Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > victorylee0516 > Shy Asian Girl |
|
什麼叫你為我做些？ -- What Have You Done For Me Lately? In a previous post, Fairy Tales, Ichiro4242 makes the claim that Democrats are more sensitive to the needs of minorities and that Democrats would share power more equally with them. Let us look at the record. In addition to assisting President Johnson in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Republicans were also responsible for the following. It was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation to ‘free’ the slaves. It was Republicans who worked hard to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to outlaw slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee equal protection under the law and Fifteenth Amendment to secure vote for African-Americans. The Republicans tried hard to get voting rights for women. As early as 1896, the Republican Party stood as the first major party to favor women’s suffrage. Finally, women got their voting right under the Nineteenth Amendment. However, here also the Republicans played an important role. Legislatures of twenty-six states out of thirty-six states that voted to ratify were Republicans. The Republicans under Bush have done more for minorities in government then any previous democratic administration by adding African American, Latinos, Asians-Americans, and women to his administration. His cabinet includes several firsts, including the appointments of Colin Powell, the first African-American Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman to serve as National Security Advisory Advisor; Elaine Chao, the first Chinese American to serve as Secretary of Labor, Gale Norton, the first woman to serve as Secretary of the interior, and Secretary Ann M. Veneman, the first woman secretary of Agriculture.’ Then there were others from the minority pool that were not ‘firsts.’ “HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson (former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez); Secretary of Education Rod Paige; Secretary of Transportation Nom Mineta; and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. SBA Administrator Hector Barreto; GSA Administrator Steve Perry; Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona; NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni; White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales; Roger Ferguson, vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve; Michael Powell, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; Kay James, Director of the Office of Personnel Management; and Steve Perry, Administrator of General Services (GSA). What Americans of Color should do when Democratic and Republican leaders come courting for their vote is to look at the records of both parties to see who has really empowered them politically. Democratic white leadership is more dangerous than the Republican leadership. Remember it was the first ‘African American’ president Clinton who signed one of the most anti-immigrant laws in American history. President Clinton also ended the welfare benefits of millions of poor Americans. -- VICKY -- |
|||
2/2/2008 12:39 pm |
Economics shifts and political party affiliations, relative to much not to diminish the economic variables within the matter, are very much at the center of much of this .. the nature of the economy and the elements that were the catalysis of the various changes in the nature of minority rights acts, be it either by description and definition.. as well as the impact on allowances and quota regulations and modifications, much of such has been identified in previous comments above.. but the premise and the principal.. in this nation has remained the same in looking at the progress and the variables within the progress.. if at any time the majority of white are expressing or implying feeling of threat, then policy is augmented accordingly. History is replete with references of many depth of review within how immigrants have been treated, based on the state of the economy , more than on the political benefit that a party seeks to gain or attain.. that is evident by the nature of omission that the immigrant population both naturalized and non naturalized are not brought to be a discussable entity in the election process. they are however regarded with respects to the economic side of the equation... Each "era" of acts and enaction of policy has been based on such points relative to economics.. not only within the US.. but based on the immigrants country of origin and how it's impact is interpreted and engaged... for reference if we look at the attitude and disposition that prevailed when the Japanese began to become a great economic influential power.. then they gained a different recognition as well as immigration leinency, and then lastly what of political manner they would be regarded and to what degree. Now that China has become the predominating power of economics, it is now getting a more favorable structure of considerations, as too, are the citizens of Chinese descent, whom were much ill regarded previously in policy and practice in general social manner and regard of various sorts, categories and status on various equating planes. Be ever mindful that policy and public sentiment are not balanced, laws and acts may be put into place but the embracing of it is only engaged with heart based on economic impact both externally from the country of origin, as well as the economic standing of it's naturalized and generational born citizenry. and the variables of impact and .. that can be even further previewed in it's impacting concerns based on regional points of regard.. this can be understood in greater review by noting the nature of embrace in major localities where the populations are greater in %, and that further is made a distinguishing element by locality on economic measures, relative to community. to underscore this very important point.. the civil rights act of 1964 was made law, but it was 1968 civil unrest and then it was 197-71 before this could be translated into full school intergration which led to the great debate of the busing issue as well as higher education entrance, which then required affirmative action legislation to nearly force the nature of equality to be regarded , but that came with much controversy and continual fights.. this leads one to acknowledge the variables of much within both parties, and that's the conservatism and the liberalism in each party respectively. But when the contest is posed as to what each part represents.. there are matters that need careful consideration before dismissal into one line summary.. points to consider when one says the democrats are for the social programs and etc.. and the Republicans are for the business and wealth.. consider what that is saying.. democrats recognize that without the basis of assistance there is limited and even unattainable unity in the economic prosperity of a nation.. where as the Republicans say, help business so business can help people.. but that process keeps the wealth at the top of those ranks.. As immigrants.. then look at that.. those who arrive with means may progress but those who arrive without means become subservient to those who have means, and the balances become simply role fillers in the process. we may in some sectors see the progressing immigrants but the ones that are strapped and trapped in poverty are the hidden majority..without a voice or a party embrace and maybe without even a parties acknowledgment. this is not just immigrants but it's the same nature to the much talked about black population of the poor and these groups are lumped into the same of economic disregard and non policy support.. and in the Republican spectrum, they are bound even moreso by the advantages of the tax cuts that benefit the wealth to remain at their peaks without being encroached upon by the less fortunate.. they speak of education being the pathway.. but without the resources there are many that find less of a pathway to this end.. Poverty is something that is more complex than the general assumption of people being unwilling or not caring, it's a format that has very real implications of many deterring elements. we cannot forget we live in a economic society that is as much status relevant as it is other things, and there are discriminations that double impact some being both of social economical status as well as racially and ethnically compounded. and that is much more than a conglomeration of a group of words. Now compound that with the loss of wage paying factory jobs losses, compound that with the loss of what propelled many in past years, of what and how the draft allowed many an avenue to greater world and social exposure.. then the factors become to contain very much in it's details.. Now add in the variables of what has happened within the immigration status of people movements due to war refugees and foreign supporters during conflicts in foreign lands and many other factors that makes a dramatic shift in resource allocations.. it's quite a complex picture. we can leave the conversation at just the level of Act's that have been made law.. and miss much of the undercurrent of actuality and then conversation will come up short of full scope understanding. but when we look at real world terms of what exist.. these elements cannot be omitted. on another note.. it was not until the great leap of China that Chinese as a whole as a people began to get respect.. prior to that everyone Asian was called a Chinaman, people did not know nor care to give regard to the distinction of the ethnic origin.. and they also held an hierarchy of conceptual respectfully .. the Japanese were given the front seat, then other Asian, then Chinese and Korean were alternated as being the least considered. but if you note now.. more talk and regard is given to Chinese than is publicly put forth of Japanese because of the base of who is the economic powerful, but the Japanese are now given the regard due to their technical expertise.. which once was a element that was considered a substandard producer of goods, mostly considered as an American labor pool, but, the 1980's changed that.. and now China which was then the next labor pool, have gained prestige as the great marketers and producers of not just products but industrial powerhouse.. to put all this in a caption.. with regards of the fore mentioned doctrines of legal efficacy and political matter reference, the economic elements may not be so greatly omitted or downplayed. but when such is considered then we may move to what of and how .. political regard becomes to carry it's dynamic relative to the Asian population as a whole or even in part.
| ||
2/2/2008 3:56 am |
ICHIRIO By the way, you really don't have to cite your sources here. This is not an academic forum. I don't cite my sources unless I really want to inform and educate. And I do appreciate your comments. I am not really a lefty or a righty, but more of an indie. VICKY
| ||
2/2/2008 3:55 am |
My family is registered Independents. Somehow, we just don't like the Republican and Democrat parties. I tend to vote on the issues and not the party. There are some good Democrats and Republicans that I vote for. But I would still like to see another party in there besied the two we already have. Maybe if they split out to Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, and Independents and had a parlimentary form of government like the UK that might be a solution. You could even add a Labor party to the mix. Right now the Democrats are a hodge podge of different interest groups and ethnic groups. The Republicans have their far right, the religous, and anti-abortion groups and the fear of the left is what binds them together.
| ||
2/2/2008 3:50 am |
Well, under Clinton the deficit was indeed reduced, partly due to a Republican House and Senate that refused to spend money on Democrat projects. But when Bush II came in the Republicans went wild and started spending more then the Democrats before, bringing the "pork" home to their districts. What are we spending a day now in Iraq, a billion dollars? That money could be used for a lot of public health projects in the USA but I'm afraid that government cannot do effectively what private industry can do. But then again, you need some sort of government oversight to make sure the public's health needs are met and not cherry picked. I don't understand why Democrats don't like Regan but he did end the Cold War and did end the Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. Also, he ended Carter's inflation problem. I was not born then but my father told me that gold then was over 900 dollars an ounce and that is worth more then gold is worth today if you add in the inflation factor.
| ||
2/1/2008 11:03 pm |
You know I looking at my pay check for this past year with my tax lawyer this week. I make lots of money and all together my taxes from Federal, State, Local, plus Social Security and Medicare is almost 48%, can you believe that? And what does that pay for the government? According to a recent report on government spending, 78% of your taxes goes to pay for a govenrment employee's salary and retirement and health benefits. The remaining goes to the people who suppose to need it. But many times we supporting people too lazy to get job and not want to working jobs illegals doing now.
| ||
2/1/2008 11:02 pm |
I am an Independent and I do not register to vote for the Republican or the Democrat party. In fact, the first two elections I was able to vote in I voted for a third party candidate so there would be a viable option instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Personally, I believe the Asian community tries to get on the Democrat band wagon because of the want to be part of the elite. I see a lot of that in San Francisco when I attend the Democrat fund raising events. Most of the Asians I seeing are young professionals but you know most of them have never had to make a payroll or created jobs for workers so they not understanding true dynamics of democratic society. Mostly, they wanting to take from one class, business men and capatlist, and give to the poor.
| ||
2/1/2008 11:01 pm |
You know in Asia Friendfinder is difficult to cite a web site for the correct citation but it does not matter since I am quire familiar with the basics of Asian American Studies and History since this was one of those elective requirments that I found quite interesting when in the University and especially since it was something I not know anything about before. But is true there is so many anti-Asian discrimination before 1964 and both the Democrats and the Republicans supported anti-Asian legislation as well when it became politically expedient worked to reverse those laws.
| ||
2/1/2008 8:23 pm |
My goodness gracious, you are indeed very interesting. Did you major in the Asian American Studies at Berkeley or San Francisco State? Is so informative.  Of course I can take either side since I enjoy a good conversation. Is true that Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act that was later made permantent exclusion. Of course that was a job protection act for the Irish and other "white" Americans. I can imagine maybe they want to do that to the Hispanics today, also.
|
