As I'm writing this (Friday, December 5, 2008 Hawaii time) tom morrow will be the football game between Hawaii & Cincinnati.
Cincinnati won their 1st Big East championship and is headed to their 1st BCS bowl game.
Hawaii struggled in the beginning due to inexperience amongst it's offense players. However, they have gotten better and will be headed to the Hawaii Bowl!
But let's face it, the hype on this game has NOTHING to do with anytime mentioned in the previous 2 paragraphs!
The hype is due to the fact that the last time 2 teams played, (11/23/2002) the game ended in a big fight!
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/11/24/sports/index.html
People have said that the fight started due to excessive roughness from Cincinnati. Also, a Cincinnati player sacked Hawaii's quarterback Timmy Chang after he threw the ball and injured him. Shawn With-Allen replaced Chang and finished the game.
The last few seconds, when Withy-Allen "took the knee", it was said that a Cincinnati player tried to tackle him and the fight started there! (for those who don't know American football, when the QB kneels down after the snap, he signaling that he's not going to make a play, and you can't tackle him)
1) That was THE GAME THAT CHANGED HAWAII'S IMAGE!
Back in the late 1990's, UH football team was so junk, it was seen as a joke. High school students (both athletes & non-athletes) balked at the idea of going to UH due to it's "junk football team". People booed when a potential prize included UH football tickets! To make things worse, in 1998, the UH football team DIDN'T WIN A GAME! UH was seen as the WORST football school in the nation!
That made Hawaii, as a state, look bad! It gave the state of Hawaii a WEAK reputation! People stereotyped Hawaii as "soft"
After June Jones was hired as head coach in 1999 (coincidentally in my 1st year as a UH student), we started a winning tradition! No one laughing at our team now!
But what REALLY gave Hawaii a tough, hardcore image was the UH-Cincinnati game! We won a close game, and we showed that Hawaii is NOT scared of a fight!
We showed that Hawaii isn't going to back down from a fight from a mainland team, even one whose inner city had a riot in the previous year!
This was a common point made among many young adult males I talked to the week after the football fight! We were happy that the whole nation knows that Hawaii people are tough and "not to be (------) with"
This image was reinforced after the Hawaii Bowl 2003 game between the UH's (Hawaii vs Houston)! Another fight broke out at the end of a game!
Ironically, the Hawaii team had a few players & coaches who came from the city of Houston. I wonder what happened to them the next time those guys entered their former hometown! Someone must've said something!
Both Cincinnati & Houston had reputations about excessive rough playing, trash-talking, provoking opponents and that sort of stuff! Many UH fans said Cincinnati & Houston had "outlaw programs" and that Hawaii players are "from a culture that don't back down from that"
It also gave a special pride to UH students as in "at this university, we are smart enough to get into college, but we are tough too. We got to school with footballers who don't back down" Sometimes, toughness trickles down. Even people who aren't that "tough" or "hard-core" had the confidence of "I went to this (name of ghetto middle/high school), I went to the tough-guy school, I'm a survivor"
However, other UH fans felt differently about those fights.
Some felt the fights make Hawaii look bad & "uncivilized". They claimed that it will make tourists reluctant to visit Hawaii. Some also felt that it reinforced negative stereotypes on Polynesians!
Some thought those players were "thugs" (I'll comment on that stereotype later on this post)
Many also felt then-UH coach June Jones was too lenient on player misbehavior!
2) I remember that football was the 1st season when I watched UH football games at a sports bar!
Before the game vs Cincinnati, I was thinking "should I go to the bar to watch that game or should I stay home & concentrate on academics".
This was due to Cincinnati being an "average team" at the time. While it ended the season with a winning record, it still didn't have the name recognition like Alabama (which UH played the following week without incident), and it wasn't our major rival like Boise State or Fresno State!
However, the same week, in my Journalism 250 class, we had a group project project to make a mini-paper! The students were to do stories on campus news, sports, entertainment, etc. I chose to do sports, though I NEVER written an article on a sports game before!
So now, watching that UH vs Cincinnati IS academics, so watching that game IS concentrating on academics! :)
I didn't want to pay for game tickets, didn't have press passes, so I chose to based my "reporting" on what I saw on TV.
So there I was at Players Bar (no longer in business, replaced with a Japanese restaurant), watching the game and writing what I saw in the game. I wrote down the quotes of TV broadcasters, and wrote down what time the touchdowns were made (ie. 2:42 left in the 1st quarter)
The beginning of the game itself was exciting. Chad Owens (who I knew personally from being classmates while @ UH) was going to receive the kick-off. He was just coming back from injury, and it wasn't publicized when he was going to return to playing. Even the broadcasters were surprised he was on the field!
One guy at the bar yelled "they should've sit him out and save him for the Alabama game"
Owens received the kick-off and punt returns but made no touchdowns that game! He played with no fear that game.
Later, Timmy Chang had a sprained knee sometime late in the 1st half! It was then assumed Chang was out for the rest of the game. Withy-Allen would be the quarterback.
But Chang came back in the game.
However, during the 4th quarter, after he threw the ball, he got tackled. (once the player throws the ball, you can't tackle him) Chang needed help to get off the field and he was then done for the game!
As for the game itself, it went back & forth, with Hawaii & Cincinnati taking turns having the lead. But Hawaii won the game!
All that made the game exciting for me, the extremely inexperienced sports journalist working on a journalism class project!
But after the game was over, the fight occurred. I saw people who were walking out of the bar ALL OF A SUDDEN STOPPED as the TV showed the fight! I could also hear the UH broadcaster (I assume it was Jim Leahy) saying in a serious tone of voice "This is Bad"!
It was exciting for someone doing a journalism project! I was glad I saw the game!
The next morning, at the UH dorms, I talked to a student who was at the game. He talked about watching the fight, and seeing UH fans throwing stuff @ the Cincinnati players!
At that point, I was jealous of that student! He saw it in person. I only saw it on TV!
That whole week, that was the topic of 95 % of the conversations taking place at UH!
While working on the story in the Journalism classroom, I typed out my observations on the game as all one story. One of my group members gave me few tips -- instead of writing it as 1 story, split it up -- so 1 story would be on Chad Owens coming back from injury, 1 story Timmy Chang getting injured, 1 story on the game itself, & of course -- 1 story on the fight!
That group member was earlier reluctant to write on sports, (maybe not his topic of expertise), but he understood good writing and good editing!
3) Because of that game & the one against Houston, some people assumed UH football players were "thugs"
I was at UH at the time and some football players were classmates!
I thought those "thug" labels were SEVERE exagarations!
Most of UH footballers I had in my class were funny guys who like to joke around! Some were cared more about academics than others! However, NEVER had I seen them act in a thuggish manner! NEVER had I seen them intimidate anyone off the field!
For example, Shawn Withy-Allen, who some said was illegally sacked at the end of the game, which people said started the fight! I know Shawn because I was his classmate. He definitely IS NOT the type to fight over nothing! He is a very nice person! He is a very religious person who is really into his Christian faith! But he is NOT one of those who abused moral judgments.
If you asked him what he believed, he'll be upfront and tell you with no shame! But he NEVER condemned anyone for not being of the same faith! I have NEVER seen him condemn atheists, religious liberals, or non-Christians!
I even remember him doing a taping for his Christian group. He asked me a few questions on sexual issues. While some of my answers weren't something religious conservatives agree with, he NEVER hated on me! He just smiled and laughed! I'm assuming he's thinking "OK, this guy may need to learn a few things" but it's NOT like "that guy is siding with the devil"
Chad Owens (who I mentioned as a classmate) is known as a funny guy filled with confidence. It always amazed how he showed no fear when getting tackled by HUGE guys, even though Owens is shorter than me!
In the Journalism class, there was an ex-UH football player Craig Stuttzman, who is currently an assistant coach! Very well mannered person. Even during the class, when a classmate suggested a reporter ask "if a (player whose name I wont' reveal ) is gay" Stuttzman didn't lash out to defend a former teammate! Very professional.
I also remember in that class Stuttzman questioning a Ka Leo editor (Lance Collins) who visited the class to talk about editorial journalism!
Stuttzman asked Collins "how important is it for you to get your facts right?" Collins was evasive saying his current editorials were more on philosophical issues.
After several evasions, Stuttzman got to the point, questioning the infamous editorial from way in early 1999 in which Collins mocked the UH athletes for loosing (this was right after the infamous 0-12 season), academic troubles, promiscuity and getting special treatment! Stuttzman mentioned that his teammates were upset and emphasized that Collins never "put on the pads and stepped on the field before". Stuttzman questioned Collins in a stern but non-threatening manner!
I also remembered having guys like Hyrum Peters, Chad Kahale, Lyle Castro, Tony Akpan, Jeff Rhode, Matt Manauma, Houston Ala, Ryan Santos, Jeremiah Cockerahn and a few others in my class. I also remembered meeting Ikaika Curran when I used to work at the UH dorms. None of them acted in a "thuggish" manner!
Due to their size and in some cases, their race, the UH football players are easy to stereotype! And their critics stereotype too easily!
4) This is the 1st year of the Coach Mack (Gregg McMackin) era at UH. So far, he's known for emphasizing restraint among his players when it comes to behavior!
Maybe at the end of tomorrow's game, all the players from both teams will shake hands and the audience will applaud!
--
PS: I hope I didn't sound like someone who glorifies violence when describing how some local people reacted to the fight! Someone could've died in the fight! My intention was to explain what people felt after the infamous game! Some sounded like they glorified fights and the "tough guy mentality", but that's what many people were saying after the game!
Friday, December 05, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Attacks on Mumbai
Several thoughts on the shooting rampage, hostage taking and other acts on terror in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), India.
1) These days, any important landmarks need armed guards 24/7! They might need to be armed with AK-47's or other similar weapons!
Police, while necessary, can't be around at every moment. Their job is to patrol the whole city! They can't be everywhere all at once!
Someone needs to be right there to protect at all times!
Some gun-control fanatics claim that having armed guards at schools, malls, etc. is "crazy". WRONG! Leaving public places undefended is the real insanity!
Once the bullets start, time for negotiation is over! Every second that passes is an eternity in those situations!
You can't stop those people with singing "give peace a chance". It's too late!
It's also too late to confiscate guns from people! Guns are already invited, and someone will find a way to get them!
The good guys need to win the arms race against the bad guys! That's reality! The bad guys ain't gonna give up their weapons without a fight! Why should the good guys!
If a good citizen has a gun and shoots the terrorists on a rampage -- that's good! That's taking initiative!
The police can't be there all the time!
Remember the LA riots in 1992? The police backed down in the 1st few hours! They were outnumbered and they left the scene! That sent a message to everyone -- "it's all yours, enjoy the vandalism". Those who were the wrong race were brutally attacked, and the police were NOWHERE to be found!
Remember New Orleans after Katrina! Some cops left town, some committed suicide, some even joined in the looting! There weren't enough cops to stop the looting
Yes, we need a good police force, but we also need citizens to take initiative! The citizens need to be the first line of defense!
2) Common Dreams had an article blaming poverty, capitalism, etc for the terrorism in Mumbai!
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/27-10
The recent attacks in India are morally repugnant, but the debate on how to curb terrorism needs to consider why people engage in such desperate acts in the first place. The perpetrators of yesterday's violence targeted two of Mumbai's most luxurious hotels: Taj Mahal and the Oberioi Trident. One night at either of these hotels costs, on average, Rupees 17,500 (US $ 355) in a country where the annual salary is Rupees 29,069 (US $590)
The article also had statistics on how much in India are living in poverty, as well as description of life in Indian ghettoes!
While India has been growing economically within the past decade, it is still recovering from centuries from extreme poverty!
However, what the writer left out ON PURPOSE, was that this incident has NOTHING to do with rebelling against poverty!
If India is 80% Hindu, 13% Muslim, 7% other --- you would think among the millions in India still living in poverty, many would be Hindu, right? And they would doing most of the rebelling against poverty, right?
But all signs are pointing to Islamic extremists!
It's got nothing to do with Indian poverty!
It's probably got more to do with feeling left out as a religious minority, and possibly over the disputed area of Kashmir (which is split between India & Pakistan)!
Some say the terrorists were from Pakistan, but it's unconfirmed so far!
But as conflicts in Africa, Middle East, South & South-East Asia, as well as attacks in Europe & North America has shown, there is a tendency on Islamic extremists to use terrorism as way to make non-Muslims afraid & submissive! They believe that violence is neccessary to get everyone to conform to ultra-conservative form of Islam! That's the politically incorrect fact!
Now, it should be common sense by now that there's millions of Muslims are NOT involved in terrorism or any other extremist activities!
But it is dangerous to pretend that there isn't a disturbing sign of violent extremism within the Muslim world!
Also, it should be common sense by now that criticism of Islamic extremism isn't always racist! Islam is a religion, NOT a race! Any blond-haired Caucasian can convert to Islam anytime, and any Middle Eastern person can quit Islam anytime!
3) It is still unconfirmed that the terrorist had ties to Pakistan!
India & Pakistan had wars over Kashmir in the past!
Those were in the past before both nations got nuclear weapons!
If they ever go to war, billions of people can die in seconds!
It's more important that the US have a missle defense system! Any arguments against a missle defense is DANGEROUSLY NAIVE in the age of nuclear weapons!
Even more so, if Iran, which has ties to anti-American terrorist groups, has nuclear weapons!
I already worry about North Korean missles hitting Hawaii! Let's hope it doesn't go that way!
4) While the following got nothing to do with the Mumbai incident, it's still related to India in some way. I want to clear up some things on the use of the word "Indians"!
People are still referring to Native Americans as "Indians"
While Christopher Columbus landed in the Carribean islands, he noticed dark, reddish-brown skinned people, so he thought he landed in India. So he called the people he saw "Indians".
But this is the 21st Century, we should already know that Native Americans (including all the natives of all the Americas, not just USA) and the people of India are very different from each other!
Yet, even within my family, when the girls were wearing the Native American style hats, people were saying "you look like an Indian", even though no one in India is wearing those hats (unless they're imitating Native Americans)
When I use the word "Indian", I'm only referring to people from India! When I am talking about the native people of the Americas, I use the word "Native Americans". That way there is no confusion over who we're talking about!
It's even more important now that we clear with confusion, especially with increased immigration from India. Even in Hawaii, I'm seeing more Indians here than before!
So let's reserve the use of the word "Indians" for those with roots in India, and "Native Americans" for those with native roots in the Americas!
India & Pakistan had wars over Kashmir in the past!
Those were in the past before both nations got nuclear weapons!
If they ever go to war, billions of people can die in seconds!
It's more important that the US have a missle defense system! Any arguments against a missle defense is DANGEROUSLY NAIVE in the age of nuclear weapons!
Even more so, if Iran, which has ties to anti-American terrorist groups, has nuclear weapons!
I already worry about North Korean missles hitting Hawaii! Let's hope it doesn't go that way!
4) While the following got nothing to do with the Mumbai incident, it's still related to India in some way. I want to clear up some things on the use of the word "Indians"!
People are still referring to Native Americans as "Indians"
While Christopher Columbus landed in the Carribean islands, he noticed dark, reddish-brown skinned people, so he thought he landed in India. So he called the people he saw "Indians".
But this is the 21st Century, we should already know that Native Americans (including all the natives of all the Americas, not just USA) and the people of India are very different from each other!
Yet, even within my family, when the girls were wearing the Native American style hats, people were saying "you look like an Indian", even though no one in India is wearing those hats (unless they're imitating Native Americans)
When I use the word "Indian", I'm only referring to people from India! When I am talking about the native people of the Americas, I use the word "Native Americans". That way there is no confusion over who we're talking about!
It's even more important now that we clear with confusion, especially with increased immigration from India. Even in Hawaii, I'm seeing more Indians here than before!
So let's reserve the use of the word "Indians" for those with roots in India, and "Native Americans" for those with native roots in the Americas!
And NO, this is NOT political correctness, it's FACTUAL CORRECTNESS!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Race & Sexual Orientation
There's been controversy over the racial voting patterns on Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage!
The law passed by 53% overall!
Here's the racial data, courtesy of CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
White 49% yes, 51% no
African-American 70% yes 30% no
Latino 53% yes 47% no
Asian 49% yes 51% no
Other 51% yes 49% no
California has one of the most liberal white populations in the USA! This is especially true in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as the liberal areas in & around Los Angeles (ie. Hollywood, Malibu, Westwood, Santa Monica, etc.)
If it was almost any other state in the US, the European-American vote would be against same-sex marriage!
As for the Asians, I'm assuming most of the same-sex marriage supporters are the US-born Asians, especially among those from the San Francisco Bay Area. They are totally Americanized and exposed to the liberal values of the Bay Area from childhood!
I'm also assuming most of the anti-same-sex marriage folks in the Asian community are the immigrants. The Yes on Prop 8 folks had more ads in Asian-language newspapers than the No on Prop 8 folks.
As mentioned, the majority of Latinos & African-Americans were against same-sex marriage.
1) Obviously, the liberal reaction is "how dare they, they should know what it's like to be oppressed"
It's not that simple!
Most people outside of the Bay Area view homosexuality as "gross".
So many in East LA or South Central LA have a hard time viewing "gays as oppressed", because in their minds, they hate being compared to people who they think as "gross".
When I was younger, I was against same-sex marriage because I thought "homosexuality is gross"! When I got older, I started to realize that people don't choose who they are attracted to!
I learned that people who had same-sex attractions have it really hard! They can't openly admit it because everyone would freak out! They can try to get those same-sex attractions out of their heads, but it's something they can't change! This leads many to suicide, knowing almost no one will accept them!
Also, even if one thinks "homosexuality is gross", that's no reason for the government to micro-manage their lives, no reason for the government to persecute them!
But the the idea that "homosexuality is gross" is hard to counter-act, even harder to counter-act against most prejudices! That's what is in people's mind when they vote on this issue!
So even if they're liberal on various issues, they'll still can't vote for same-sex marriage!
While many conservatives are thinking "at least the African-Americans are with us on this one issue", that won't be enough to get them vote Republican! After all, many may not like homosexuality, they're not thinking "I'm going to vote for candidates on this one issue".
It's more like "I agree with Democrats on most issues, so I'll vote Democrat! As for same-sex marriage, I'll just fill in that bubble on the ballot, but other than that, I'll side with Democrats"
I also think religious conservatives take too much credit on this issue! After all, many same-sex marriage opponents also do things that horrify religious conservatives (ie. have affairs, abortion, out-of-wedlock parenting, go to strip clubs, do drugs, etc.) So in many cases, it's got less to do with "homosexuality is a sin in the Bible" than more to do with "Eeeeewwwwww, that's gross"
2) in my previous, I mentioned the gay liberation movement is targeting Mormons over Prop 8. I also mentioned Mormons made easier targets, because they're not part of the "liberal coalition" that Democrats need for electoral victory! So I mentioned that they're less likely to target African-American Christians, Latino Catholics, Jews, Muslims, all of whom are part of the "liberal coaltion" that Democrats rely on!
However, since then, I have learned that European-American homosexuals have been committing acts of racist hate against African-Americans, even the ones who supported same-sex marriage!
I have first learned about this from this editorial by Harry Jackson, an African-American Christian conservative!
http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2008/11/17/no_more_mr_nice_gay!
Afterwards, I read this from Thomas Sowell, another African-American conservative
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/19/the_right_to_win
For more on this, check out
http://www.inquisitr.com/7881/proposition-8-protest-turns-nasty-african-americans-targeted/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111212.html
http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=2846
It got to the point where the Gay & Lesbian Center had to put out a statement telling their supporters NOT to scapegoat African-Americans for Prop 8.
http://www.lagaycenter.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Community_Letter_Prop_8
Now, this has been ignored by left-wing websites like Salon & The Nation!
The Radical Left wants to pretend that "all Caucasian racists are also homophobes" and they'll point out right-wingers like Jesse Helms and David Duke!
This doesn't erase the fact some white supremacists are gay! That's not a joke! Not all gay people are racially tolerant!
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6284348
This will NOT help the gay rights cause. All it will do is give the image of "gay is a white thing", which will further alienate African-Americans from the idea of gay rights!
The law passed by 53% overall!
Here's the racial data, courtesy of CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
White 49% yes, 51% no
African-American 70% yes 30% no
Latino 53% yes 47% no
Asian 49% yes 51% no
Other 51% yes 49% no
California has one of the most liberal white populations in the USA! This is especially true in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as the liberal areas in & around Los Angeles (ie. Hollywood, Malibu, Westwood, Santa Monica, etc.)
If it was almost any other state in the US, the European-American vote would be against same-sex marriage!
As for the Asians, I'm assuming most of the same-sex marriage supporters are the US-born Asians, especially among those from the San Francisco Bay Area. They are totally Americanized and exposed to the liberal values of the Bay Area from childhood!
I'm also assuming most of the anti-same-sex marriage folks in the Asian community are the immigrants. The Yes on Prop 8 folks had more ads in Asian-language newspapers than the No on Prop 8 folks.
As mentioned, the majority of Latinos & African-Americans were against same-sex marriage.
1) Obviously, the liberal reaction is "how dare they, they should know what it's like to be oppressed"
It's not that simple!
Most people outside of the Bay Area view homosexuality as "gross".
So many in East LA or South Central LA have a hard time viewing "gays as oppressed", because in their minds, they hate being compared to people who they think as "gross".
When I was younger, I was against same-sex marriage because I thought "homosexuality is gross"! When I got older, I started to realize that people don't choose who they are attracted to!
I learned that people who had same-sex attractions have it really hard! They can't openly admit it because everyone would freak out! They can try to get those same-sex attractions out of their heads, but it's something they can't change! This leads many to suicide, knowing almost no one will accept them!
Also, even if one thinks "homosexuality is gross", that's no reason for the government to micro-manage their lives, no reason for the government to persecute them!
But the the idea that "homosexuality is gross" is hard to counter-act, even harder to counter-act against most prejudices! That's what is in people's mind when they vote on this issue!
So even if they're liberal on various issues, they'll still can't vote for same-sex marriage!
While many conservatives are thinking "at least the African-Americans are with us on this one issue", that won't be enough to get them vote Republican! After all, many may not like homosexuality, they're not thinking "I'm going to vote for candidates on this one issue".
It's more like "I agree with Democrats on most issues, so I'll vote Democrat! As for same-sex marriage, I'll just fill in that bubble on the ballot, but other than that, I'll side with Democrats"
I also think religious conservatives take too much credit on this issue! After all, many same-sex marriage opponents also do things that horrify religious conservatives (ie. have affairs, abortion, out-of-wedlock parenting, go to strip clubs, do drugs, etc.) So in many cases, it's got less to do with "homosexuality is a sin in the Bible" than more to do with "Eeeeewwwwww, that's gross"
2) in my previous, I mentioned the gay liberation movement is targeting Mormons over Prop 8. I also mentioned Mormons made easier targets, because they're not part of the "liberal coalition" that Democrats need for electoral victory! So I mentioned that they're less likely to target African-American Christians, Latino Catholics, Jews, Muslims, all of whom are part of the "liberal coaltion" that Democrats rely on!
However, since then, I have learned that European-American homosexuals have been committing acts of racist hate against African-Americans, even the ones who supported same-sex marriage!
I have first learned about this from this editorial by Harry Jackson, an African-American Christian conservative!
http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2008/11/17/no_more_mr_nice_gay!
Adding insult to injury, Geoffrey a black gay student at UCLA, joined a massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Westwood. As he was marching with his “brothers,” folks in the crowd turned on him calling him the n-word twice. Here is his account which was posted in Rod 2.0:Beta and other gay blogs:
“It was like being at a Klan rally except the Klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks…. A young WeHo clone said after last night ‘the n…s better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was best for them’. ”
Another black protesting for gay rights, Ronald, claimed that three older white men shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” Black gays are suddenly aware that there are some real racial tensions within their movement.
Jasmyne Cannick, a black lesbian writer for the Los Angeles Times, reported that many white gays were simply hurling expletives at every black person they saw at their protest rallies. In her view, black gays had bigger fish to fry than the issue of marriage.
Afterwards, I read this from Thomas Sowell, another African-American conservative
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/19/the_right_to_win
The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.
Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles-- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.
Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."
Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.
For more on this, check out
http://www.inquisitr.com/7881/proposition-8-protest-turns-nasty-african-americans-targeted/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111212.html
http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=2846
To date, I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called “niggers” to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of “you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back,” these gays have lost their damn minds.
But I know one thing, they won’t bring that shit south of the 10 freeway. (Pablo's note: that's South Central)
All I can say is that I wish that had been me in Westwood some gay called a “nigger.” I keep bail money and a lawyer on retainer for exactly these types of occasions.
If gays want to blame someone for Proposition 8, they can start with their leaders—also known as the gay mafia, whose egos, white superiority complex, and misunderstanding of Black people’s priorities for this election season guaranteed certain outcomes.
It got to the point where the Gay & Lesbian Center had to put out a statement telling their supporters NOT to scapegoat African-Americans for Prop 8.
http://www.lagaycenter.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Community_Letter_Prop_8
Now, this has been ignored by left-wing websites like Salon & The Nation!
The Radical Left wants to pretend that "all Caucasian racists are also homophobes" and they'll point out right-wingers like Jesse Helms and David Duke!
This doesn't erase the fact some white supremacists are gay! That's not a joke! Not all gay people are racially tolerant!
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6284348
Emil Wilbekin, who was named one of the Top 100 most influential gay men by Out magazine, acknowledges the homophobia but also blames the overwhelmingly white gay community for practicing a kind of "institutional racism" where blacks are not welcome.----
"Black gay people are not always accepted in the hierarchy of gay society, which is successful, with disposable income and second homes," said Wilbekin, who caused a sensation when, as an openly gay man he was appointed editor of Vibe, a magazine that serves the hip-hop culture. "The gay community is not one big happy family."
This will NOT help the gay rights cause. All it will do is give the image of "gay is a white thing", which will further alienate African-Americans from the idea of gay rights!
Friday, November 14, 2008
More Election Analysis
1) I defeated Tobin Jones again.
I know, I made my so-called last statement on him a while back, but this month proves I was more correct than he is!
I remember back in 2001, I wrote an editorial in the University of Hawaii's newspaper about how the USA has made more progress in freedom, economics, race relations, etc than most countries in the world.
http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2001/11/01/Editorials/U.s-Not.Best.But.Better-2806056.shtml
And Tobin Jones responded by throwing a Hissy Fit at me
http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2001/11/05/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor.11.05.01-2806085.shtml
My reply to him
I know, I made my so-called last statement on him a while back, but this month proves I was more correct than he is!
I remember back in 2001, I wrote an editorial in the University of Hawaii's newspaper about how the USA has made more progress in freedom, economics, race relations, etc than most countries in the world.
http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2001/11/01/Editorials/U.s-Not.Best.But.Better-2806056.shtml
And Tobin Jones responded by throwing a Hissy Fit at me
http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2001/11/05/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor.11.05.01-2806085.shtml
My reply to him
https://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-conflict-with-jeremiah-wright-wannabe.html
This Election proved me Correct!
Just imagine what kind of hissy fit Tobin Jones would've thrown had I written back in 2001 that within a decade the USA would elect an African-American president. Or be culturally tolerant enough to elect a president with a middle name Hussein, or a president who is from Hawaii! He would've yelled about how naive I was!
This Election proved me Correct!
Just imagine what kind of hissy fit Tobin Jones would've thrown had I written back in 2001 that within a decade the USA would elect an African-American president. Or be culturally tolerant enough to elect a president with a middle name Hussein, or a president who is from Hawaii! He would've yelled about how naive I was!
Yet, It Just Happened In Real Life!
Here is Dennis Prager's analysis on all of that
http://jewishworldreview.com/1108/prager111108.php3
To contrast, none of the liberal European countries have voted for a president of African or Middle Eastern ancestry. None of those liberal Western European countries has yet elected a president with Muslim relatives!
I'm still waiting for China to even have an election, much less chose a Tibetan as its leader! Or for Japan to vote a person of Korean ancestry!
In fact, the Luo tribe (the group of which Obama's father is from) is less likely to gain the presidency of Kenya than the USA. This election has proven it!
2) Linda Lingle should've just sticked with Hawaii politics.
Lingle was in the mainland to support the McCain/Palin campaign!
She also questioned Obama's "localness", which backfired! Despite moving to Chicago, the people of Hawaii still loved him! In fact, they supported him more than any other state! (Though DC gave him the highest % of votes, but technically, DC isn't a state)
Not only did McCain/Palin lose, but the Hawaii Republicans lost members in the state Legislature!
I remember when Lingle first ran for governor in 1998, there was excitement about the Republican Party growing in Hawaii!
At the time, Hawaii was run by Democrats for 4 decades, yet it still had a low-rated education system, a business climate so over-regulated that many Hawaii residents found greener pastures in the continental US. Ironically, the greener pastures were in desert states like Nevada & Arizona
I was like "if Lingle can win, we can finally have a 2 party system, and be more like Florida, Nevada & Arizona"
Well, Lingle lost in 1998, but won in 2002 & 2006. The Republicans gained seats in the Legislature but then declined.
So within the last 10 years, we went from an extremely Democrat-run legislature to a ...........an extremely Democrat-run legislature!
Lingle should've stayed home and got more Republicans elected in Hawaii, rather than convince mainlanders to vote for McCain/Palin!
3) The people voted for rail!
I didn't!
My #1 issue was the possible use of eminent domain to confiscate property of those who just happened to be in the way of the rail system!
Hopefully, they can just buy the land, or re-route it to reduce the chance of "needing" to use eminent domain!
4) Proposition 8 was the ballot initiative to re-ban same-sex marriage in California!
It won 53% of the vote!
The religious conservatives were happy! Even in the year of Obama, people still agreed to ban same-sex marriage!
But they shouldn't over-celebrate!
In 2000, the people of California voted on this same issues. 61% voted against same-sex marriage!
So in 8 years, the opposition against same-sex marriage went from 61% to 53%.
I predict in 10 years, this issue would be voted on AGAIN, and the opposition to same-sex marriage will decline AGAIN, but that time to be less than 50%. They will then loose California forever!
However, the same-sex marriage movement is making an idiotic move by boycotting Utah due to the Mormon's opposition to same-sex marriage.
But Utah wasn't voting on this issue, it was the people of California!
Would the gay liberation movement call for a boycott of Rome, Mecca or Jerusalem? After all, the Catholics, Muslims & Orthodox Jews also opposed same-sex marriage!
Also, the majority of African-American Christians opposed same-sex marriage! So would the gay liberation movement boycott Crenshaw (in South Central LA) & East Oakland too?
But that won't happen!
The last thing the Democrats (and Obama) want is a liberal civil war! They don't want a gays vs African-American Christian, or a gays vs Latino Catholics, or a gays vs Jews, or a gays vs Muslims! That would cause an implosion of the liberal coalition important for Democrat victory!
But since the Mormons aren't part of the liberal coalition (despite Honolulu mayor Mufi Hanneman and Nevada senator Harry Reid being Mormon Democrats) so the gay liberation is taking it all out on Utah!
This is STUPID!
There's no need to boycott Utah, Rome, Mecca, Jerusalem, Crenshaw or East Oakland!
The same-sex marriage supporters just need to get their message out! Inform people that sexual orientation isn't a choice! Attraction isn't a choice! And that people should live their lives as they see fit!
Declaring war on Utah (or on Rome, Mecca, Jerusalem or on African-American Christians) WILL BACKFIRE! It will look like a "hate campaign". There's no need for a "hate campaign.
Just keep saying the message - Sexual Orientation isn't a Choice! Attraction isn't a Choice! And people should live their lives as they see fit!
People will eventually get the message!
When I was younger, I used to be against same-sex marriage because I thought homosexuality was gross. But I learned that Sexual Orientation isn't a Choice, Attraction isn't a Choice. And people should live their lives as they see fit!
So even a straight male like me can learn!
Just keep educating the masses! No religious wars neccessary!
Here is Dennis Prager's analysis on all of that
http://jewishworldreview.com/1108/prager111108.php3
Conservatives are not surprised. I have argued for decades that America is the least racist country in the world. By and large, only Americans on the right have believed, or at least had the courage to say, this. Now that fact is obvious to virtually anyone with eyes to see.
To contrast, none of the liberal European countries have voted for a president of African or Middle Eastern ancestry. None of those liberal Western European countries has yet elected a president with Muslim relatives!
I'm still waiting for China to even have an election, much less chose a Tibetan as its leader! Or for Japan to vote a person of Korean ancestry!
In fact, the Luo tribe (the group of which Obama's father is from) is less likely to gain the presidency of Kenya than the USA. This election has proven it!
2) Linda Lingle should've just sticked with Hawaii politics.
Lingle was in the mainland to support the McCain/Palin campaign!
She also questioned Obama's "localness", which backfired! Despite moving to Chicago, the people of Hawaii still loved him! In fact, they supported him more than any other state! (Though DC gave him the highest % of votes, but technically, DC isn't a state)
Not only did McCain/Palin lose, but the Hawaii Republicans lost members in the state Legislature!
I remember when Lingle first ran for governor in 1998, there was excitement about the Republican Party growing in Hawaii!
At the time, Hawaii was run by Democrats for 4 decades, yet it still had a low-rated education system, a business climate so over-regulated that many Hawaii residents found greener pastures in the continental US. Ironically, the greener pastures were in desert states like Nevada & Arizona
I was like "if Lingle can win, we can finally have a 2 party system, and be more like Florida, Nevada & Arizona"
Well, Lingle lost in 1998, but won in 2002 & 2006. The Republicans gained seats in the Legislature but then declined.
So within the last 10 years, we went from an extremely Democrat-run legislature to a ...........an extremely Democrat-run legislature!
Lingle should've stayed home and got more Republicans elected in Hawaii, rather than convince mainlanders to vote for McCain/Palin!
3) The people voted for rail!
I didn't!
My #1 issue was the possible use of eminent domain to confiscate property of those who just happened to be in the way of the rail system!
Hopefully, they can just buy the land, or re-route it to reduce the chance of "needing" to use eminent domain!
4) Proposition 8 was the ballot initiative to re-ban same-sex marriage in California!
It won 53% of the vote!
The religious conservatives were happy! Even in the year of Obama, people still agreed to ban same-sex marriage!
But they shouldn't over-celebrate!
In 2000, the people of California voted on this same issues. 61% voted against same-sex marriage!
So in 8 years, the opposition against same-sex marriage went from 61% to 53%.
I predict in 10 years, this issue would be voted on AGAIN, and the opposition to same-sex marriage will decline AGAIN, but that time to be less than 50%. They will then loose California forever!
However, the same-sex marriage movement is making an idiotic move by boycotting Utah due to the Mormon's opposition to same-sex marriage.
But Utah wasn't voting on this issue, it was the people of California!
Would the gay liberation movement call for a boycott of Rome, Mecca or Jerusalem? After all, the Catholics, Muslims & Orthodox Jews also opposed same-sex marriage!
Also, the majority of African-American Christians opposed same-sex marriage! So would the gay liberation movement boycott Crenshaw (in South Central LA) & East Oakland too?
But that won't happen!
The last thing the Democrats (and Obama) want is a liberal civil war! They don't want a gays vs African-American Christian, or a gays vs Latino Catholics, or a gays vs Jews, or a gays vs Muslims! That would cause an implosion of the liberal coalition important for Democrat victory!
But since the Mormons aren't part of the liberal coalition (despite Honolulu mayor Mufi Hanneman and Nevada senator Harry Reid being Mormon Democrats) so the gay liberation is taking it all out on Utah!
This is STUPID!
There's no need to boycott Utah, Rome, Mecca, Jerusalem, Crenshaw or East Oakland!
The same-sex marriage supporters just need to get their message out! Inform people that sexual orientation isn't a choice! Attraction isn't a choice! And that people should live their lives as they see fit!
Declaring war on Utah (or on Rome, Mecca, Jerusalem or on African-American Christians) WILL BACKFIRE! It will look like a "hate campaign". There's no need for a "hate campaign.
Just keep saying the message - Sexual Orientation isn't a Choice! Attraction isn't a Choice! And people should live their lives as they see fit!
People will eventually get the message!
When I was younger, I used to be against same-sex marriage because I thought homosexuality was gross. But I learned that Sexual Orientation isn't a Choice, Attraction isn't a Choice. And people should live their lives as they see fit!
So even a straight male like me can learn!
Just keep educating the masses! No religious wars neccessary!
Friday, November 07, 2008
This Historic Election
History was made this past Tuesday!
The USA will have it's 1st African-American President! Barack Obama!
This shows this country has gone a long way! A land that once imported Africans as slaves, and had oppressive segregation laws, a land where African-Americans who fought for their rights met with violent resistance, and the land that overcame racist segregation --- Now has given a majority of its votes to a man with African ancestry!
Martin Luther King's dream is now reality!
And one of King's former assistants, John Lewis, who was severely beaten during the civil rights movement, had an emotional statement after it was announced that Barack Obama was going to be the next President!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGIrwctPeiA
Here is John McCain's concession speech. McCain showed a lot of class, though unfortunately, some of his supporters didn't. (which I'll discuss later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT7DZZ1iEnk
Here is Barack Obama's victory speech
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/barackobamavictoryspeech.htm
Now on to the election analysis
1) I didn't agree with Obama's proposals on raising corporate taxes or undoing Clinton/Bush free trade policies. I thought it's a counter-productive thing to do in this declining economy! Also, Obama's proposal on withdrawal from Iraq might be counter-productive! I thought McCain made stronger points on those issues during the debate!
I also worried about the Democrat Congress and a Democrat President might go too left on economic policy!
But I accept Obama's victory, and I accept Obama as the Next President!
2) This goes out to all you loosers who screamed about "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is a terrorist", "Obama's not an American citizen","Obama's brith certificate is fake" mocked Obama for having a middle name "Hussein", and to all you loosers who yelled racist chants against Obama!
USA VOTERS DIDN'T FALL FOR YOUR BULL-FECES! YOU LUNATICS ARE LOOSERS AND you didn't help McCain. In fact, you hurt McCain BIG TIME!
In fact, America voted Obama to give you racist fuckers a middle finger!
And those who booed Obama when McCain accepted defeat? Welcome to democracy! You win some, you loose some! Deal with it maturely!
Even if Obama really was a Muslim, HARDLY ANYONE CARES!
The generation under 40 has looked up to Muslim athletes like Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mushin Mohammed!
The generation under 40 looked up to Muslim rappers like Rakim and Q-Tip! Akon was from a Muslim family & Ice Cube was once associated with the Nation of Islam! Akon & Ice Cube have millions of fans of all races, and though their lyrics would offend many conservative Muslims, having associations with Islam didn't hurt their careers!
Salon even had an article titled "Racists for Obama", which mentioned some European-Americans might make jokes about African-Americans, but supported Obama anyways.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/03/racists_for_obama/index.html
This is not as unusual as Salon makes it out to be! It's like those in Hawaii who refer to European-Americans as "fuckin haoles" but got a Colt Brennan jersey anyways! Or those who occassionally make fun of the way Chinese people talk, but will order take-out plate lunches from Chinese eateries!
As that article said "If you got to a white neighborhood in the suburbs and ask them, "How would you feel about a large black man kicking your door in," they would say, "That doesn't sound good to me... But if you say, "Your house is on fire, and the firefighter happens to be black," it's a different situation."
Some might proclaim dislike of Africans, Mexicans, Asians, Samoans, Micronesians, Europeans, etc, but if your house is on fire, you don't give a shit what race the firefighters are!
3) Now, this goes out to the Race Card Abusers on the Left!
These are the ones who said "calling Obama a socialist is racist", "McCain saying'that one' on Obama during the debates is racist", "Bill Clinton calling Obama's Iraq rhetoric a fairy tale is racist", "Joe the Plumber's questioning Obama is racist" or "anyone criticizing Obama is racist" -- THOSE THINGS ARE NOT RACIST!
Look, all Presidents get criticized for their policies & short-comings. That was true under the Bushes & Reagan! That was true under Clinton & Carter! It ain't gonna stop under Obama!
It's NOT racist to criticize Obama's policies!
Save the race talk on issues where it's needed!
4) All this talk about the "Bradley effect"? Irrelevant!
At least 51% of the USA voted for a African-American! At least 25% would've voted for an African-American who had different policies on taxes, foreign policy, guns, abortion, etc. So that's 76% of the USA.
The other 24% is too small to win a majority! They might still do things ranging from the annoying to the deadly! They might still make some areas too dangerous for those of the opposite color!
But the good news is they're loosing!
5) Now, the Democrats got a bigger majority in Congress!
They better not get too arrogant!
Obama campaign as a relatively moderate liberal!
Any attempts from Congress to make Obama go far to the Left will only alienate people! As conservative activist Richard Viguerie said "By running as moderates, "Democrats forfeited any claim to a liberal mandate,"
This would be especially true when it comes to gun policy, taxes and any new government programs!
6) So now what for Republicans?
Obama won Bush states like Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and (some still dispute it over 2000) Florida!
Some are calling for Palin 2012!
Never say Never!
Back in 2004, some were calling for Obama 2008, but even then, I thought Obama would've need more experience. But History Happened in 2008!
Though I predict the next Republican to win the Presidency will have to have some non-European ancestry!
The USA is being more diverse, and that's not going to change!
The Republicans can't be a "party of just white people" anymore! Otherwise, they'll loose Arizona (McCain saved it this time), Texas, Georgia and even Utah!
So the future possibilities could include Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor whose parents were immigrants from India!
Maybe Tito The Builder (the Latino version of Joe the Plumber) who was a Colombian immigrant who started a construction company, and made on-stage appearances with Sarah Palin! Maybe he'll have to win a Senate seat first!
See his speech at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZUzcT-MmQ&feature=related
Or maybe Todd - Sarah Palin's husband - who is part-Inuit! Now, image, a 1st Native American President! Now, that would be History Part Two!
Maybe Larry Elder, the African-American radio talk show host! Or Walter Williams, a free-market economist who happens to be African-American!
Or Star Parker, a female conservative activist of African-American ancestry! Maybe she could be the First Female President! History Part Three!
Just as long as it's not Michelle Malkin, (the Filipina version of Ann Coulter), who has toxic, hateful views towards Latin American & Middle Eastern immigrants! She might be popular among some Fox News supporters, but the Republicans need to distant themselves from Malkin as far as possible!
The USA will have it's 1st African-American President! Barack Obama!
This shows this country has gone a long way! A land that once imported Africans as slaves, and had oppressive segregation laws, a land where African-Americans who fought for their rights met with violent resistance, and the land that overcame racist segregation --- Now has given a majority of its votes to a man with African ancestry!
Martin Luther King's dream is now reality!
And one of King's former assistants, John Lewis, who was severely beaten during the civil rights movement, had an emotional statement after it was announced that Barack Obama was going to be the next President!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGIrwctPeiA
Here is John McCain's concession speech. McCain showed a lot of class, though unfortunately, some of his supporters didn't. (which I'll discuss later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT7DZZ1iEnk
Here is Barack Obama's victory speech
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/barackobamavictoryspeech.htm
Now on to the election analysis
1) I didn't agree with Obama's proposals on raising corporate taxes or undoing Clinton/Bush free trade policies. I thought it's a counter-productive thing to do in this declining economy! Also, Obama's proposal on withdrawal from Iraq might be counter-productive! I thought McCain made stronger points on those issues during the debate!
I also worried about the Democrat Congress and a Democrat President might go too left on economic policy!
But I accept Obama's victory, and I accept Obama as the Next President!
2) This goes out to all you loosers who screamed about "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is a terrorist", "Obama's not an American citizen","Obama's brith certificate is fake" mocked Obama for having a middle name "Hussein", and to all you loosers who yelled racist chants against Obama!
USA VOTERS DIDN'T FALL FOR YOUR BULL-FECES! YOU LUNATICS ARE LOOSERS AND you didn't help McCain. In fact, you hurt McCain BIG TIME!
In fact, America voted Obama to give you racist fuckers a middle finger!
And those who booed Obama when McCain accepted defeat? Welcome to democracy! You win some, you loose some! Deal with it maturely!
Even if Obama really was a Muslim, HARDLY ANYONE CARES!
The generation under 40 has looked up to Muslim athletes like Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mushin Mohammed!
The generation under 40 looked up to Muslim rappers like Rakim and Q-Tip! Akon was from a Muslim family & Ice Cube was once associated with the Nation of Islam! Akon & Ice Cube have millions of fans of all races, and though their lyrics would offend many conservative Muslims, having associations with Islam didn't hurt their careers!
Salon even had an article titled "Racists for Obama", which mentioned some European-Americans might make jokes about African-Americans, but supported Obama anyways.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/03/racists_for_obama/index.html
This is not as unusual as Salon makes it out to be! It's like those in Hawaii who refer to European-Americans as "fuckin haoles" but got a Colt Brennan jersey anyways! Or those who occassionally make fun of the way Chinese people talk, but will order take-out plate lunches from Chinese eateries!
As that article said "If you got to a white neighborhood in the suburbs and ask them, "How would you feel about a large black man kicking your door in," they would say, "That doesn't sound good to me... But if you say, "Your house is on fire, and the firefighter happens to be black," it's a different situation."
Some might proclaim dislike of Africans, Mexicans, Asians, Samoans, Micronesians, Europeans, etc, but if your house is on fire, you don't give a shit what race the firefighters are!
3) Now, this goes out to the Race Card Abusers on the Left!
These are the ones who said "calling Obama a socialist is racist", "McCain saying'that one' on Obama during the debates is racist", "Bill Clinton calling Obama's Iraq rhetoric a fairy tale is racist", "Joe the Plumber's questioning Obama is racist" or "anyone criticizing Obama is racist" -- THOSE THINGS ARE NOT RACIST!
Look, all Presidents get criticized for their policies & short-comings. That was true under the Bushes & Reagan! That was true under Clinton & Carter! It ain't gonna stop under Obama!
It's NOT racist to criticize Obama's policies!
Save the race talk on issues where it's needed!
4) All this talk about the "Bradley effect"? Irrelevant!
At least 51% of the USA voted for a African-American! At least 25% would've voted for an African-American who had different policies on taxes, foreign policy, guns, abortion, etc. So that's 76% of the USA.
The other 24% is too small to win a majority! They might still do things ranging from the annoying to the deadly! They might still make some areas too dangerous for those of the opposite color!
But the good news is they're loosing!
5) Now, the Democrats got a bigger majority in Congress!
They better not get too arrogant!
Obama campaign as a relatively moderate liberal!
Any attempts from Congress to make Obama go far to the Left will only alienate people! As conservative activist Richard Viguerie said "By running as moderates, "Democrats forfeited any claim to a liberal mandate,"
This would be especially true when it comes to gun policy, taxes and any new government programs!
6) So now what for Republicans?
Obama won Bush states like Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and (some still dispute it over 2000) Florida!
Some are calling for Palin 2012!
Never say Never!
Back in 2004, some were calling for Obama 2008, but even then, I thought Obama would've need more experience. But History Happened in 2008!
Though I predict the next Republican to win the Presidency will have to have some non-European ancestry!
The USA is being more diverse, and that's not going to change!
The Republicans can't be a "party of just white people" anymore! Otherwise, they'll loose Arizona (McCain saved it this time), Texas, Georgia and even Utah!
So the future possibilities could include Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor whose parents were immigrants from India!
Maybe Tito The Builder (the Latino version of Joe the Plumber) who was a Colombian immigrant who started a construction company, and made on-stage appearances with Sarah Palin! Maybe he'll have to win a Senate seat first!
See his speech at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZUzcT-MmQ&feature=related
Or maybe Todd - Sarah Palin's husband - who is part-Inuit! Now, image, a 1st Native American President! Now, that would be History Part Two!
Maybe Larry Elder, the African-American radio talk show host! Or Walter Williams, a free-market economist who happens to be African-American!
Or Star Parker, a female conservative activist of African-American ancestry! Maybe she could be the First Female President! History Part Three!
Just as long as it's not Michelle Malkin, (the Filipina version of Ann Coulter), who has toxic, hateful views towards Latin American & Middle Eastern immigrants! She might be popular among some Fox News supporters, but the Republicans need to distant themselves from Malkin as far as possible!
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Coming Soon
My analysis on the historic election of this week.
I've been so busy, but trust me, as soon as I get time, I got A LOT to say about the recent election!
I've been so busy, but trust me, as soon as I get time, I got A LOT to say about the recent election!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Election News
So far, it seems that Barack Obama has the upper hand in the polls.
But this election seems too close to call!
1) Many on the Left will blame only one thing if Obama looses - Racism!
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of dummies on the Far Right who still believe Obama is the "closet Muslim", and thinks that Obama wants to "oppress the whites". We also have a bunch of dummies at McCain-Palin rallies shouting racist crap at African-American reporters!
There are concern that some European-American union voters (usually Democrats) have racist feelings and wouldn't vote for a black guy, no matter what! This is especially a concern in swing states in the Midwest!
But for some on the Radical Left, any criticism of Obama is considered "racist". Even those who (gasp) express criticism of Obama's proposed policies!
You can't even call Obama a "liberal" without being called a racist!
Obama was accused of "palling around with terrorists"! Those accussations were considered "racist", but the terrorist was European-American Bill Ayers, who planted bombs in federal buildings in the 1970's.
Joe the Plumber was slandered as "racist" for saying that Obama was "tap dancing" around his question like "Sammy Davis Jr.
THAT'S NOT RACIST!
What, if John McCain was being evasive about a question, I can't say "he swam around my questions like Micheal Phelps" or else I'll get called "anti-white?
If you're one of those who call every non-Obama voter a racist, would you vote for African-American conservatives like Allan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, or Condaleeza Rice?
2) Some talk about the Bradley effect, referring to the former mayor of LA, Thomas Bradley (who happened to be African-American) who was ahead in the pre-election polls when he ran for governor of California in 1982, but lost the election!
Some say "some pretended to be for Bradley, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they voted their prejudice, and against Bradley"
But his opponent exposed the fact that crime was increasing in LA during Bradley's term as mayor. Also a handgun-ban initiative was on the ballot which Bradly supported. That got many who either 1) sometimes liberal but isn't for gun bans, or 2) non-voting but owns a gun to vote against Bradley.
Let's not forget that Bradley's career was destroyed in 1992 because of the LA riots. Bradley was still mayor, and people felt he lost control of the city, and that the police wasn't adequately prepared for a large scale riot! He even lost support of many African-American voters at that point!
It's likely, in the case of Obama, many are skeptical of his tax policy, foreign policy, etc, but don't want to admit it because people might then ask "are you against him because he's black?" even if you're only questioning his policies! So they remain silent!
Or in some cases, Obama skeptics might get called "Uncle Toms". I mean back in the primary, the African-American politicians & activists who supported Hillary Clinton were called "race traitors" and in some cases, even threatened!
Kathleen Parker says a "reverse Bradley effect" might happen! Those in conservative areas might want to vote for Obama but are silent because then they might be asked "why are voting for that Muslim?" or "why are voting for that (n-word)?". So it's possible that many Obama supporters in conservative areas are pretending to support McCain, but in the privacy of the voting booth, end up voting for Obama
http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker102208.php3
Parker was the same conservative writer who expressed skepticism of Sarah Palin's readiness to be Vice-President. She ended up being accused of being a "closet liberal" and recieved threatening emails!
3) Some say Obama is a Radical Leftist because he associated with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other left-wing extremists!
I think Obama, like other politicians, panders to whatever can help him at the moment.
When he ran for office in Chicago, he felt he had to pander to Ayers, Wright, etc. in order to get votes.
He felt he needed to support handgun bans when he was an Illinois senator!
Now that he wants to be President, he disassociated himself from those left-wing extremists and now says he's against handgun bans!
McCain isn't guilt-free on pandering. In 2000, when he was trying to be the Republican nominee for President (which George W. Bush end up winning), he pandered to South Carolina racists by not taking a stand on the issue of the Confederate flag on state grounds. Months later, McCain later said he was against the Confederate flag but didn't express it when it mattered in the primary election, because he didn't want to loose.
Afterwards, after loosing to Bush, he wanted the image of a "guy who rebels within the Republican Party". He was the "liberal's favorite Republican" So he voted against Bush's tax cuts.
But guess what? To re-take the Republican Party, McCain flip-flopped! Now he's a big tax cut man!
So both are politicians who pander!
4) Now on to policy!
On economics, Obama said he'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans and give many tax credits to those people.
Being that I'm one of the 95%, I'll be happy!
However, McCain pointed out in the debates that the Obama wants to increase corporate taxes. He also pointed out that the US has a corporate tax rate of 35%, whereas Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 11%.
McCain is right that a lower corporate tax rate is good in bringing more investments.
However, McCain wants to tax health benefits! Wrong Move!
5) Joe Biden (who had a long reputation for saying stuff without thinking it through) mentioned that foreign enemies could test Obama in his first months!
The irony is that Biden is Obama's running mate! If McCain-Palin said it, they would've been accused of "fear mongering"
It wouldn't matter, any new president is going to get tested!
Bill Clinton was tested when the World Trade Center blew up early in 1993, whereas Bush was tested by 9/11 in his first year!
So regardless of who's president, something's going to happen in 2009! I just hope North Korean nuclear missiles can't reach Hawaii!
6) My previous blog post talked about the Internet and how recent it is!
McCain has admitted he doesn't know how to use the Internet by himself!
At his age, he's been an adult LONG before the Internet became popular (around 1996), so the thought is "if I spent so many years without it, why would I need it now"
McCain defenders said "he can't type because his hands were severely injured during his POW days". If that's true, can McCain hold a pen?
7) My 2004 predictions came close to true!
Here's what I said in 2004
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_archive.html
From my Nov 8 post under #5
For the GOP, the results show that from now on, they'll need their Presidential candidates need to be from Texas (like Bush) or Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico or Utah. Why? Because a politician from those states would have experience speaking to both white conservative voters AND Latino voters.
So, yes the GOP chose an interior West guy in 2008. I just didn't expect McCain. Back then, McCain was known as the guy who rebels against his own party. I didn't expect him to take over!
As for the Democrats, they'll need someone from the Midwest. There, the politicians will have the experience of talking to union voters, inner city African Americans, college-town liberals and traditonally conservative rural voters. Barack Obama fits that profile, but I think he needs to serve a full-term in the Senate and win re-election to prove that he is capable of being elected President. Either that or run for governor of Illinois if that seat opens up. Either way, it can help Obama be the 1st African American President.
Obama didn't need to serve a full-term, and he's the one the Democrats chose!
8) Earlier this year, I mentioned that because Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party this year, I won't vote Libertarian for President!
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html#1589278334887116242
AS I researched the other 3rd party candidates (Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin) I am now resorting to choosing between McCain & Obama! Choosing between the Big 2 parties wasn't something I wanted to do in 2000 & 2004, but now it's the only thing I have left, not because of anyone's chance of winning, but the 3rd party guys are even worse!
But this election seems too close to call!
1) Many on the Left will blame only one thing if Obama looses - Racism!
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of dummies on the Far Right who still believe Obama is the "closet Muslim", and thinks that Obama wants to "oppress the whites". We also have a bunch of dummies at McCain-Palin rallies shouting racist crap at African-American reporters!
There are concern that some European-American union voters (usually Democrats) have racist feelings and wouldn't vote for a black guy, no matter what! This is especially a concern in swing states in the Midwest!
But for some on the Radical Left, any criticism of Obama is considered "racist". Even those who (gasp) express criticism of Obama's proposed policies!
You can't even call Obama a "liberal" without being called a racist!
Obama was accused of "palling around with terrorists"! Those accussations were considered "racist", but the terrorist was European-American Bill Ayers, who planted bombs in federal buildings in the 1970's.
Joe the Plumber was slandered as "racist" for saying that Obama was "tap dancing" around his question like "Sammy Davis Jr.
THAT'S NOT RACIST!
What, if John McCain was being evasive about a question, I can't say "he swam around my questions like Micheal Phelps" or else I'll get called "anti-white?
If you're one of those who call every non-Obama voter a racist, would you vote for African-American conservatives like Allan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, or Condaleeza Rice?
2) Some talk about the Bradley effect, referring to the former mayor of LA, Thomas Bradley (who happened to be African-American) who was ahead in the pre-election polls when he ran for governor of California in 1982, but lost the election!
Some say "some pretended to be for Bradley, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they voted their prejudice, and against Bradley"
But his opponent exposed the fact that crime was increasing in LA during Bradley's term as mayor. Also a handgun-ban initiative was on the ballot which Bradly supported. That got many who either 1) sometimes liberal but isn't for gun bans, or 2) non-voting but owns a gun to vote against Bradley.
Let's not forget that Bradley's career was destroyed in 1992 because of the LA riots. Bradley was still mayor, and people felt he lost control of the city, and that the police wasn't adequately prepared for a large scale riot! He even lost support of many African-American voters at that point!
It's likely, in the case of Obama, many are skeptical of his tax policy, foreign policy, etc, but don't want to admit it because people might then ask "are you against him because he's black?" even if you're only questioning his policies! So they remain silent!
Or in some cases, Obama skeptics might get called "Uncle Toms". I mean back in the primary, the African-American politicians & activists who supported Hillary Clinton were called "race traitors" and in some cases, even threatened!
Kathleen Parker says a "reverse Bradley effect" might happen! Those in conservative areas might want to vote for Obama but are silent because then they might be asked "why are voting for that Muslim?" or "why are voting for that (n-word)?". So it's possible that many Obama supporters in conservative areas are pretending to support McCain, but in the privacy of the voting booth, end up voting for Obama
http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker102208.php3
Parker was the same conservative writer who expressed skepticism of Sarah Palin's readiness to be Vice-President. She ended up being accused of being a "closet liberal" and recieved threatening emails!
3) Some say Obama is a Radical Leftist because he associated with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other left-wing extremists!
I think Obama, like other politicians, panders to whatever can help him at the moment.
When he ran for office in Chicago, he felt he had to pander to Ayers, Wright, etc. in order to get votes.
He felt he needed to support handgun bans when he was an Illinois senator!
Now that he wants to be President, he disassociated himself from those left-wing extremists and now says he's against handgun bans!
McCain isn't guilt-free on pandering. In 2000, when he was trying to be the Republican nominee for President (which George W. Bush end up winning), he pandered to South Carolina racists by not taking a stand on the issue of the Confederate flag on state grounds. Months later, McCain later said he was against the Confederate flag but didn't express it when it mattered in the primary election, because he didn't want to loose.
Afterwards, after loosing to Bush, he wanted the image of a "guy who rebels within the Republican Party". He was the "liberal's favorite Republican" So he voted against Bush's tax cuts.
But guess what? To re-take the Republican Party, McCain flip-flopped! Now he's a big tax cut man!
So both are politicians who pander!
4) Now on to policy!
On economics, Obama said he'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans and give many tax credits to those people.
Being that I'm one of the 95%, I'll be happy!
However, McCain pointed out in the debates that the Obama wants to increase corporate taxes. He also pointed out that the US has a corporate tax rate of 35%, whereas Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 11%.
McCain is right that a lower corporate tax rate is good in bringing more investments.
However, McCain wants to tax health benefits! Wrong Move!
5) Joe Biden (who had a long reputation for saying stuff without thinking it through) mentioned that foreign enemies could test Obama in his first months!
The irony is that Biden is Obama's running mate! If McCain-Palin said it, they would've been accused of "fear mongering"
It wouldn't matter, any new president is going to get tested!
Bill Clinton was tested when the World Trade Center blew up early in 1993, whereas Bush was tested by 9/11 in his first year!
So regardless of who's president, something's going to happen in 2009! I just hope North Korean nuclear missiles can't reach Hawaii!
6) My previous blog post talked about the Internet and how recent it is!
McCain has admitted he doesn't know how to use the Internet by himself!
At his age, he's been an adult LONG before the Internet became popular (around 1996), so the thought is "if I spent so many years without it, why would I need it now"
McCain defenders said "he can't type because his hands were severely injured during his POW days". If that's true, can McCain hold a pen?
7) My 2004 predictions came close to true!
Here's what I said in 2004
http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_archive.html
From my Nov 8 post under #5
For the GOP, the results show that from now on, they'll need their Presidential candidates need to be from Texas (like Bush) or Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico or Utah. Why? Because a politician from those states would have experience speaking to both white conservative voters AND Latino voters.
So, yes the GOP chose an interior West guy in 2008. I just didn't expect McCain. Back then, McCain was known as the guy who rebels against his own party. I didn't expect him to take over!
As for the Democrats, they'll need someone from the Midwest. There, the politicians will have the experience of talking to union voters, inner city African Americans, college-town liberals and traditonally conservative rural voters. Barack Obama fits that profile, but I think he needs to serve a full-term in the Senate and win re-election to prove that he is capable of being elected President. Either that or run for governor of Illinois if that seat opens up. Either way, it can help Obama be the 1st African American President.
Obama didn't need to serve a full-term, and he's the one the Democrats chose!
8) Earlier this year, I mentioned that because Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party this year, I won't vote Libertarian for President!
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html#1589278334887116242
AS I researched the other 3rd party candidates (Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin) I am now resorting to choosing between McCain & Obama! Choosing between the Big 2 parties wasn't something I wanted to do in 2000 & 2004, but now it's the only thing I have left, not because of anyone's chance of winning, but the 3rd party guys are even worse!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)