P.E. classes
As I think about my experiences with P.E. classes as a student, my middle school and my high school had different approaches.
At my middle school, all students had to participate in the same team sports as everyone else. The P.E. curriculum is only team sports (ie basketball, flag football, soccer, volleyball, baseball).
At my high school, there was a very different approach. Every other week, the students get to choose from 3 different sports. The choices include basketball, football, soccer, badmintion, lawn bowling, indoor hockey, aerobics, weight training, archery, frisbee, bowling, and even fishing and billiards (I'm not making that up :)!
McKinley High School gave the students more options, and obviously, I liked that school's approach to PE a lot better than my middle school's lame approach to P.E.
I sucked at most team sports, so I didn't like being stuck with playing them at middle school. Plus, the other students are such sore losers, getting mad if I made a bad play, or even blaming me if the team lost the game. However, NONE of them made it to the pros, in fact most of them weren't even high school all-stars! So, if I see them again, I will tell that to their faces!
If I ran my own school, students would fulfill their PE choices, by choosing from different courses. They choose courses like 1) team sports, 2) martial arts, 3) bike riding, 4) weight lifting, 5) aerobics, 6) cultural dances (ie. Polynesian, Latin, Asian, and from the rest of the world), 7) hip-hop dance, 8) etc.
That way, students can get their fitness from whatever they enjoy, instead of being forced into activities that they hate!
That is an approach Mililani Middle School takes in their PE curriculum. Their PE teacher even won an award recently. Check out the article at http://www.midweek.com/content/story/Print_Story/the_best_pe_teacher_in_america/
One more thing, the students need to have their own private stalls to change clothes and showering. I hated changing and showering in front of others!
Monday, May 01, 2006
Development in Hawaii
Here's my editorial published in yesterday's Honolulu Star Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/30/editorial/commentary.html
Gathering Place
Pablo Wegesend
Time doesn't stand still and neither can Hawaii
IT IS natural for people to reminisce about the old days. I'm only 25 years old, and I already feel nostalgic about the good times of the past.
That's totally OK when you're sitting alone at home or when talking story to longtime friends.
However, some people use nostalgia as an excuse to oppose any development, whether it's a condo building, a neighborhood or a Wal-Mart being built.
Many of these opponents grew up in Hawaii in the 1950s and 1960s, and they want Hawaii to stay the way they remember it.
How ironic, since when they were children, the adults (who grew up in the 1920s) already wished things were the way they were when they were young.
People just assume that the way things were when they grew up was how it was before they were born.
If those people were living in caveman times, they would oppose the idea of building homes outside of caves, not to mention basic sanitation, electric systems and other things we take for granted today.
THINGS CHANGE, and it happens everywhere.
Whenever a new building goes up in city or suburb, opponents call it the "mainland-ization" of Hawaii. But is the mainland the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Japan the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Mexico the same? Is France? The answer, obviously, is no! But some people want Hawaii to be exempt from the passage of time.
When a new condominium is built in Kakaako, or a new neighborhood is built near Kona, opponents promote the fear of the Big, Bad, White Mainlanders who are coming to take over Hawaii and drive up property values. But as mentioned in a recent newspaper article, Hawaii people are more likely to move to the mainland, than mainlanders are to move to Hawaii.
Most of the population increase in Hawaii is due to: 1) babies born to Hawaii residents and 2) foreign immigration, mostly from Asia, Micronesia and the South Pacific.
IT'S IRONIC that the anti- development folks complain about both suburban and urban development, yet they have the nerve to complain about the high cost of housing. If they had their way, housing would be even more expensive because there would be even fewer houses. It's basic supply and demand: When the supply of homes goes down, the demand goes up and the remaining supply of houses becomes more expensive. Then more Hawaii residents must choose between homelessness or moving to the mainland.
What this means is that the anti-development agenda is a bigger threat to Hawaii residents today than the Big, Bad, White Mainlander.
DON'T GET me wrong, I still want to see forests in Hawaii. But I also understand that people need places to live, so we either have more suburban development or more condominiums in urban areas. I prefer more condominiums so that more people can enjoy the urban life of Honolulu without wasting their time in long commutes from other parts of Oahu.
One last thing: I am not a Big, Bad, White Mainlander; I am a Medium-Sized, Brown-Skinned, Hawaii-Born-and-Raised Guy who grew up in a low-income section of urban Honolulu.
But I still think fearing development and Big, Bad, White Mainlanders is ridiculous!
Here's my editorial published in yesterday's Honolulu Star Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/30/editorial/commentary.html
Gathering Place
Pablo Wegesend
Time doesn't stand still and neither can Hawaii
IT IS natural for people to reminisce about the old days. I'm only 25 years old, and I already feel nostalgic about the good times of the past.
That's totally OK when you're sitting alone at home or when talking story to longtime friends.
However, some people use nostalgia as an excuse to oppose any development, whether it's a condo building, a neighborhood or a Wal-Mart being built.
Many of these opponents grew up in Hawaii in the 1950s and 1960s, and they want Hawaii to stay the way they remember it.
How ironic, since when they were children, the adults (who grew up in the 1920s) already wished things were the way they were when they were young.
People just assume that the way things were when they grew up was how it was before they were born.
If those people were living in caveman times, they would oppose the idea of building homes outside of caves, not to mention basic sanitation, electric systems and other things we take for granted today.
THINGS CHANGE, and it happens everywhere.
Whenever a new building goes up in city or suburb, opponents call it the "mainland-ization" of Hawaii. But is the mainland the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Japan the same as it was in the 1960s? Is Mexico the same? Is France? The answer, obviously, is no! But some people want Hawaii to be exempt from the passage of time.
When a new condominium is built in Kakaako, or a new neighborhood is built near Kona, opponents promote the fear of the Big, Bad, White Mainlanders who are coming to take over Hawaii and drive up property values. But as mentioned in a recent newspaper article, Hawaii people are more likely to move to the mainland, than mainlanders are to move to Hawaii.
Most of the population increase in Hawaii is due to: 1) babies born to Hawaii residents and 2) foreign immigration, mostly from Asia, Micronesia and the South Pacific.
IT'S IRONIC that the anti- development folks complain about both suburban and urban development, yet they have the nerve to complain about the high cost of housing. If they had their way, housing would be even more expensive because there would be even fewer houses. It's basic supply and demand: When the supply of homes goes down, the demand goes up and the remaining supply of houses becomes more expensive. Then more Hawaii residents must choose between homelessness or moving to the mainland.
What this means is that the anti-development agenda is a bigger threat to Hawaii residents today than the Big, Bad, White Mainlander.
DON'T GET me wrong, I still want to see forests in Hawaii. But I also understand that people need places to live, so we either have more suburban development or more condominiums in urban areas. I prefer more condominiums so that more people can enjoy the urban life of Honolulu without wasting their time in long commutes from other parts of Oahu.
One last thing: I am not a Big, Bad, White Mainlander; I am a Medium-Sized, Brown-Skinned, Hawaii-Born-and-Raised Guy who grew up in a low-income section of urban Honolulu.
But I still think fearing development and Big, Bad, White Mainlanders is ridiculous!
Saturday, April 22, 2006
What's wrong with Thomas Sowell
First, who is Thomas Sowell?He is an African-American conservative economist who writes a lot of editorials that have been published in newspapers nationwide.
While I used to enjoy his articles on economics, I find him extremely paranoid when it comes to immigrant. He keeps saying that modern-day immigrants (especially the ones from the Middle East and Latin America) refuse to adjust to American culture.
Nevermind the fact there is many Latinos making hip-hop music (I keep hearing Fat Joe, Lil Rob and Pitbull on the radio), and it's only a matter of time before we hear descendants of Arab immigrants getting involved in the hip-hop industry.
Also, he ignores the fact that most immigrant teenagers (no matter where they're from) REBEL AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S CULTURE! I always hear teenagers with immigrant parents complain that their parents are "old-fashioned". So I wouldn't even worry about the descendants of immigrants adjusting to American culture. In fact, the descendants of modern-day Latino and Arab immigrant would struggle to adjust to the cultures of Latin America or the Middle East!
Meanwhile, I got this email from one of my allies Stuart Hayashi, and he gave me the permission to post the following (though I edited it only for length). It is about Thomas Sowell
-------------
Assimilate THIS!
By Stuart K. Hayashi
Whenever I have heard a left-winger make the dirty accusation that some black man is an "Uncle Tom" just because he wants to roll back the welfare state, I have stood by that black man in defense. I cannot let people get away with smearing Larry Elder, Bill Cosby, or Ward Connerly in such a manner.
Sadly, nowadays, when somebody calls Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom,"I cannot do much to deny it.
It's time we face up to something: Thomas Sowell sounds like a white supremacist. He certainly doesn't cast doubt on that impression when he heaps accolades upon the eugenics advocacy of the late "BellCurve" co-author and Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein. http://tinyurl.com/a55wz http://tinyurl.com/hrwh5http://tinyurl.com/9chof
My poor dear uncle, Uncle Tom Sowell, does quibble with many of the book's conclusions, and he is correct to note that it is not some explicitly angry, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe about non-whites. But there are two facts about this book that Sowell's whitewashing cannot erase -- (1) it *does* conclude that genes have doomed blacks and Chicanos to being congenitally less rational and more violent than northern Europeans and East Asians, and, (2) by promoting that book,Sowell *does* perpetuate that conclusion as well.
Or perhaps "white supremacist" is not a fully precise term for what Sowell has advocated the past few years. Like the late Dr.Herrnstein, Dr. Sowell often ostensibly touts the cultural (if not ethnic) supremacy of East Asians over whites. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3529 http://tinyurl.com/8bakchttp://tinyurl.com/kyaw3
And Dr. Sowell, like many neoconservatives (but not so manypaleoconservatives), is quick to admonish others for anti-Semitism. http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html
But there is one group that Dr. Sowell frequently berates as inferior. I am referring to a certain group of dark-skinned,Mediterranean-looking Caucasoids, many of whom are part AmericanIndian, and most of whom are Catholic.
Judging by my many years of faithfully reading Dr. Sowell's columns, when I mistook him for a proponent of free minds and free markets (he did write for "Reason" magazine for a time, after all) he appears to rank ethnic groups in the following order, with #1 beingthe group he praises the most.
01. East Asians
02. WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
03. Jews
04. South Asians
05. Blacks
06. Persians, Arabs, and other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners
07. That group of dark-skinned, Catholic caucasoids (Sowell's absolute least favorite!)
Ann Coulter quipped that "Brown is the new black."http://tinyurl.com/oh9es That's true, though not in the way she meant it. Brown IS the new black in the sense that brown-skinned people are one of the last few scapegoats whom people can still verbally bad mouth without other Americans socially ostracizing them over it. It's not as easy these days for the Archie Bunkers of the world to criticizeblacks as a whole (nor *should* anyone criticize blacks as a whole, as all people are individuals, which is something that formerly anti-affirmative-action neocons seem to have forgotten). Well, native-born blacks anyway; Michael Savage still gets away with derogating Haitians.
If there is a group that people can still kick around, it is brown-skinned, part Indo-European, part "Amerindian" Caucasoids. Even Michelle Malkin -- not exactly an Aryan -- is on the bandwagon of demonizing them.
I myself have had a falling-out with certain rightwingers when I found out that they were trying to create the stereotypical impression that *all* people from the Middle East who call themselves "Muslim" necessarily either commit murder or at least condone it.
The conservatives' rhetoric about "assimilation" sounds like ahuge, stinking red herring -- emphasis on the RED, because the conservatives' rhetoric sounds so collectivistic that it might as wellbe communist.
When they demand that immigrants "assimilate,"they are using that word as a euphemism for "conform." Essentially,they expect immigrants to CONFORM to customs that are not even politically relevant. Hence we hear so much screeching about peaceful people coming to the United States and -- oh, Allah forgive me fornaming this horrible act! -- speaking *Spanish* to their relatives!
Such conservatives and libertarians ignore a simple fact --"assimilation" is not a one-way street. If everyone in America"assimilates," it not only means that foreign-born people adopt some of the best (or worst) customs of the native-born Americans, but also that native-born Americans may adopt some of the best (or worst)customs of the foreign-born migrants. *That* is the melting pot. How can one expect the foreign-born tobe influenced on the native-born customs without the foreign-born likewise having some influence over the native-born?
Neoconservative immigrant-haters portray Mexican and Middle-Eastern immigrants as being essentially static, robotic creatures that always stay the same when they have some (imaginary)duty to be influenced by the native-born. But what they truly fear is not that foreign-born people onlytake and never give, culture-wise, to the native born. Nay, what they truly fear is that there will *necessarily* be a cultural give-and-take between the foreign-born and the native-born. They are basically *protectionists* trying to shield estalished domestic customs from *competition* from foreign-born customs when all people in America choose which customs they want to buy in the marketplace of ideas.
You know all this talk about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out of the United States? I can describe the spiritual essence of that idea with just one word: . . . "segregation."
Assimilate THAT!
First, who is Thomas Sowell?He is an African-American conservative economist who writes a lot of editorials that have been published in newspapers nationwide.
While I used to enjoy his articles on economics, I find him extremely paranoid when it comes to immigrant. He keeps saying that modern-day immigrants (especially the ones from the Middle East and Latin America) refuse to adjust to American culture.
Nevermind the fact there is many Latinos making hip-hop music (I keep hearing Fat Joe, Lil Rob and Pitbull on the radio), and it's only a matter of time before we hear descendants of Arab immigrants getting involved in the hip-hop industry.
Also, he ignores the fact that most immigrant teenagers (no matter where they're from) REBEL AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S CULTURE! I always hear teenagers with immigrant parents complain that their parents are "old-fashioned". So I wouldn't even worry about the descendants of immigrants adjusting to American culture. In fact, the descendants of modern-day Latino and Arab immigrant would struggle to adjust to the cultures of Latin America or the Middle East!
Meanwhile, I got this email from one of my allies Stuart Hayashi, and he gave me the permission to post the following (though I edited it only for length). It is about Thomas Sowell
-------------
Assimilate THIS!
By Stuart K. Hayashi
Whenever I have heard a left-winger make the dirty accusation that some black man is an "Uncle Tom" just because he wants to roll back the welfare state, I have stood by that black man in defense. I cannot let people get away with smearing Larry Elder, Bill Cosby, or Ward Connerly in such a manner.
Sadly, nowadays, when somebody calls Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom,"I cannot do much to deny it.
It's time we face up to something: Thomas Sowell sounds like a white supremacist. He certainly doesn't cast doubt on that impression when he heaps accolades upon the eugenics advocacy of the late "BellCurve" co-author and Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein. http://tinyurl.com/a55wz http://tinyurl.com/hrwh5http://tinyurl.com/9chof
My poor dear uncle, Uncle Tom Sowell, does quibble with many of the book's conclusions, and he is correct to note that it is not some explicitly angry, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe about non-whites. But there are two facts about this book that Sowell's whitewashing cannot erase -- (1) it *does* conclude that genes have doomed blacks and Chicanos to being congenitally less rational and more violent than northern Europeans and East Asians, and, (2) by promoting that book,Sowell *does* perpetuate that conclusion as well.
Or perhaps "white supremacist" is not a fully precise term for what Sowell has advocated the past few years. Like the late Dr.Herrnstein, Dr. Sowell often ostensibly touts the cultural (if not ethnic) supremacy of East Asians over whites. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3529 http://tinyurl.com/8bakchttp://tinyurl.com/kyaw3
And Dr. Sowell, like many neoconservatives (but not so manypaleoconservatives), is quick to admonish others for anti-Semitism. http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html
But there is one group that Dr. Sowell frequently berates as inferior. I am referring to a certain group of dark-skinned,Mediterranean-looking Caucasoids, many of whom are part AmericanIndian, and most of whom are Catholic.
Judging by my many years of faithfully reading Dr. Sowell's columns, when I mistook him for a proponent of free minds and free markets (he did write for "Reason" magazine for a time, after all) he appears to rank ethnic groups in the following order, with #1 beingthe group he praises the most.
01. East Asians
02. WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
03. Jews
04. South Asians
05. Blacks
06. Persians, Arabs, and other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners
07. That group of dark-skinned, Catholic caucasoids (Sowell's absolute least favorite!)
Ann Coulter quipped that "Brown is the new black."http://tinyurl.com/oh9es That's true, though not in the way she meant it. Brown IS the new black in the sense that brown-skinned people are one of the last few scapegoats whom people can still verbally bad mouth without other Americans socially ostracizing them over it. It's not as easy these days for the Archie Bunkers of the world to criticizeblacks as a whole (nor *should* anyone criticize blacks as a whole, as all people are individuals, which is something that formerly anti-affirmative-action neocons seem to have forgotten). Well, native-born blacks anyway; Michael Savage still gets away with derogating Haitians.
If there is a group that people can still kick around, it is brown-skinned, part Indo-European, part "Amerindian" Caucasoids. Even Michelle Malkin -- not exactly an Aryan -- is on the bandwagon of demonizing them.
I myself have had a falling-out with certain rightwingers when I found out that they were trying to create the stereotypical impression that *all* people from the Middle East who call themselves "Muslim" necessarily either commit murder or at least condone it.
The conservatives' rhetoric about "assimilation" sounds like ahuge, stinking red herring -- emphasis on the RED, because the conservatives' rhetoric sounds so collectivistic that it might as wellbe communist.
When they demand that immigrants "assimilate,"they are using that word as a euphemism for "conform." Essentially,they expect immigrants to CONFORM to customs that are not even politically relevant. Hence we hear so much screeching about peaceful people coming to the United States and -- oh, Allah forgive me fornaming this horrible act! -- speaking *Spanish* to their relatives!
Such conservatives and libertarians ignore a simple fact --"assimilation" is not a one-way street. If everyone in America"assimilates," it not only means that foreign-born people adopt some of the best (or worst) customs of the native-born Americans, but also that native-born Americans may adopt some of the best (or worst)customs of the foreign-born migrants. *That* is the melting pot. How can one expect the foreign-born tobe influenced on the native-born customs without the foreign-born likewise having some influence over the native-born?
Neoconservative immigrant-haters portray Mexican and Middle-Eastern immigrants as being essentially static, robotic creatures that always stay the same when they have some (imaginary)duty to be influenced by the native-born. But what they truly fear is not that foreign-born people onlytake and never give, culture-wise, to the native born. Nay, what they truly fear is that there will *necessarily* be a cultural give-and-take between the foreign-born and the native-born. They are basically *protectionists* trying to shield estalished domestic customs from *competition* from foreign-born customs when all people in America choose which customs they want to buy in the marketplace of ideas.
You know all this talk about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out of the United States? I can describe the spiritual essence of that idea with just one word: . . . "segregation."
Assimilate THAT!
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Immigrants and American culture
1) Thomas Sowell, like many other right-wing conservatives, believe that immigrants refuse to adjust to American culture and are taking American jobs. BULL-DUNG!
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/04/11/193239.html
Here's my message to Thomas Sowell
You keep claiming that current-day immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.Then why do I keep hearing immigrant teenagers rap along with the SAME EXACT RAP SONGS that are on the top of American music charts? Why do I keep hearing those same songs blasted out of the car stereos of many immigrant teenagers?
Immigrant teenagers probably know more about 50 Cent, Eminem, Kanye West, Fat Joe, Lil Jon and Ying Yang Twins (all important American cultural icons of this decade) than you do! So dont tell me that immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.
It's the right-wing conservatives who are having trouble adjusting to modern American culture! Maybe they should be the ones deported!
In your latest article, you said that the pro-immigration crowd is being abstract?Excuse me?Immigrants are real people with real aspirations! They're not just some folks with wierd accents! They are real people, many of whom I know and respect! So dont give me this crap about "pro-immigration advocates being too abstract!"
You used to hate victimhood and the entitlement mentality! Yet, you are demanding native-born Americans to act like victims and act as if they're entitled to jobs. Many native-born Americans can only qualify for low-paying jobs because many of them were bullies who picked on nerds and irritated their teachers during their childhood and adolescent years! So excuse me, if I have no pity for them if they got to compete with 3rd world immigrants for low-paying jobs!
What next, do we deport Yao Ming because he is competing with native-born Americans for NBA jobs? Maybe we should stop importing music from British rock stars since they take $$$ that could've gone to American rock stars instead!
And maybe your parents should've stayed in North Carolina instead of moving to New York and taking jobs away from native-born New Yorkers!
You use to hate government bureaucracy and red tape, yet you demand immigrants face government bureaucracy and red tape that is far worse than the IRS, Dept of Motor Vehicles, etc all combined!
PS: The European explorers didn't have green cards or visas when they arrived in the Americas! So why should Mexicans have green cards or visa when they move to land that was once part of Mexico!
2) Jews, Italians and Irish were once looked down by British Americans! Many British-Americans said that Jews, Italians and Irish couldn't become real Americans, that real Americans practice Protestant Christianity and not Catholicism or Judaism.
Yet, the descendants of Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants are Americanized to the point where they can't understand their ancestors languages! Yet, many of them still practice Catholicism or Judaism. But many are now looking down on Latino and Arab immigrants, saying nearly the same shit that British Americans used to say about them!
They complain about pro-immigration protesters waving Mexican flags, but are silent about Irish flags waved during St. Patrick's Day parades. They claim that waving Mexican flags is a proof of disloyalty to America, yet they get pissy when non-Jews complain about Jews showing excessive loyalty to Israel over the US.
Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Mike Savage - the previous 3 paragraphs are about YOU!
3) In a recent edition of Time magazine, there was an article about Asian-Americans who are in their 20's now. ALL were born in the US to immigrant parents
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1147177,00.html (to read full article, find the 1/16/06 edition of Time in a public library)
Guess what nearly all had in common. They rebelled against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers
I bet you, within the next 10-20 years, Time or Newsweek will profile the children of Arab immigrants. And guess what? They will all rebell against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers! And Arab teenagers have a disadvantage those Asians 20-something years old DONT have. Those Arab-American teenagers looked like the 9/11 attackers, so even more they'll be outcasted by mainstream American. And that will motivate them to REALLY REBEL against their parent's cultures when they become teenagers!
However, the anti-immigrant fascist will ignore all that! They'll assume that immigrant teenagers dont rebel against their parents
And here's an article on Cambodian-American gang members who were deported!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169557/site/newsweek/
The vast majority of alien Cambodians who are subject to deportation have little to no recollection of their native country, having been evacuated to the United States when they were children. Many don’t even speak the Khmer language or have living relatives here, and some were born in Thai refugee camps and have never set foot on Cambodian soil. Instead of civil war and “The Killing Fields,” they grew up with MTV, McDonald’s and Ronald Reagan.
They were so Americanized that they struggled to fit in when they moved to Cambodia! Similar issues have been raised about Salvadoran gang members deported to El Salvador!
1) Thomas Sowell, like many other right-wing conservatives, believe that immigrants refuse to adjust to American culture and are taking American jobs. BULL-DUNG!
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/04/11/193239.html
Here's my message to Thomas Sowell
You keep claiming that current-day immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.Then why do I keep hearing immigrant teenagers rap along with the SAME EXACT RAP SONGS that are on the top of American music charts? Why do I keep hearing those same songs blasted out of the car stereos of many immigrant teenagers?
Immigrant teenagers probably know more about 50 Cent, Eminem, Kanye West, Fat Joe, Lil Jon and Ying Yang Twins (all important American cultural icons of this decade) than you do! So dont tell me that immigrants aren't adjusting to American culture.
It's the right-wing conservatives who are having trouble adjusting to modern American culture! Maybe they should be the ones deported!
In your latest article, you said that the pro-immigration crowd is being abstract?Excuse me?Immigrants are real people with real aspirations! They're not just some folks with wierd accents! They are real people, many of whom I know and respect! So dont give me this crap about "pro-immigration advocates being too abstract!"
You used to hate victimhood and the entitlement mentality! Yet, you are demanding native-born Americans to act like victims and act as if they're entitled to jobs. Many native-born Americans can only qualify for low-paying jobs because many of them were bullies who picked on nerds and irritated their teachers during their childhood and adolescent years! So excuse me, if I have no pity for them if they got to compete with 3rd world immigrants for low-paying jobs!
What next, do we deport Yao Ming because he is competing with native-born Americans for NBA jobs? Maybe we should stop importing music from British rock stars since they take $$$ that could've gone to American rock stars instead!
And maybe your parents should've stayed in North Carolina instead of moving to New York and taking jobs away from native-born New Yorkers!
You use to hate government bureaucracy and red tape, yet you demand immigrants face government bureaucracy and red tape that is far worse than the IRS, Dept of Motor Vehicles, etc all combined!
PS: The European explorers didn't have green cards or visas when they arrived in the Americas! So why should Mexicans have green cards or visa when they move to land that was once part of Mexico!
2) Jews, Italians and Irish were once looked down by British Americans! Many British-Americans said that Jews, Italians and Irish couldn't become real Americans, that real Americans practice Protestant Christianity and not Catholicism or Judaism.
Yet, the descendants of Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants are Americanized to the point where they can't understand their ancestors languages! Yet, many of them still practice Catholicism or Judaism. But many are now looking down on Latino and Arab immigrants, saying nearly the same shit that British Americans used to say about them!
They complain about pro-immigration protesters waving Mexican flags, but are silent about Irish flags waved during St. Patrick's Day parades. They claim that waving Mexican flags is a proof of disloyalty to America, yet they get pissy when non-Jews complain about Jews showing excessive loyalty to Israel over the US.
Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Mike Savage - the previous 3 paragraphs are about YOU!
3) In a recent edition of Time magazine, there was an article about Asian-Americans who are in their 20's now. ALL were born in the US to immigrant parents
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1147177,00.html (to read full article, find the 1/16/06 edition of Time in a public library)
Guess what nearly all had in common. They rebelled against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers
I bet you, within the next 10-20 years, Time or Newsweek will profile the children of Arab immigrants. And guess what? They will all rebell against their parent's cultures when they were teenagers! And Arab teenagers have a disadvantage those Asians 20-something years old DONT have. Those Arab-American teenagers looked like the 9/11 attackers, so even more they'll be outcasted by mainstream American. And that will motivate them to REALLY REBEL against their parent's cultures when they become teenagers!
However, the anti-immigrant fascist will ignore all that! They'll assume that immigrant teenagers dont rebel against their parents
And here's an article on Cambodian-American gang members who were deported!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169557/site/newsweek/
The vast majority of alien Cambodians who are subject to deportation have little to no recollection of their native country, having been evacuated to the United States when they were children. Many don’t even speak the Khmer language or have living relatives here, and some were born in Thai refugee camps and have never set foot on Cambodian soil. Instead of civil war and “The Killing Fields,” they grew up with MTV, McDonald’s and Ronald Reagan.
They were so Americanized that they struggled to fit in when they moved to Cambodia! Similar issues have been raised about Salvadoran gang members deported to El Salvador!
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Riots in France
Here's an email from a friend commenting on the riots in France
When those riots began in France some month ago, and the majority of participants were the teenage children of Mulism immigrants, the "nativist" bigot brigrade of the West, blamed this on the innate evil of immigrants from Muslim countries. They snarled that it was these Muslim immigrants that were imposing their own violent culture on the innocent, passive, over-accomdating native-born French.
Now we see similar riots by equally-spoiled native-born French youths, and it is not even over inflammatory allegations of police brutality, but over something even stupider -- these spoiled French youths take to violence because the French government is now considering some recognition of a business owner's right to sever his business relationship with anyone younger than 26 for any reason.
The anti-immigrationists would have you believe that the Muslim immigrant children are a bad influence on today's native-born French mores. But could it be, in some part, that it is the native-born French mores that has been a bad influence on those Muslim immigrant children?
Here's an email from a friend commenting on the riots in France
When those riots began in France some month ago, and the majority of participants were the teenage children of Mulism immigrants, the "nativist" bigot brigrade of the West, blamed this on the innate evil of immigrants from Muslim countries. They snarled that it was these Muslim immigrants that were imposing their own violent culture on the innocent, passive, over-accomdating native-born French.
Now we see similar riots by equally-spoiled native-born French youths, and it is not even over inflammatory allegations of police brutality, but over something even stupider -- these spoiled French youths take to violence because the French government is now considering some recognition of a business owner's right to sever his business relationship with anyone younger than 26 for any reason.
The anti-immigrationists would have you believe that the Muslim immigrant children are a bad influence on today's native-born French mores. But could it be, in some part, that it is the native-born French mores that has been a bad influence on those Muslim immigrant children?
The Immigration Hysteria
This past weekend, in LA, Phoenix and other US cities, people were protesting the anti-immigration laws being proposed in the US Congress.
Now, the warriors of conservative correctness are again, putting out their lame arguments. I'll break them down here
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lame Argument #1 - Illegal aliens broke a law, so they deserve to be punished
Reality: Some laws deserve to be broken. The civil rights supporters in the 1950's broke the law when they protested segregation. The folks at Tianeman Sqaure in 1989 were breaking the law before they got smashed by tanks. Jesus Christ was breaking the law. That's why he got executed by the Romans. Yet, we all now consider those lawbreakers heroes.
My point is, some laws dont deserve to exist. Laws telling people where they can live don't deserve to exist.
Stop trying to over-manage people's lives!
By the way, did all those European conquerors have to fill out forms before invading Native American lands? NO! Yet, the descendants of the same Europeans are demanding that the new outsiders fill out stupid papers to come into a land that their ancestors stole from the Native Americans
-------------------------------
Lame Argument #2 - Immigrants dont deserve to be here, since they dont act like native-born Americans
Reality: Ever observed how their kids act. I do. I work with those kids.
Those kids are into the same pop-culture trends as native-born American kids. Take a kid who arrived in the US when he/she was 5. Then deport that same kid when he/she is 16. That kid would NOT fit in with the peer culture of the country he/she was born.
I hear immigrants from Micronesia, Philippines and Samoa rapping along to the SAME EXACT SONGS that are topping the US charts! So dont give me this crap about immigrants not adjusting to American culture
Even if they don't follow American pop culture, SO WHAT? It's their choice! Mind your business!
My dad is from Mexico, and I cant even speak Spanish.
And I have cousins living in the LA metro area. Last time I visited them, they were living in a mostly Latino neighborhood. And I could easily talk to them in English. (Anti-immigration fascist didn't want you to know that)
And if the anti-immigration bunch were so correct in stating that Latinos don't want to learn English - then why do Jennifer Lopez, Fat Joe, Angelina, Pitbull, Lil Rob, Nino Brown, Frankie J, NB Ridaz , ALL rap or sing in English? Remember, these are all Latinos from US cities filled with Latinos. So dont give me this crap that Latinos dont want to learn English.
Yeah, I know, the reggaeton craze is coming to the US, and they all rap/sing in Spanish, but most of it's stars are from Puerto Rico, not the mainland US. If Daddy Yankee grew up in New York instead of Puerto Rico, he would be singing/rapping in English instead of Spanish.
And even if immigrants dont want to speak English, SO WHAT? Mind your own business!
------------------------------------
Lame Argument #3 - Letting illegal aliens stay here is like letting a burglar stay in your house
Reality: That is such a stupid anology!
Americans are supposed to believe in private property. So if I want to hire illegal aliens to work or live on my property, it's none of your business! You dont own my property, so dont bother to vote on what I can or cannot do with it! Mind your own business!
Some also complain about illegal aliens committing violent crimes. He/she ought to be arrested for commiting that violent crime, not for choosing to live in America.
After all, Timothy McVeigh was NOT from Oklahoma! He's from Buffallo, New York. So, should we force New Yorkers to have certain documents in order to even visit Oklahoma?
--------------------------------
Lame Arguement #4 - Immigrants take jobs from Americans.
Reality: If I opened a restaurant, and most of the people applying to work there are immigrants, dam friggin right most of the people I'd be hiring are going to be immigrants! Or should I have those stupid quotas (which conservatives used to complain about) saying what % of my workers ought to be native- born Americans.
Life is rough, getting a job isn't always so easy. Trust me, I know. There was a time in which I was unemployed for 5 months, and it can have an effect on finances and emotional well-being. But I was also (gasp) mature enough to not blame others (ie. The White Man, illegal aliens, etc) if I didn't get a job I applied for!
What next, do we stop importing foregin music to protect the $$$ of American musicians?
That would've meant banning the Beatles, Bob Marley, Shakira, AC/DC, Bryan Adams, Sean Paul, Sting, Rolling Stones, and all those other foreigners from selling their music in the US.
This past weekend, in LA, Phoenix and other US cities, people were protesting the anti-immigration laws being proposed in the US Congress.
Now, the warriors of conservative correctness are again, putting out their lame arguments. I'll break them down here
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lame Argument #1 - Illegal aliens broke a law, so they deserve to be punished
Reality: Some laws deserve to be broken. The civil rights supporters in the 1950's broke the law when they protested segregation. The folks at Tianeman Sqaure in 1989 were breaking the law before they got smashed by tanks. Jesus Christ was breaking the law. That's why he got executed by the Romans. Yet, we all now consider those lawbreakers heroes.
My point is, some laws dont deserve to exist. Laws telling people where they can live don't deserve to exist.
Stop trying to over-manage people's lives!
By the way, did all those European conquerors have to fill out forms before invading Native American lands? NO! Yet, the descendants of the same Europeans are demanding that the new outsiders fill out stupid papers to come into a land that their ancestors stole from the Native Americans
-------------------------------
Lame Argument #2 - Immigrants dont deserve to be here, since they dont act like native-born Americans
Reality: Ever observed how their kids act. I do. I work with those kids.
Those kids are into the same pop-culture trends as native-born American kids. Take a kid who arrived in the US when he/she was 5. Then deport that same kid when he/she is 16. That kid would NOT fit in with the peer culture of the country he/she was born.
I hear immigrants from Micronesia, Philippines and Samoa rapping along to the SAME EXACT SONGS that are topping the US charts! So dont give me this crap about immigrants not adjusting to American culture
Even if they don't follow American pop culture, SO WHAT? It's their choice! Mind your business!
My dad is from Mexico, and I cant even speak Spanish.
And I have cousins living in the LA metro area. Last time I visited them, they were living in a mostly Latino neighborhood. And I could easily talk to them in English. (Anti-immigration fascist didn't want you to know that)
And if the anti-immigration bunch were so correct in stating that Latinos don't want to learn English - then why do Jennifer Lopez, Fat Joe, Angelina, Pitbull, Lil Rob, Nino Brown, Frankie J, NB Ridaz , ALL rap or sing in English? Remember, these are all Latinos from US cities filled with Latinos. So dont give me this crap that Latinos dont want to learn English.
Yeah, I know, the reggaeton craze is coming to the US, and they all rap/sing in Spanish, but most of it's stars are from Puerto Rico, not the mainland US. If Daddy Yankee grew up in New York instead of Puerto Rico, he would be singing/rapping in English instead of Spanish.
And even if immigrants dont want to speak English, SO WHAT? Mind your own business!
------------------------------------
Lame Argument #3 - Letting illegal aliens stay here is like letting a burglar stay in your house
Reality: That is such a stupid anology!
Americans are supposed to believe in private property. So if I want to hire illegal aliens to work or live on my property, it's none of your business! You dont own my property, so dont bother to vote on what I can or cannot do with it! Mind your own business!
Some also complain about illegal aliens committing violent crimes. He/she ought to be arrested for commiting that violent crime, not for choosing to live in America.
After all, Timothy McVeigh was NOT from Oklahoma! He's from Buffallo, New York. So, should we force New Yorkers to have certain documents in order to even visit Oklahoma?
--------------------------------
Lame Arguement #4 - Immigrants take jobs from Americans.
Reality: If I opened a restaurant, and most of the people applying to work there are immigrants, dam friggin right most of the people I'd be hiring are going to be immigrants! Or should I have those stupid quotas (which conservatives used to complain about) saying what % of my workers ought to be native- born Americans.
Life is rough, getting a job isn't always so easy. Trust me, I know. There was a time in which I was unemployed for 5 months, and it can have an effect on finances and emotional well-being. But I was also (gasp) mature enough to not blame others (ie. The White Man, illegal aliens, etc) if I didn't get a job I applied for!
What next, do we stop importing foregin music to protect the $$$ of American musicians?
That would've meant banning the Beatles, Bob Marley, Shakira, AC/DC, Bryan Adams, Sean Paul, Sting, Rolling Stones, and all those other foreigners from selling their music in the US.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
More on the Dubai ports
Thomas Friedman had a great editorial on the Dubai ports controversy. He tells the truth about the United Arab Emirates, and it's main city Abu Dubai
http://www.iht.com/bin/challenge.php?URI=http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/15/opinion/edfried.php
Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.
What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change.
That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?"
So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.
Thomas Friedman had a great editorial on the Dubai ports controversy. He tells the truth about the United Arab Emirates, and it's main city Abu Dubai
http://www.iht.com/bin/challenge.php?URI=http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/15/opinion/edfried.php
Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.
What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change.
That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?"
So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)