World Cup 2010

Earlier this summer, the world was entertained by the ultimate soccer tournament - The World Cup!


This year's version took place in South Africa! It was the first World Cup to be held in Africa!

Even though watching soccer isn't usually an everyday thing for me, I LOVE the World Cup! There's also so many storylines surrounding the games, so much drama, a new controversy to discuss! This year's World Cup didn't disappoint!


1) Some doubted whether South Africa could be a good host to the World Cup!

There were delays in construction of many needed facilities!

There was the worldwide economic crisis!

There were concerns about the high crime in South Africa. Would it be safe enough for the fans?

The verdict is now in! The facilities were built in time, and there has been no violent incidents surrounding the games! There weren't many reports of fans getting robbed in the streets, nor were there any riots from the fans!

It was a major public relations victory, not just for South Africa, but for all of Africa in general!

It was a great show for a country that 2 decades ago, was a segregated country in which the descendant of European conquerors once denied basic civil liberties to the native population! It was a great show for a country that overcame its shameful past, and show a happy, united front where all its citizens can celebrate!

It was also great show for the continent of Africa. For too many outside of Africa, Africa is portrayed as a land of war, starvation, corruption, disease and poverty. THERE'S A LOT MORE TO AFRICA THAN THAT! Not every African country is at war, not every African is starving, not every African is poor! There's African entrepreneurs, Africans who can afford the same luxuries the average US citizen has! There's African cities with a great nightlife! There's many styles of African celebrations! While this should be common sense already, too many of the TV portrayals show the negative side of Africa! While people should be aware of the negatives occurring there, it shouldn't be the only thing people know about Africa!

This was why the World Cup 2010 was great for Africa's reputation! People from outside of Africa got to the see the African styles of celebrations, some of their great cities, and just seeing them have a good time! They see that Africa that isn't always at war, Africa that doesn't only have starving children begging for another day.

Now that the world has seen the success of the World Cup 2010, I really believe that there should be a future Summer Olympics in South Africa. 2012 is already booked for London! 2016 is already booked for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil! That would be a 1st for South America! Hopefully, South Africa could get one for 2020!

2) The USA team

While the USA made every World Cup since 1990, its record there isn't very consistent. The USA did very well in 1994 and 2002. However, 1998 and 2006 showed a very embarrassing USA performance!
While many of the top USA athletes tend to play basketball, baseball, and American-style tackle football, its soccer stars has had an increased presence on the world stage. Some of the top USA players play in the top European professional leagues!

So could the rising power of USA soccer make an impact this year?

The 1st game was against England. This was to be a major test for the USA!

The game was invented in England, and England has one of the top professional soccer leagues in the world!
While England is officially part of the United Kingdom (with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), it does have its own soccer team. It is what one writer, Gary Younge call a "90 minute nation", meaning for the length of the game, England is its own separate nation!

Read more at http://www.thenation.com/article/36871/what-soccer-says-about-us

The game turned out to be the story of 2 goalies. The USA goalie, Tim Howard was able to prevent England from scoring many times. The England's goalie, Robert Green, was trying to stop one USA goal, but he couldn't hold a strong grip to the ball, which went straight into the net!

Unfortunately for him, for all his past success, it would all be overshadowed by that one play!

But it could've been a lot worse! In 1994, Colombia's Andres Escobar accidentally kicked the ball the wrong way, and that ball ended up scoring a point for the USA! When Escobar returned to Colombia, he was murdered!

The USA-England game ended a 1-1 tie! Great for the USA, a scandal for England!

USA's 2nd game was against Slovenia. Slovenia was basically humiliating the USA in the 1st half, scoring 2-0. USA came back from behind to score its 2 goals to tie the game! USA's kicked another ball into the goal that could've won the game for the USA! But the referee disqualified that goal in one of the most controversial calls of the World Cup 2010. But since that goal was disqualified, the score was a 2-2 tie!

Then USA played Algeria! USA already had 2 ties! While ties are better than defeats, the USA got tired of ties! We wanted a victory. The game was score-less until the very last minute when USA's Landon Donovan kicked the game winning goal! USA -1, Algeria - 0! And even more embarrassing for Algeria, after the game, one of their players attacked a female reporter who wrote a story he didn't like. She fought back, with the player getting a cut in his face!


See the picture of that player feeling the pain at

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/24/algerian_player_slaps_journalist

---



Time for the 2nd round! This time, Win or Lose, No Ties!

USA played Ghana. Ghana was the last African team standing. The South African audience rooted for Ghana! Could USA come out of this alive? Will they break the habit of needing a last minute miracle?

Unfortunately for the USA, Ghana was the stronger team. The game ended ended Ghana -2, USA -1!


3) This was the most popular World Cup for USA audiences. TV ratings were up, bars were filled!

Unfortunately, there's a few party poopers here in the USA!

Ironically, the loudest ones were some prominent right-wing pundits who just love to proclaim themselves "more patriotic than thou". Those pundits were Glenn Beck and G.Gordon Liddy!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/glenn-becks-blues-why-far-right-hates-world-cup

Instead of cheering for the USA teams, those 2 traitorous scumbags thought it was a good idea to promote anti-soccer hatred.

Well, they were out of touch with America! They were out of touch with the increased popularity of the World Cup in the USA! Those 2 guys are a pathetic joke and deserve to be laughed at!

It's also ironic that those same right-wing pundits were whining about that USA-Mexico game that took place a decade ago in the Rose Bowl, where the Mexican fans outnumbered the USA fans. The anti-immigration fanatics blamed "pro-immigration liberals" for that! I BLAME THE USA'S RIGHT-WING PUNDITS FOR THAT FIASCO!

 IF the USA's right-wing really was patriotic, they would've showed up to that game in full-force! If there's another game in the USA in which Mexico fans outnumber USA fans, I WILL point the finger of blame directly at Glenn Beck!


4) Instant Replays

In the US, college & professional (tackle) football has instant replays. After a referee makes a controversial call, a coach can challenge the call! The referees will watch videos taken from different angles of the stadiums. If needed, the referee will announced if his previous call will stand or if it's over-turned!
This is done because referees can't possibly see everything! The angle in which they view a certain play also matters. Also, instant replay will reduce the amount of personal bias of the referee in affecting the game!

However, the geniuses running the World Cup didn't allow for instant replay! They say "it takes away the human element". The controversies supposedly make things entertaining!


But what about justice?


While people in the USA are talking about the disqualified USA goal against Slovenia, that's not even the worst call in the World Cup.


The worst call I know about, was during the Brazil vs Ivory Coast game. I was watching that one live! The Brazilian player accidentally elbowed the Ivory Coast player in the chest! The Ivory Coast player fell down and pretended that he got elbowed in the face! The referee fell for the scam and gave the Brazilian player a red card! That means the Brazilian player was not only expelled from the game, he was automatically suspended from the next game (which was to be against Brazil's former colonizer - Portugal)!


You tell me that is justice? For a player to pretend he got hurt? And for him to get away with it? And for the other player to be expelled due to his opponent faking an injury?


The results would've been different with instant replay! The referees would've watched a video replay of that incident, and would realize that the Ivory Coast player faked his injury, and give him the red card instead!



Here's an article about that incident at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/sports/soccer/21brazilcol.html

Some also say that instant replay would "slow the flow of the game". So what? Justice is too important to be set aside! They should at least use instant replay for every goals and cards!

Also, another stupid policy is that after the Argentina-Mexico game (where the players nearly got into a fight in half-time over a controversial goal call), it was decided to not have replays shown on the Jumbotron. That means, if you were in the stadium, and were too busy talking to your friend while the goal was scored, you'll never see a replay on the screen!

I mean, there were games I was watching on the TV, in which I wasn't looking at the screen when I heard the audience cheering about the goal! At least on TV, I get to see a replay! The people at the stadiums wouldn't be so lucky!


5) The Games, the Hype, The Drama



In the 2006 World Cup, Italy beat France in the final game.

Both countries didn't live up to the hype this year! Neither made it to the 2nd round.

Italy's coach was known for making weird personnel decision. But France had an even more embarrassing meltdown! The players and coaches couldn't get along, a trainer quit after arguing with a player, the players boycotted a practice, and they didn't make it to the 2nd round.

---

While the games were played in Africa, people expected a few African teams to advance into the 2nd round!



However, only Ghana did!

South Africa tied Mexico, lost badly to Uruguay and beat the dysfunctional French team. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to help them advance to the 2nd Round. They were the 1st host nation to not make the 2nd round!

Cameroon's case was even more embarrassing! They were one of the top African teams. Their captain, Samuel Eto'o, is a major star in the European professional leagues. However, Cameroon lost all 3 of their scheduled games and was the first to be eliminated from the possibility of going to Round 2! To make matters worse, when they returned to Cameroon, one of their countrymen viewing their arrival at the airport held up a sign written in French, which if you translate it to English meant "You Do Not Like Cameroon! Shame on you" That is brutal! That's how overboard some people take their team's loss.

See that angry Cameroon fan with that sign at
http://g.ca.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/blog/dirty-tackle/post/Cameroon-got-a-pretty-horrible-welcome-home?urn=sow,251541

Even more brutal was how the Nigerian team was treated! While Nigeria was able to tie South Korea, they lost to Greece and Argentina. For that, their government banned them from international play! This is STUPID! How are they supposed to get better if they don't face competition?


Ghana was Africa's last hope! The made it to the 2nd Round! All of Africa was cheering for Ghana! They were the crowd favorite in South Africa stadiums. The crowd was so excited when Ghana beat the USA!


(in a funny note, a Ghana fan posted a sign apologizing to Obama about the game). See photos at

http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/obama-ghanian-world-cup-fans-apologize-to-obama-for-defeating-us-team/



Next, Ghana was to play Uruguay! The game was tied, when a Ghana player kicked the ball towards the goal. It could've been the game-winner, but Uruguay's Luis Sanchez (who wasn't their goalie) used his hand to block the goal. Sanchez got the red card! Ghana had a chance to make a penalty kick! Didn't go through! Being that the game was still tied after regulation and extra-times, now penalty kicks! Uruguay won that battle, and Africa's last hope was eliminated!

------

For a while it looked like South America had the better teams. Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay were very strong in the First Round.

Will Brazil win it again? Could Maradona coach Argentina to the championship? Could Paraguay come out of obscurity and beat Spain?

Unfortunately no! Paraguay lost the heartbreakingly close game to Spain! Brazil got eliminated by the Netherlands, Argentina got eliminated by Germany!

So the last South American team standing was Uruguay! Uruguay was the only non-Europe team in the Final 4. Uruguay lost the 3rd place game to Germany.

--
So, it was down to Spain vs Netherlands in the Final Game! For almost the whole game, there was no scoring! It was about to be one of those stereotypical score-less soccer games! Just a bunch of guys getting too rough but not scoring! The 3rd place game was more exciting than this!

Then the last few minutes, Spain scores! Spain, though it has one of the most prestigious professional leagues, didn't win a World Cup before! Now it finally got one! A nation divided by regions come together to celebrate a victory!

 6) The Future of the World Cup

The next World Cup will be in 2014, in Brazil! It will be in the land one of the most passionate soccer fans in the world. Sounds like fun!

Brazil will also host an Olympics in 2016. This could be the decade for Brazilian sports!

-----
Another thought about the future of soccer. While this World Cup has more African teams than before, I still think FIFA is still too Euro-centric. 13 out of 32 teams were from Europe! That's 40%! I understand European teams tend to be the strongest in soccer, but do they really need to have 40% of the spots in the World Cup reserved for them! Couldn't they just have 8 spots!

 The Americas have 8 teams, Africa have 6 teams.

The Asia-Pacific region, the region with the largest population in the world, only got 5 teams? The region with the largest population in the world, has about 15% of the spots reserved for them in the World Cup? We're talking about a large land mass, from the Middle East, India, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia and the Pacific Islands! They only got 5 spots reserved for them in the World Cup?


http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/teams/index.html (has a map of all the countries in the World Cup)


While FIFA deserved credit for having the World Cup 2002 in Japan & South Korea, they still need to expand opportunity for the Asia teams! That's a huge market out there for soccer!

Japan and South Korea made it to the 2nd round this year! Congrats to them! The other Asian teams need to step up! South Korea & Japan shouldn't have a monopoly on Asian soccer!

But FIFA seriously trade a few spots in the tournament from Europe to the Asia/Pacific region. The strongest European teams will still shine! But the World Cup shouldn't be so Euro-centric, and the Asia-Pacific market is too big to ignore!

---
As for the vuvuzelas, though I understand some people's irritation with them, I thought the sounds made the game a more exciting spectacle! From now on, it wouldn't be a real soccer game until the vuvuzelas are on! :)

The Big Oil Leak

Since the April of this year, the big environmental news is the big oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.


On 4/20/2010, one of the oil wells off the coast of Louisiana exploded, causing 11 deaths and a massive oil leak that has caused mass pollution.

The massive pollution has shut down the fishing & tourism industry in the nearby coasts. All the sea life within the area has died.

And with that, several controversies to go over.

1) The common question is "why are we drilling for oil in the ocean in the 1st place?"

Some environmental activists want to ban all oil drilling! Not going to happen! Our lifestyles are too dependent on oil!

Yes, there's talk of alternate energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy! Lot of homes use these power sources for electricity!

But those sources are basically useless when it comes to transportation! Our cars, trucks, buses, ships and planes are nearly totally dependent on oil.

The oil has got to come from somewhere.

But drilling with oil always comes with environmental risks.

The best places to drill will be in areas with the least amount of risk.

The problem is that some environmental activists are so against oil drilling anywhere, they even successfully placed safer areas "off limits". These limits has some side effects!

Interesting points from Charles Karuthammer

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer052810.php3



Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?




In other words, a lot of these legal limits on oil drilling ended up leading to oil drilling in more dangerous places, oil drilling in places where it's harder to fix mechanical errors (ie deep oceans), and more dependence on oil drilling in countries with governments less concerned about pollution than ours!

Another interesting editorial, this one by Terry Anderson

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050804575318591702015252.html

Whether more exploration on federal lands would make the U.S. energy independent is debatable, but more onshore development would certainly be safer. In early June there was a blowout in western Pennsylvania. Did you see it on the nightly news? No, because it was capped in 16 hours. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas production there, recorded 102 blowouts of oil and gas wells since the start of 2006, resulting in 10 fires, 12 injuries, and two deaths. None of those made the nightly news either. The largest oil spill on Alaska's North Slope in 2006 was from a pipeline leak. It dumped only 6,357 barrels and had no disastrous impacts.

Drilling can be done with greater environmental sensitivity onshore. For many years the Audubon Society actually allowed oil companies to pump oil for its privately owned sanctuaries in Louisiana and Michigan, but did so with strict requirements on the oil companies so that they would not disturb the bird habitat.



(skipped paragraphs)

The blowout at BP's well has increased pressure from environmentalists and the Obama administration for greater emphasis on alternative energy sources. Even if they are successful, this will have a trivial impact on our unquenchable thirst for fossil fuel.

Enforcement of stricter safety regulation on deepwater drilling may reduce disasters like the current one in the Gulf. But the only real way to reduce the risk of catastrophic spills is to say yes to drilling in our backyard.



In other words, because our lifestyle is dependent on oil, and other energy sources aren't efficient in powering our transportation, we need to drill for oil in places which are less problematic. That means on land, instead of deep oceans!




2) Typical reactions of the anti-capitalist Left is " "corporations can't be trusted ever, so make all oil drilling fall under government control"

While some corporations can't be trusted, what makes you think governments handle it better?
If the US government take over all oil drilling operations now, what's to stop future presidents from hiring their incompetent friends to run future oil drilling operations?

Remember, a major part of the failure in the Hurricane Katrina rescue operations was because then-FEMA director Micheal Browne was hired for that job, despite his TOTAL INEXPERIENCE in disaster recovery, because he had the proper connections to the president!

You want that in your oil drilling operations? That is HIGHLY POSSIBLE if government takes over oil drilling operations.

Then there's the pro-business right who claim any criticism of big business, no matter how legit, is "anti-capitalism", "anti-business", blah, blah, blah!

Rand Paul, who is running for the US Senate has made a similar argument, expressing that too much criticism of British Petroleum is "anti-business"


While the most successful countries are the ones that lets businesses bloom, sometimes business do receive legit criticism.

British Petroleum has been accused of over-looking warning signs that its oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico that could lead to pollution! Since they own it, they deserve every legit criticism coming its way!

Also, British Petroleum has also been known to block efforts to save sea turtles. British Petroleum was using controlled burns to contain the oil spill, and when animal rescuers attempted to get the sea turtles out of the area before the controlled burns started, British Petroleum got in the way! You're dam right that company deserves criticism.

For more info, check out http://news.discovery.com/animals/sea-turtles-endangered-burned-alive-oil-spill.html



When British Petroleum decided to compensate those affected by the oil spills. That is the right thing to do. But some Republican politicians called it a "shakedown", as if someone who did some damages shouldn't expected to pay for the fixing!

But the most ridiculous things were said by Congresswomen Michelle Bachmann

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/06/17/populist/index.html

Then there is Bachmann, who represents a district in Minnesota and therefore cannot be excused for standing up on behalf of a regional economic interest. To her, the escrow fund represents a scheme for "redistribution" of wealth -- as if the people who will receive money from it are undeserving welfare recipients and as if BP had done nothing to injure them. She derided the BP executives who will pay into the escrow account as "chumps."

Bachmann's homestate of Minnesota got plenty of small lakes. Bachmann would react differently had someone dump a whole bunch of pollutants in all those lakes!


3) Some have called the oil leak "Obama's Katrina". As you may well remember, George W. Bush's popularity had a dramatic decline after the slow rescue efforts when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005. Some say the oil leak and Obama's reaction will have the same effect on Obama's popularity.

It's too early to tell if Obama's poll numbers will remain that way for the rest of his term.

But Obama could've done things better.

Here's Bill Clinton's former advisor Dick Morris criticizing Obama for not being aggressive enough in clearing bureaucratic hurdles getting in the way of the oil leak recovery!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0610/morris062110.php3

Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.

And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.

More from Dick Morris

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0610/morris061710.php3

Why did he not waive the Jones Act (he still hasn't) to allow foreign vessels to ply our waters to clean up the spill? Not because he was against it. He couldn't have been against so obvious a course as waiving it. It was likely because nobody told him about it and he never knew to ask.

Why did he let the bureaucracy use only US contractors to dredge the Gulf and build the berms that Louisiana wanted? Why did he spurn the offer of Dutch assistance (half the country has been dredged from the sea and is below sea level)? Not because he wanted the jobs to go to Americans. That would have been an insane consideration in the face of this crisis. it is probably because he never realized that our capacity for dredging needed augmentation. Because he never asked.

What is this Jones Act that has been mentioned?

It is a really stupid law passed in 1920, that bans any foreign ship from going to one US port to another US port.

In other words, a French ship can go from France to the US. But that same French ship is BANNED from going from Boston directly to New Orleans. Only US ships can do that!

This means also means a Japanese ship on its way to California CANNOT stop by Hawaii to drop off a few items!

This stupid law has kept many foreign ships from coming in to assist with cleanup from that big oil leak!

Barack Obama campaigned for US President with the rhetoric of "respecting our allies, respecting other countries, ....."

If that's the case, then why did the Obama administration reject help from oil-skimming ships from Norway, Netherlands and Belgium?

http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2010m6d14-Obama-blocked-cleanup-of-BP-oil-spill-by-Americas-allies-Failed-to-issue-needed-Jones-Act-waiver

Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill came “from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration didn’t accept their help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

[UPDATE: later news reports say that it was the EPA, not the Jones Act, that blocked the Dutch skimmers. See the excerpts from a news story reprinted at bottom].

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So" the U.S. Coast Guard "can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

Yeah, Obama later accepted help from foreign ships. But late responses in the Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts damaged George W Bush's legacy! Just imagine when Obama runs for re-election in 2012, when anti-Obama ads remind us that Obama's acceptance of foreign assistance in the oil cleanup CAME TOO LATE!

This stupid Jones Act has been defended as "job protection for US ship workers and US ship builders", but in an emergency IT DOESN'T MATTER where the ships are made, who owns the ships, or citizen status of the ship workers. In an emergency, the most important thing is GET SOMETHING DONE! If it means accepting help from foreign ships, THEN ACCEPT THAT HELP!

Even though Hawaii has been hurt by this stupid Jones Act, our 2 US Senators (Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka) support this stupid law! This stupid law PREVENTS foreign ships (especially Asian ships) from dropping off items while going from Asia to California! This stupid law PREVENTS foreign ships from offering cruise rides from Hawaii to the other states. This stupid law INCREASES our cost of living!

Yet our 2 senators defend this stupid law with the rhetoric of "saving US jobs, national security, blah,blah, blah" but in reality, it's more about rewarding campaign contributors from Matson, SeaLand and ILWU!

And the 2 senators get away with such crap because shipping issues is seen as a "boring" issue, not something as exciting as debates over civil unions or the homeless camping in many local parks!

Now that Charles Djou is now representing urban Honolulu in US House of Representatives, he is taking a stand against this stupid Jones Act law.

Learn more at

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/research/national-battle-rages-over-jones-act-exemption-in-bp-oil-spill---and-hawaiis-congressional-delegation-is-in-the-fray

and

http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20100627_Time_To_Ship_out.html


4) Hopefully, the attempts to stop the oil leak is successful, and the recovery goes well.

But it's also important we all learn the right lessons from this!

Our economies depend on oil, but we need to drill for it in a safe manner.

And it's time to end this stupid Jones Act law already!

Gender Differences & Discussing Problems

I usually get a daily dose of e-mails from dating advice gurus like David DeAngelo, John Alanis, Shelley McMurty and David Cunningham.



OK, some of you might laughing, and wondering "what's wrong with this guy, needing advice from dating advice people?" Continue laughing a few more seconds, then I'll explain.



Whether you're single, dating or married, it's still good to get a daily dose of information of how each gender views dating, relationships, etc. And on what turns the other genders on or off!



After all, MOST parents and MOST schools teach NOTHING about this issue! Too controversial! Too uncomfortable for some to talk about! Plus, "don't people figure this out automatically?"



Yeah, most parents think their kids will figure this out automatically. Then they wonder why when their kids grow up, they get divorced, abused, etc.



No, I don't think any of their advice is the "Word of God". I don't automatically agree with stuff people say!



But they do write interesting stuff, and I learned a lot of stuff that my family and schools DIDN'T teach me!



Anyways, those topics can be controversial, especially on gender differences.



But let's be blunt, there are differences between an average male and an average female!



But not everyone is average. While the average man is bigger than an average woman, we all know short men and tall woman.



Now, let's look at gender differences in behavior.



Let's be blunt, on AVERAGE, males & females deal with their problems differently. THAT is what I want to write about!



Look at this link, from David Cunningham's blog "The Man's Blog for Relationship and Marriage Help"



http://blog.makingherhappy.com/2010/03/what-women-really-want-sharing-drama-of.html



From the above link, a woman named Allyson is petrified that her husband doesn't want to spend time talking about his problems.

Dear David:AAAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!! I need some help. I am totally frustrated! My husband and I have been married for a year now. We are happy and communicate wonderfully except in one area. When we sit down to dinner, that is our time to talk. I ask him how his day was and get the standard [one-word] answers, fine, ok, good, rotten...etc. That's it, except when he is having an incredible day and tells me of the rewards. I want to know the good and the bad, but he won't talk about them. If he did tell me it would be great, I would continue to get to know him and how he functions and solves problems.All other aspects of our marriage are great, he is kind, courteous and an incredible Alpha male but that one area drives me nuts. I have tried to prod and probe and he just says "leave it alone, I don't want to talk about it". What can I do to make him talk or am I going about it the wrong way, the nagging wife syndrome?Can you help me?

Alyson

After that, David Cunningham informs Allyson that while MOST FEMALES bond with each other by sharing the latest details of their everyday dramas MOST MALES do not want to spend time talking about their problems! What he wrote would be too long for my blog post, but this is what I wrote to Mr Cunningham about Allyson's situation.

=========

Me:

On Alyson's email to you, where she said "I ask him how his day was and get the standard [one-word] answers, fine, ok, good, rotten...etc. "

What Alyson needs to understand that us men think that being asked about our own depressing problems is TORTURE!
Correction: Not just torture, but MEGA-TORTURE, SUPER-TORTURE, ULTRA-TORTURE, KING OF TORTURE!

A perfect recipe to get a guy to dump you or have an affair with someone else!


Ladies, understand this: STOP DEMANDING WE TALK IN LENGTH ABOUT OUR PROBLEMS! That's torture to us! If we want to let it all out, let us do so when we're ready! Ladies need to be patient with guys on that one!

==========



People, please read what those paragraphs again! And again! This is important!



To the females who think I'm stereotyping them as "wanting to irritate us by asking about our problems", I will tell that there also some males who also irritate us with non-stop asking about our problems.

In fact, I know this one male who thinks it's a good idea to bond with friends by talking about his latest dramas. And not just that, he actually thinks it's a good idea to ask me about all my problems of my past. Even to ask me about my conflicts with people I haven't seen 1999! (This is 2010 dammit)

This is what most males consider VERY ANNOYING!

How do most guys deal with such stuff if they don't bond by talking about their problems?

Most males avoid the topic generally. We rather talk about other stuff. Our time with friends is time to GET AWAY from our problems! To act as if they don't exist! We demand to be distracted from them!

But if they do deal with those problems, they'll use Violence & Humor!

The most natural thing is to get your homeboys and knock the crap out of someone who is disrespecting you! In extreme cases, this can lead to a drive-by shooting or one of those school shootings!

Obviously, that could land you in a prison, where there's a bunch of guys who are bigger, tougher and more psychotic than you! A no win situation!

But since most of us don't want to end up in prison, and let's face it, most of us wouldn't even have the guts to fight a bunch of guys whose friends can outnumber and outmuscle us!

This is why me and most of my friends will make jokes about people we find annoying!

Sure, in the first few minutes, one of us is mad about the latest person or situation. But one of us will then make jokes about it, then we're not mad anymore, we're laughing at the person or situation that is annoying us! :) (of course, we do it behind that other person's back, especially if that person is tougher and has a bad temper)

Of course, we try to be mature about it, so we DEFINITELY AVOID jokes that insult racial or cultural groups, DEFINITELY AVOID jokes glorifying rape, genocide, etc. Decent people can be funny without being vulgar!

Back to that one male who likes to ask people about their problems. He probably doesn't mean to irritate us, he's just similar to many girls in that he thinks it's a good idea to bond with others by not only discussing all our problems [too much of that is also annoying], but he also wants to ask me about all my past problems EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY [ SUPER-IRRITATING]

Now, that guy doesn't usually presents himself in a feminine manner, doesn't dress like a girl, his voice is lower than mines, and based on his stories in adult entertainment centers, he's as straight as you can get!

The whole point is while females are more likely to nag us to talk about our problems, there are some straight males who do the same.

Either way, it's annoying as hell!

If someone doesn't want to talk about their problems or dramas, THEN STOP ASKING! Less you nag, the sooner that person will be willing to talk about these issues, and the sooner the person will be ready to joke about it!

I mean, even suspected criminals have the right to remain silent when interrogated by authorities. Shouldn't you at least allow your friends to remain silent?

[One last note: If you think I am talking about you in this blog post, maybe it is, and I might've already talked to you about it already! I don't mention names. But I think this issue is important stuff for people to know, I just left out people's names since names aren't an important part of this discussion anyways. This doesn't involve people I work with, so this doesn't violate any confidentiality rules that some jobs require about on-the-job stuff!]

Coming soon

Coming soon

1) My thoughts on the Big Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

2) Gender differences in Problem Discussion

3) After the World Cup, I'll post all my thoughts on it!

One year on facebook

1 year ago today, I started using facebook.

I was already on myspace, which I started in 2005. At the time, myspace was a still emerging fad, not yet the subject of controversial news stories on stalkers or kids who revel too much info about themselves. I just started using myspace, because when I tried to look up people I was working with at Palama Settlement online, I discovered one of them had a myspace. So I started a myspace page, then I encouraged a few friends to try.

A few years later, I heard about facebook. At first, it was only for those with a .edu e-mail address (given to those attending college), but it was later opened up for everyone. I even remember hearing it had more users than myspace, but I was still too lazy to start a facebook page.

So what finally got me into starting the use of facebook

1) Around April 2009, I sent a bulletin on myspace if anyone had information about my high school's 10 year reunion. One of my myspace friends then sent a bulletin mentioning that our classmates were planning it on facebook. I replied to that person to thank her for the info, then mentioned I was thinking about starting on facebook. However, I kept delaying that!

2) One of my employers in the substitute teaching industry sent an e-mail to everyone on her list to check out some of her photos on facebook.

3) Around the same time as #2, one of my closest friends also mentioned on the phone that he got a facebook page.

4) around the same time as #2 and #3, I was still waiting for additional information about an upcoming reunion.

So on June 10, 2009, I finally decided to start a facebook page, with some pressure from situations #2 and #3, and I was desperate for more info on the upcoming high school reunion and I was hoping that I would get more info on facebook.

On my first few days on facebook, as I was looking up people from McKinley High School, class of 1999, I found some people that I wasn't even able to find on myspace. That was when I realized how true the reports on "facebook having more users than myspace" really was!

I still have my myspace, because it allows for an individualized web-page design, and it's good for looking up music. And I still do occasionally find a few people there as well.

However, facebook started having "status updates" before myspace did! I think myspace started having "status updates" only because they realized THAT was the reason why many had quit myspace and switch to facebook.

Now, my facebook list has 214 friends. These are people from various parts of my life, from elementary school, middle school, high school, college, a few work colleagues, and a few others I met in other phases of my life! You'd be surprised how easy it is to get that many people on your list. In fact, I know people who started facebook later than me, have more people than 214.

Having that many people on the list, and reading their updates on their lives has been very emotionally beneficial for me! Just being connected to them makes me feel good, even on days when I am feeling down. We can also share our joys in our triumphant moments, and we can also console each other in our greatest tragedies. Even if we live miles away and haven't seen each other in person since the previous millenium. I've seen so many of that happening in my 1st year of facebook, and will so more of it soon.

The most heart-warming part of using facebook was reconnecting with a few I haven't seen since elementary school. So much life happened since then, but we still remember each other! I'll always cherish that!

I also remember finding a classmate from my elementary & middle school years, but moved to a high school on the opposite side of the island. So, obviously she missed out in the high school lives of her elementary & middle school classmates! When I found her, I also convinced her to look at my facebook list, and she reconnected with classmates who were once closer to her than I was! That is something I will always be proud of! I also offered others to look at my facebook list to find people too, with varying degrees of success!

And I have used other people's facebook list to reconnect with others as well! Much thanks to them as well!

Also, with facebook, I can advertise my blog posts to more people than I did before! More people exposed to my ideas is always a good thing :) :) :)

If you haven't joined facebook, JOIN IN! You'll reconnect with long-lost friends, and you get to keep up with their lives. You'll wish you done it sooner.

Just be careful what you post on there. People can easily find out what you post on there and can easily take it the wrong way. Just approach facebook like a mature adult, and you'll do fine!

Ben Roethlisberger's case

Earlier this year, Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) was accused of rape. It wasn't his first time!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4970050

For the second time in a year, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is being accused of sexual misconduct, with police investigating him Saturday for an alleged assault at a nightclub in a Georgia college town.

Police in Milledgeville were examining the claim of a 20-year-old student, who told an officer that Roethlisberger sexually assaulted her early Friday.

(skipped paragraphs)

The case comes as Roethlisberger faces a lawsuit filed last July by a woman who says he raped her in 2008 at a Lake Tahoe hotel and casino, an allegation he strongly denies. Roethlisberger, who was not in custody, has not been criminally charged in either case and has claimed counter-damages in the lawsuit.

----------

1) While the local DA didn't pursue a criminal court case, the NFL did suspend Roethlisberger for 6 games next season.

The NFL wanted to show that it doesn't tolerate misbehavior by its players, that playing in the NFL is a privilege, not an entitlement! Also, in earlier case, some people have accused the NFL of racial bias for suspending African-American players like Micheal Vick and Pacman Jones. But guess what? The NFL is also willing to suspend European-Americans guy like Roethlisberger. No racial bias in NFL suspensions!

--

2) Now, back to that article I mention earlier! The following paragraph from that article talked about a woman who met Roethlisberger earlier that night!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4970050

Amber Hanley, a 21-year-old college student, said she and a few friends were also in the VIP area with Roethlisberger. She said she asked the quarterback to take a photo with her friend, who was a fan, but he seemed disappointed that's all she wanted. Hanley said she rolled her eyes, and Roethlisberger called her an expletive and walked away. Later, Roethlisberger was aggressively hitting on another girl, Hanley said.

Now, look at what I highlighted in bold print. That shows a disturbing sense of entitlement that too many males have! Too many males have the attitude of "if a girl wants to talk to me, or even smile at me, she better be ready to have sex with me tonight! Or else!"

All that woman wanted was a photo. Yet, Roethlisberger acted as if that woman owed him a lapdance (and even more), just because she asked for a photo!

Look, if a girl smiles at you, or talk to you, that doesn't mean she's ready to hump you tonight!

Even if she gets on the dance floor with you, and wear skimpy outfits, that doesn't always mean she's ready to hump you tonight!

All she expects you to do is enjoy that moment on the dance floor! THAT'S IT!

Mad that she doesn't want to go further with you right now? GET OVER IT! Plus, good things come to those who wait! Maybe if she enjoys being around you for a longer period of time, you might even get lucky and not just have 1-night stand, but a long term relationship! But too many of us expect instant gratification!

Even in you do go to the bedroom, she might say she wants it, but then she changes her mind! Yeah, you may experience disappointment because you want to hump now, but you better handle that situation like a mature man! Plus, you can enjoy the moment together without humping!

The idea that "women should always expect to have sex when they're in a room with a man" is PERVERTED NONSENSE!

Most women have brothers, male cousins, and male friends from the elementary days, so they don't always expect to have sex everytime they're in a room with a male, because they already experienced being around males in a NON-sexual situation! So you can't expect them to have a perverted mindset of "all males want to hump me right away the first second I'm in a room with them alone!


We need to teach boys about that stuff! Right before they enter middle school! Waiting until they graduate high school to teach them about that IS WAY TOO LATE!

Even if Roethlisberger's accuser had non-marital sexual situations before, that doesn't mean she wanted to hump Roethlisberger right away. Chances are, she already had experience with males who were more patient and didn't expect to hump on the 1st night! And chances are super-high that she wanted to go a slower pace than what Roethlisberger expected! If Roethlisberger had more patience, he might've had a chance for consensual sex later on! This is what happens when you have an instant gratification mindset!

-----

3) So why didn't she fight back?

Have you ever seen what Ben Roethlisberger look like? He's 6foot 5inches.

An average size male has no chance in a street fight against a guy that size! What makes you think most women have a fighting chance against a guy that size!

That guy is used to getting tackled by super-large, super-fast guys! He's pretty much immunized to any hits from an average-sized person!

So, in many date rape cases, a woman meets a strong, charismatic, funny guy! The woman wants to be around him because is an entertaining guy to be around. Who wouldn't want to hang around that guy?

But if that guy has a "I'm entitled to sex all the time" attitude, and he's alone with a woman who's thinking "you're a fun guy, but I want to wait", disaster will strike!

And the harshest weapon in any attack is NOT a gun, NOT a knife, NOT big muscles, but THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE!

Someone punches you when you didn't expect it, you're most likely so in shock, so caught off guard, that by the time you figure what to do, IT'S TOO LATE, THE DAMAGE IS DONE!

So if the guy feels entitled to sex, the woman says "not right now", and the guy starts to rip off her clothes, GUESS WHAT? She is so caught off guard, that her minds goes blank. And if that guy is big enough to break her jaw and rip her throat, she isn't going to put up much of a fight!

By the time she realizes "I should've poked his eyes or kicked his ball", IT'S TOO LATE, THE DAMAGE IS DONE!

This is why you need to be careful before you make judgements about a pregnant teens or a woman entering an abortion clinic. You have no idea of what hell they experienced, if they were raped, and if that was why they're in the situation they're in right now.

4) Sports talk show host Collin Cowherd said that Ben Roethlisberger goes to too many bars, then he said that "nothing good happens when NFL players are in the nightclubs"!

MEGA-LAME statements. Media likes to focus on incidents because it sells papers and bring ratings. So they'll talk endlessly of incidents at nightclubs involving Pacman Jones and Plaxico Burress. But every incident like, there's probably MILLIONS OF TIMES when NFL players are in the club and it was a positive night where everyone had fun! But reporting on that doesn't bring much ratings!

5) While we're talking about sexual assaults, I want to talk about someone that I used to hang out with in high school, who's now in prison for a sexual crime!

That person is Justin Gonda!

I met him in my 9th grade PE class, then in the 11th grade, I started hang out with him, Orlando Holbron, Brian Anderson and Russell Siu at our high school's shop building! Sometimes, their other friends came by too! Lots of fun times, fun jokes and people doing funny stuff! If you weren't hanging out nearby, you missed out on a great time, because those were the funnest times of my life.

However, Justin Gonda started to say really stupid things out loud! He started to become a Marrolyn Manson wanabee and repeated Manson-like statements out loud. Everyone in our group started to distance ourselves from Gonda! Though I saw him around, we didn't hang out as much.

After high school, I'd occasionally see him around, but later I lost contact with him.

Then last year, I learned from a former high school classmate that Justin Gonda is currently serving time for a raping an underage girl!

I mentioned it somewhere within last year's high school reunion blog post, because I mentioned that me &; Nicholas used to talk to Justin Gonda.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-10-year-high-school-reunion.html


Well, Gonda's ex-girlfriend found my blog post, and gave me additional details.

Apparently, Gonda's ex said she talk to Gonda's accuser who said she "led him on" but later became reluctant to have sex. Gonda allegedly ignored her and raped her!

When the case went to court, Gonda was charged with rape, but was only found guilty of sex with a minor!

Now, he's doing hard time at Halawa, expected to come out in 2014.

Very heartbreaking to know about this, a former friend in jail, a former friend who was using drugs, and committed a heinous crime!

All for what? Instant gratification! All because he didn't accept "no" for an answer, all because he couldn't deal with his disappointment with her "no" like a mature adult.

Let that be a lesson to teach the younger generation!

Charles Djou & Hawaii political trends

1) Here in Hawaii, we had a free-for-all election for the state's US House District 1. This district extends from East Honolulu to Ewa & Mililani!

Because the political parties didn't have a primary it was a free-for-all. The Democrats had Ed Case & Colleen Hanabusa. The Republicans had Charles Djou.

Hawaii usually votes Democrats, but in this free-for-all, the Democratic voters were split between Case (representing the centrist moderates) and Hanabusa (representing the union vote and other left-liberals). This gave an opening to Charles Djou.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2010/May/24/ln/hawaii5240346.html


Congressman-elect Charles Djou's strength remains in more conservative East Honolulu, but he demonstrated in his special-election victory Saturday night that he may be able to compete with Democrats in central and west side territory that could be critical in the November general election.

While most of Hawaii is pro-Democrat, East Honolulu is mostly Republican. You can compare East Honolulu to California's Orange County! These are upper-class conservative areas that happen to be near liberal cities.


An Advertiser analysis of the vote by state House district found that Djou performed well in potential swing districts around Mililani and 'Ewa Beach. While the combined vote for Hanabusa and Case was still larger than Djou's markers, there is no guarantee all these voters would stick with the Democratic nominee in November.
Hanabusa trailed Case in East Honolulu but did better than the former congressman in every district west of Makiki — an encouraging sign for her campaign against Case in the September primary.

Hanabusa's muscle in the most solidly Democratic territory of urban Honolulu, combined with her expected edge in fundraising and the organizational help from establishment Democrats and labor unions, gives her the advantage in the primary.

In other words, Djou also did well in the suburbs in Ewa & Mililani, whereas Hanabusa did well in lower income areas like Kalihi, Palolo & Waipahu!

----
Case captured the state House district he used to represent in Mānoa but trailed in every other district.

While Manoa is similar to East Honolulu in that both areas tend to have a lot of upper-class people, many of European and East Asian ancestry, Manoa has a more liberal vibe. The University of Hawaii is located in Manoa, and many UH professors are left-leaning liberals who live nearby. You'll also find some hippie-ish people hanging out at Manoa Marketplace and in Mo'ili'ili. So while East Honolulu is Hawaii's version of Orange County, Manoa is Hawaii's version of Seattle/Portland/Berkeley.

While Manoa was a former home to the moderate Ed Case, it is the home of the left-wing Neil Abercombie who is quitting Congress to run for governor. It was also where Barack Obama spent a part of his childhood! So that area does have a liberal legacy.

---

There will be another election for this same seat later this year.

Some predict that Hanabusa will win the Democrat primary, and those who wanted Ed Case in the Democrat primary might switch to Republican Charles Djou in the general election.

But I'm thinking Ed Case's former Manoa neighbors will stick with the Democrats in the general election, because I think many are too liberal to vote for Djou.

But I think Ed Case's supporters from other neighborhoods (ie. Ewa, Mililani, East Honolulu, downtown) tend to be more pro-business and would choose Charles Djou over Colleen Hanabusa in the general election.