't get". INSTEAD, I'll be like "I'm glad that the new generation wouldn't face the same stress I had to face" 

Others say "I didn't go to college, why should we pay to bail you out?"

Look, my taxes pay for a whole bunch of things I don't even use. I paid taxes for roads to accommodate those who drive cars that I don't drive.  I paid taxes for mortgage relief for others even though I rent an apartment. I paid taxes to subsidize women's health services, even though I as a male won't use those services. I paid taxes to subsidize the maintenance of hiking trails that I probably will never walk over.  I paid taxes to subsidize projects in states that I probably never get the chance to visit. 

I also pay taxes that subsidize things I don't agree with. I paid taxes to subsidize federal agents who harass and detain immigrants who just want to come here and work. I paid taxes to subsidize federal agents who harass and detain those using cannabis.  I paid taxes for overseas wars that enrich the pockets of defense contractors while putting veterans and civilians at risk. I paid taxes to subsidize fuel tanks that are stationed above an aquifer, which puts our water supply at risk. 

If I'm going to pay taxes for all that, I might as well get something that benefits me. 

-----

And yes, I know, government programs aren't always perfect. I've heard it all, I used to identify myself as a libertarian (or at least a semi-libertarian). But while government-funded safety nets have their flaws, the libertarian jihad/crusade against safety nets turns off people who support other libertarian ideas (some of which I still support like legalizing substances, legalizing gambling, legalizing self-defense,  legalizing immigration, eliminating the Jones Act, eliminating red tape policies that impede work/housing opportunities,  eliminating taxes on food/meds/shelter, withdrawing from foreign wars, etc.). Fighting against safety nets isn't a hill that libertarians shall fight to die on.

Whatever Joe Biden decides to announce on the student debt issue isn't going to satisfy everyone. But hopefully, there'll be a relief for at least those with lower incomes. 

3 decades since the LA Riots

 Today is the 3-decade anniversary of the infamous LA Riots of 1992.

The riots were in response to the Not Guilty verdicts given to 4 European-American officers who brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American man who was suspected of drunk driving.

I wrote a blog post "2 decades since the LA riots" back in 2012.

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/04/2-decades-since-la-riots.html

I really don't want to spend too much time repeating what I blogged back in 2012 since much of the facts about the incident haven't changed since then.

But I do want to note that some of my predictions from 2012 were very naive in retrospect.

At the time (2012), there haven't been riots in recent years. Barack Obama was president.  Even though I knew that his presidency didn't mean "racism is over forever", I still thought we made enough progress that the days of mass riots are over

The following years proved me wrong big time, especially with the riots that occurred in Ferguson (2013) and Baltimore (2015)

I blogged about those 2 incidents 

https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2014/08/ferguson-police-and-race.html

https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2015/05/thoughts-on-baltimore-crisis.html

And of course, in 2020, was the racial uprising that made the 1992 LA riots small in comparison. That would be the nationwide reaction to the police-induced death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

I blogged about it at https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-reactions-to-george-floyds-death.html

Back in 2012, I was naive about human nature (though I wouldn't admit it back then). I thought we were making enough progress to not have a repeat of LA 1992.

But then again, I thought we made so much progress that the USA wouldn't elect an openly racist demagogue like Donald Trump. 2016 proved me wrong.

It's like the saying "2 steps forward, 10 steps back".

And regardless of whoever is president (even if Kamala Harris becomes president in 2024), the police will still over-react to things. And the police unions will still be in fierce defense of police officers who did the wrong things.  And police departments still won't be able to screen out everyone who could cause severe problems on the job. And police officers will still be too scared to report on fellow officers who do the wrong thing. (After all, the blue wall of silence is one of the most effective No Snitching programs ever).

And regardless of whoever is president, there'll still be people who lash out against injustice in destructive ways. This is magnified when there are a lot of people who don't have to report to work the next day.  (LA in 1992 was feeling the worst effects of a recession; the George Floyd incident in 2020 occurred when the nation was slowly coming out of the initial coronavirus lockdown).  This is not to excuse looters or to disparage the safety net, it's just that if you have to report to work the next day, you're less likely to join the destructive mobs burning and looting stuff the night before.  

Inequality isn't going to end soon.  Having more people of African ancestries in political power in the USA isn't going to magically wipe out all the inequalities created by 400 years of oppression.  Moving people up the economic ladder doesn't happen overnight, this takes decades. And even if more African-Americans move up the economic ladder, that wouldn't be enough to erase the racism that exists among the European-American community. In fact, I think success breeds resentment from others. Some European-Americans feel left behind and some do resent those of other races who succeed above them. Some even join the police to take out their frustrations.

And the cycle continues

I don't have all the answers. This blog post is not about the answers.

========

A few articles that I found on LA Riots 3 decades later

Jeong Park. “L.A. Riots Are Remembered 30 Years Later with Hope and Pessimism.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2022.  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-04-29/la-riot-30th-anniversary-day-of-coverage. 

 Randy Vasquez. “30 Years Ago, the LA Riots Changed the Lives of These 6 People.” Bluzz.  April 29, 2022. https://bluzz.org/30-years-ago-the-la-riots-changed-the-lives-of-these-6-people-3019890.html

Hal Eisner “LA Riots: Remembering 'Saigu' 30 Years Later.” FOX 11 Los Angeles.  April 29, 2022. https://www.foxla.com/news/la-riots-remembering-saigu.

“Van Jones: The LA Riots Changed America. They Also Changed Me.” CNN. April 28, 2022.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/opinions/race-la-riots-30-years-unrest-jones/index.html.