Monday, May 31, 2004
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
my description of dragonball z, based on the few episodes i have seen, which, i am told, captures the essence of the whole series:
"i am evil bad man, ph34r my wrath, peons!"
"no! i, goku, will gain ultra-super powers and fight you!"
"begone, foolish child! *shoots light ray and makes large crater*"
"ha, you missed! now i will unleash my hidden destructo firebal of pwnage! *kills bad guy*"
**narator: but have our heroes finally saved the world from evil? can they now complete their quest?**
**new scene of unknown enemy**
"i am evil bad man, ph34r my wrath, peons!"
"no! i, goku, will gain ultra-super powers and fight you!"
"begone, foolish child! *shoots light ray and makes large crater*"
"ha, you missed! now i will unleash my hidden destructo firebal of pwnage! *kills bad guy*"
**narator: but have our heroes finally saved the world from evil? can they now complete their quest?**
**new scene of unknown enemy**
Friday, May 21, 2004
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Things I Don't Hate: another list to balance out my list of hate. Because, well, i don't hate everything. in fact, i don't hate a lot of things. and i shall list them all here!
1. the "soccer practice" music video. Find it at www.gaypimp.com.
2. kitties
3. puppies
4. other small furry animals, especially cute ones
5. video games
6. j-pop
7. ddr...although you'll never see me play with my feet
8. Atlas Shrugged
9. Lord of the Rings (both the books and the movies)
10. herbal essences products...although, personally, i've never confused "organic" with "orgasmic"
11. guaranteed housing
12. care packages
13. anime
14. witty people
15. pasta with butter and salt
16. cheesecake
17. sleep...mmm...i could use some of that right now
18. star paper
19. drawing
20. classes in school: logic, math, philosophy
21. josh groban
22. burt's beeswax lip balm...yum yum
1. the "soccer practice" music video. Find it at www.gaypimp.com.
2. kitties
3. puppies
4. other small furry animals, especially cute ones
5. video games
6. j-pop
7. ddr...although you'll never see me play with my feet
8. Atlas Shrugged
9. Lord of the Rings (both the books and the movies)
10. herbal essences products...although, personally, i've never confused "organic" with "orgasmic"
11. guaranteed housing
12. care packages
13. anime
14. witty people
15. pasta with butter and salt
16. cheesecake
17. sleep...mmm...i could use some of that right now
18. star paper
19. drawing
20. classes in school: logic, math, philosophy
21. josh groban
22. burt's beeswax lip balm...yum yum
Saturday, May 08, 2004
I was thinking about my hatred of affirmative action the other day, and I came to a realization. The various forms of affirmative action and other minority handouts are based on some form of attonement for sins, past or present. All of the minorities who receive these handouts have been oppressed in some way or another in the past and/or are currently "disadvantaged". By giving them special priviliges, we are supposedly "leveling the playing field" and making up for what "we" did in the past.
Note, however, that no such handouts are given to people of east asian descent. No one is citing forced Chinese labor on the railroad system, Japanese internment camps during WWII, and other such discriminatory and oppressive practices against these people as grounds for handouts. Why? Because the Asian-American population is completely capable of achieving on its own. The majority of the population at UCLA and, indeed, most California schools is Asian. They are stereotyped to be extremely intelligent and studious. All of this somehow happened WITHOUT the handouts given to other minorities, and yet Asian-Americans are far ahead of their minority peers.
This fact reveals the true intent behind minority handouts. The job of affirmative action and other such policies is not to reward the underprivilidged, but to punish the best. Asians and whites alike suffer academic discrimination at the hands of "diversity" activists, while all non-asian minorities reap the benefits. Since these other minority groups can't do it on their own, laws have to be passed to do it FOR them, at the expense of those who have actually earned achievement.
African-Americans and Latinos are stereotyped to live in "ghettos" and less priviliged neighborhoods made up of other minorities. But this is exactly how Chinese and Japanese Americans began their days in America. Where do you think the Chinatowns and Japantowns of large cities came from? These, too, are cultural hubs for minority groups, yet they prosper. They produce able citizens who are somehow able to leave the area of their birth if they so desire. Why such a discrepancy, espcially when countless outreach and handout programs are designed to bring minorities out of the underachievement cycle?
The discrepancy arises from one between the attitudes of the two groups (Asian and non-asian). Asian-Americans have never had handouts. They have never been pittied or condescended to, and have been left to their own to achieve. Other minorities, on the other hand, have. The US government and various organizations within the nation have drastically overcompensated for past offenses. Instead of doing what they SHOULD have done--stopping government discrimination in all its forms--they began the practice of forced reverse discrimination. Instead of giving these groups the opportunity to compete with others, they have seeded the groups at the prize itself. This has left the "underpriviliged" minorities with no incentive to pull themselves out of their initial place in life and up to something better. Instead, members of these minorities can sit back and wait for achievement to come to them, without ever having to achieve. The attitude taken by those who give the handouts has been equally detrimental. These people instill in their beneficiaries a sense of righteous indignance at what the world has done to them. The recievers are told that they have every right to demand as a gift what everyone else has earned as a reward. They come to believe that disproportionate representation in schools and jobs should be remedied by diversity requirements, not by personal effort to do what the best do.
The Asian-American population has never believed this. Its members go about achievement the way they should: by finding out what work needs to be done to earn what reward, not by finding out what handout can be exploited. So, before we implement any more diversity requirements or hold any more pro-minority rallies, perhaps we should stop and examine the minority that has thrived without handouts. Instead of lowering the bar to those who have never been trained to reach it, we should encourage them to train themselves. Instead of giving what some people can earn to those who can't, we should give it only to those who can, so that the rest will learn what is necessary to earn it and act accordingly.
Note, however, that no such handouts are given to people of east asian descent. No one is citing forced Chinese labor on the railroad system, Japanese internment camps during WWII, and other such discriminatory and oppressive practices against these people as grounds for handouts. Why? Because the Asian-American population is completely capable of achieving on its own. The majority of the population at UCLA and, indeed, most California schools is Asian. They are stereotyped to be extremely intelligent and studious. All of this somehow happened WITHOUT the handouts given to other minorities, and yet Asian-Americans are far ahead of their minority peers.
This fact reveals the true intent behind minority handouts. The job of affirmative action and other such policies is not to reward the underprivilidged, but to punish the best. Asians and whites alike suffer academic discrimination at the hands of "diversity" activists, while all non-asian minorities reap the benefits. Since these other minority groups can't do it on their own, laws have to be passed to do it FOR them, at the expense of those who have actually earned achievement.
African-Americans and Latinos are stereotyped to live in "ghettos" and less priviliged neighborhoods made up of other minorities. But this is exactly how Chinese and Japanese Americans began their days in America. Where do you think the Chinatowns and Japantowns of large cities came from? These, too, are cultural hubs for minority groups, yet they prosper. They produce able citizens who are somehow able to leave the area of their birth if they so desire. Why such a discrepancy, espcially when countless outreach and handout programs are designed to bring minorities out of the underachievement cycle?
The discrepancy arises from one between the attitudes of the two groups (Asian and non-asian). Asian-Americans have never had handouts. They have never been pittied or condescended to, and have been left to their own to achieve. Other minorities, on the other hand, have. The US government and various organizations within the nation have drastically overcompensated for past offenses. Instead of doing what they SHOULD have done--stopping government discrimination in all its forms--they began the practice of forced reverse discrimination. Instead of giving these groups the opportunity to compete with others, they have seeded the groups at the prize itself. This has left the "underpriviliged" minorities with no incentive to pull themselves out of their initial place in life and up to something better. Instead, members of these minorities can sit back and wait for achievement to come to them, without ever having to achieve. The attitude taken by those who give the handouts has been equally detrimental. These people instill in their beneficiaries a sense of righteous indignance at what the world has done to them. The recievers are told that they have every right to demand as a gift what everyone else has earned as a reward. They come to believe that disproportionate representation in schools and jobs should be remedied by diversity requirements, not by personal effort to do what the best do.
The Asian-American population has never believed this. Its members go about achievement the way they should: by finding out what work needs to be done to earn what reward, not by finding out what handout can be exploited. So, before we implement any more diversity requirements or hold any more pro-minority rallies, perhaps we should stop and examine the minority that has thrived without handouts. Instead of lowering the bar to those who have never been trained to reach it, we should encourage them to train themselves. Instead of giving what some people can earn to those who can't, we should give it only to those who can, so that the rest will learn what is necessary to earn it and act accordingly.
USAC is full of idiots. No surprises there. Apparently it wants to close taco bell, the second most popular eatery on campus, because tomato pickers in florida don't have "acceptable working conditions" or some crap like that.
Now, what is wrong with this picture? Taco Bell puts tomatoes in its food. Someone grows these tomatoes. That someone hires people to pick the tomatoes for him. Seems simple enough. Not so. According to USAC's stance on the issue, Taco Bell is somehow forcing a low-paying, shitty job onto its tomato pickers. Funny, I wasn't aware that Taco Bell sent busses around, grabbing unskilled workers off the streets of various countries and dragging them, handcuffed, back to Florida to pick tomatoes. I must have thought people CHOSE to work for other people.
"well, the tomato pickers don't get paid enough!"
Why should they be paid more than they are willing to work for? If my elderly neighbor wants to pay me 5 dollars to clean his rain gutters, but i think i should get 10, i have two options. I can either not clean his rain gutters, or i can clean them and realize that 5 dollars is better than no dollars. If he wants to hire a whole gang of people to clean his rain gutters for 5 dollars each, however, all hell breaks loose and USAC starts making him write reports about the horrible working conditions of his gutter cleaners. The tomato pickers have the same option. They are CHOOSING to pick tomatoes, and they are choosing to do so for the amount of pay and under the conditions that their employer is willing to give them.
"but they don't have any other options!"
why not? are they so unskilled that tomato picking calls for the very best of their abilities? i highly doubt it. and if they really do have no other options, then apparently their choice is no money or some money, and i think we all know which choice is better. in addition, the tomato farm owners do not OWE these people jobs. they offer workers money in exchange for work. suppose all the tomato farms in florida suddenly decided to stop growing tomatoes. what then? would USAC force them to grow tomatoes again? if there were no tomato farms, there would be no tomato-picking jobs at all. the employer has no obligations to strangers to give them jobs at all, let alone give them certain pay.
"the working conditions are so bad!"
it's...TOMATO PICKING. what do you expect? tents over the entire tomato fields? sponge baths on the hour? if the work is so terrible, why are people willing to do it?
ultimately, this issue is a private matter between employee and employer. if the employees want more money or better conditions, they can ask for it. if there are enough people willing to work for less, then those people will get the jobs and pay will not be increased. no one is forcing the job upon these people, so if they are choosing to do it of their own free will, USAC has no business getting involved. As long as the owners of these tomato farms are not engaging in the use of force against their employees, they are doing nothing wrong.
so back off, USAC.
Now, what is wrong with this picture? Taco Bell puts tomatoes in its food. Someone grows these tomatoes. That someone hires people to pick the tomatoes for him. Seems simple enough. Not so. According to USAC's stance on the issue, Taco Bell is somehow forcing a low-paying, shitty job onto its tomato pickers. Funny, I wasn't aware that Taco Bell sent busses around, grabbing unskilled workers off the streets of various countries and dragging them, handcuffed, back to Florida to pick tomatoes. I must have thought people CHOSE to work for other people.
"well, the tomato pickers don't get paid enough!"
Why should they be paid more than they are willing to work for? If my elderly neighbor wants to pay me 5 dollars to clean his rain gutters, but i think i should get 10, i have two options. I can either not clean his rain gutters, or i can clean them and realize that 5 dollars is better than no dollars. If he wants to hire a whole gang of people to clean his rain gutters for 5 dollars each, however, all hell breaks loose and USAC starts making him write reports about the horrible working conditions of his gutter cleaners. The tomato pickers have the same option. They are CHOOSING to pick tomatoes, and they are choosing to do so for the amount of pay and under the conditions that their employer is willing to give them.
"but they don't have any other options!"
why not? are they so unskilled that tomato picking calls for the very best of their abilities? i highly doubt it. and if they really do have no other options, then apparently their choice is no money or some money, and i think we all know which choice is better. in addition, the tomato farm owners do not OWE these people jobs. they offer workers money in exchange for work. suppose all the tomato farms in florida suddenly decided to stop growing tomatoes. what then? would USAC force them to grow tomatoes again? if there were no tomato farms, there would be no tomato-picking jobs at all. the employer has no obligations to strangers to give them jobs at all, let alone give them certain pay.
"the working conditions are so bad!"
it's...TOMATO PICKING. what do you expect? tents over the entire tomato fields? sponge baths on the hour? if the work is so terrible, why are people willing to do it?
ultimately, this issue is a private matter between employee and employer. if the employees want more money or better conditions, they can ask for it. if there are enough people willing to work for less, then those people will get the jobs and pay will not be increased. no one is forcing the job upon these people, so if they are choosing to do it of their own free will, USAC has no business getting involved. As long as the owners of these tomato farms are not engaging in the use of force against their employees, they are doing nothing wrong.
so back off, USAC.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)