So I was reading about the rally on Sunday, and I'm incredibly impressed that 2500 people came out. That's a huge amount. As much as I was impressed, I was twice as sad about it. 2500 people gathered over the ridiculously miniscule issue of a name? Clear out the junk and all the distractions. Once this issue is analyzed, it comes down to this: Mayor Chuck Reed and Councilwoman Madison Nguyen are facing off against people like Barry and Bryan Do (no relation), and they're all trying to save face.
Why didn't we turn out 2500 people when Tran Thi Bich Cau was shot dead by an SJ police officer? Why can't we turn out 2500 people to fight poverty? or to fight for healthcare? more funding for education?
As I was reading the article, I glanced through the comments again, as I've been doing since October. One in particular stood out to me (which I'll dissect and respond to each point):
"I will support this San Jose city government only if it respects democracy, that it handles city matters in a clear and straightforward manner. The facts remain in this "Little Saigon" fiasco are that they are not working as such:"
-granted, city hall messed this one up. Chuck and Madison are ridiculously inept as representatives. In fact, I have to admit that I've agreed with that before this entire drama happened.
-granted, city hall messed this one up. Chuck and Madison are ridiculously inept as representatives. In fact, I have to admit that I've agreed with that before this entire drama happened.
"1. Madison Nguyen surveyed the Story Rd. neighborhood, and found that the majority preferred the name "Little Saigon", but, as indicated by her e-mails sent to the survey company obtained as evidence in the recent related lawsuit, she had anticipated she would just ignore the majority wish anyway. Madison Nguyen then came up with a so-called "compromise" to call this district "Saigon Business District", a decision that came from Madison's desk to become official all on her own, without conferring with anyone in the community. A compromise has to be agreed by both sides, not unilateral. Madison Nguyen was the sole decision maker in the whole ordeal. She called it a compromise, but it was never a compromise to start with."
-If you're really interested in the emails, I'll send them to you. In my analysis, this person is really reaching. The emails do show that she came up with the name BEFORE bringing this up to the community, but intent cannot be inferred from this. I'm not saying that she didn't intend to push the name through, but it's just as likely that she was misguided in thinking that people would actually like the name she proposed. Madison's BIGGEST mistake in this entire thing, besides not letting go of her pride, is that she didn't consult the community before coming up with the name.
-If you're really interested in the emails, I'll send them to you. In my analysis, this person is really reaching. The emails do show that she came up with the name BEFORE bringing this up to the community, but intent cannot be inferred from this. I'm not saying that she didn't intend to push the name through, but it's just as likely that she was misguided in thinking that people would actually like the name she proposed. Madison's BIGGEST mistake in this entire thing, besides not letting go of her pride, is that she didn't consult the community before coming up with the name.
"2. Madison Nguyen lobbied among the city council, BEFORE the official vote, to have her naming idea supported. A member council slipped up in a TV interview and confirmed such informal meetings, thus raising up the possibility of Madison Nguyen violating the Brown Act, giving ammunition to the "Little Saigon" protest."
-Okay, wait for it...
-Okay, wait for it...
"3. Although the city lawyer quickly dimissing that there was no Brown Act violation, Chuck Reed and Madison Nguyen promptly called for canceling the previous vote solely because of that concern. This suggests something fishy going on. If the Brown Act accusation had had no ground, Chuck Reed and Madison Nguyen would never have had to call for the previous vote's cancelation. This makes me believe that if the opposing side pushes harder for an independent investigation, they could find out more about Madison Nguyen's secret dealings with other city council members than their in-house investigation superficially did."
-BOOYAH! The city lawyer dismissed any concerns over the Brown Act Violation, which means that the only reason for SJVD to keep bringing this up is to piss people off. The fact that Chuck and Madison decided for the revote, while related to the supposed Brown Act violation, could simply be because they realized there was a better way? It is unreasonable to infer an admission of guilt from the revote. Maybe guilty conscience, but not guilt.
-BOOYAH! The city lawyer dismissed any concerns over the Brown Act Violation, which means that the only reason for SJVD to keep bringing this up is to piss people off. The fact that Chuck and Madison decided for the revote, while related to the supposed Brown Act violation, could simply be because they realized there was a better way? It is unreasonable to infer an admission of guilt from the revote. Maybe guilty conscience, but not guilt.
"4. Chuck Reed and Madison Nguyen further ignited more passion in the Vietnamese American community in San Jose by suggesting a citywide vote, which was an abandonment from their previous assertion that "the naming decision for this area is to be decided within the Vietnamese-American community", and that would have been equivalent to lending the hands of the citywide voters in San Jose, who could not understand the implications behind this naming problem, to defeat the naming measure!"
-My biggest contention here is that the residents of San Jose would not understand the implications behind the Little Saigon name, and not to mention that this entire paragraph contradicts with what SJVD always claims to push for, which is democracy. If the MAJORITY of voters do not understand the issue, then the MAJORITY of voters will not support the issue. It is SJVD's responsibility to educate the public, not make demands of it. Even if the council did state that this decision would be made by the Vietnamese American community (which I have yet to see evidence for), shouldn't SJVD actually support the vote? There are proper ways to handle an election like this, and a city-wide vote would be inappropriate, as this is a very local (District 7) issue. Let the voters of District 7 decide if the name is right.
There are concerns that there would be a backlash against the Vietnamese community if this did go to a vote. I only have one response to this: If you don't think that there is already a negative backlash from this, then you're blind as a person wearing sunglasses at night.
-My biggest contention here is that the residents of San Jose would not understand the implications behind the Little Saigon name, and not to mention that this entire paragraph contradicts with what SJVD always claims to push for, which is democracy. If the MAJORITY of voters do not understand the issue, then the MAJORITY of voters will not support the issue. It is SJVD's responsibility to educate the public, not make demands of it. Even if the council did state that this decision would be made by the Vietnamese American community (which I have yet to see evidence for), shouldn't SJVD actually support the vote? There are proper ways to handle an election like this, and a city-wide vote would be inappropriate, as this is a very local (District 7) issue. Let the voters of District 7 decide if the name is right.
There are concerns that there would be a backlash against the Vietnamese community if this did go to a vote. I only have one response to this: If you don't think that there is already a negative backlash from this, then you're blind as a person wearing sunglasses at night.
"5. Finally, after an escalation of the protest, with Ly Tong on the front page headline of the San Jose Mercury News by starting his hunger strike, Chuck Reed and Madison Nguyen once again recinded their decision, citing a cost of close to $3 million for the citywide vote. Excuse me, if the mayor suggested a measure without thinking of such an exhorbitant cost, was he actually on drug? His and Madison Nguyen's citywide vote decision thus could be construed as emotional and irrational. Are being emotional and irrational traits for true leaders? Are they the leaders we want to have for San Jose?"
-Suggesting an idea shouldn't be met with accusations of drug abuse. So Chuck and Madison suggested an idea that eventually sucked. If you're surprised at this, then you're not paying attention. Not to mention, if you don't support the vote in the first place, why rip on Chuck and Madison for dropping the idea? Now you're just being mean. Also, drawing conclusions about Chuck's and Madison's mental and emotional state from a single decision is off base. It's one big assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume...
-Suggesting an idea shouldn't be met with accusations of drug abuse. So Chuck and Madison suggested an idea that eventually sucked. If you're surprised at this, then you're not paying attention. Not to mention, if you don't support the vote in the first place, why rip on Chuck and Madison for dropping the idea? Now you're just being mean. Also, drawing conclusions about Chuck's and Madison's mental and emotional state from a single decision is off base. It's one big assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume...
Here's the conclusion, which I'm also breaking down...
"Now, instead of working toward a definite closure to this issue, Madison Nguyen suggested a "timeout" period. Timeout for what? It isn't a game."
-Absolutely. It's not a game. I mean, we're fighting homelessness right? oops. We're going to cure AIDS! Oh wait, that's not it either. We're protecting the rights of rape victims! Darn, I missed again. We're going to name a street! DAMN THAT'S IMPORTANT!
"There's a guy on hunger strike onto the third week, and he could die anytime! If letting someone die is worthy to keep their own political agendas, Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed, once again, have proven they don't have what it takes to be San Jose's leaders."
-This is disturbingly true. In fact, it's not just any person, it's Ly Tong. He's a legend. However (and I will rarely agree with the Mercury News), the Merc said it best: "a hunger strike can be an honorable protest when it addresses matters of life and death or fundamental human rights. By using one to press for a name on a cluster of shopping centers, Tong diminishes the tactic, appearing more like a petulant child who refuses to eat supper until he gets his way. And let's get one thing straight. If he becomes ill or dies in this protest, it will not be, as he claims, the fault of the city council. It's his choice, and the people who encourage him should be ashamed."
"There are many alternatives to quickly resolve this matter, starting with a true compromise. Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed, so far, have done none of those. The city council has the means and the powers to settle this matter. Instead of reaching out and proposing a true compromise (that should involve all the sides, not just Madison Nguyen's side this time), they're again resorting to a dirty political trick."
-Yeah, Madison and Chuck fucked it up, but keep reading...
"Now, instead of working toward a definite closure to this issue, Madison Nguyen suggested a "timeout" period. Timeout for what? It isn't a game."
-Absolutely. It's not a game. I mean, we're fighting homelessness right? oops. We're going to cure AIDS! Oh wait, that's not it either. We're protecting the rights of rape victims! Darn, I missed again. We're going to name a street! DAMN THAT'S IMPORTANT!
"There's a guy on hunger strike onto the third week, and he could die anytime! If letting someone die is worthy to keep their own political agendas, Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed, once again, have proven they don't have what it takes to be San Jose's leaders."
-This is disturbingly true. In fact, it's not just any person, it's Ly Tong. He's a legend. However (and I will rarely agree with the Mercury News), the Merc said it best: "a hunger strike can be an honorable protest when it addresses matters of life and death or fundamental human rights. By using one to press for a name on a cluster of shopping centers, Tong diminishes the tactic, appearing more like a petulant child who refuses to eat supper until he gets his way. And let's get one thing straight. If he becomes ill or dies in this protest, it will not be, as he claims, the fault of the city council. It's his choice, and the people who encourage him should be ashamed."
"There are many alternatives to quickly resolve this matter, starting with a true compromise. Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed, so far, have done none of those. The city council has the means and the powers to settle this matter. Instead of reaching out and proposing a true compromise (that should involve all the sides, not just Madison Nguyen's side this time), they're again resorting to a dirty political trick."
-Yeah, Madison and Chuck fucked it up, but keep reading...
"It is unfair to blame the "Little Saigon" group for the whole mess. Instead, City Hall has got to receive the blame, for being ineffective, and having poor leadership, to resolve a simple matter, thus making it grow bigger and messier every day."
-no, it is fair. City Hall may have been a part of this mess, but the "Little Saigon" group has absolutely no right to claim innocence in this. The consequences of their actions will be felt by our entire community for generations.
"The "Little Saigon" group, portrayed by the opposing sides as not being able to speak English well, and composed mostly by unemployed people, has actually grown in size with more supporters, and has recently collected enough funding to sue City Hall. This indicates more and more people have grown fed up with the dirty and tricky political tricks Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed are playing on the underprivileged people."
-Stereotyping is wrong. Political tricks are wrong, on BOTH sides. However, accusing Madison and Chuck of playing on underprivileged people? Chuck, maybe, but at the very least, Madison has long supported initiatives that benefit the lowest income people in San Jose. I still don't like her, but besides being a ridiculously inept councilwoman, I actually agree with her policies. Of course, claiming huge amounts of support should make one excited for a ballot vote, not scared of it.
"In an environment where dirty politics is being played by the officials over the people, it is the people's duty to rise up and challenge the government! They can't afford to stay still because otherwise, when it comes to more complicated matters, City Hall will again mess them up, and that time, Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed will be undoubtedly emboldened to create more mess and more wrongdoings! They have got to be stopped!"
-Absolutely true. Which is why I support an actual ballot vote on this name, because as bad as Chuck and Madison are, hijacking the street name and accusing people of communist ties without solid evidence is also a dirty trick. And boy, am I glad that we found out how corrupt Chuck and Madison are because they messed on naming a street...I mean, how low can you get? What's next? I bet you their hiding Osama Bin Laden in their basement. Damn hippies.
-no, it is fair. City Hall may have been a part of this mess, but the "Little Saigon" group has absolutely no right to claim innocence in this. The consequences of their actions will be felt by our entire community for generations.
"The "Little Saigon" group, portrayed by the opposing sides as not being able to speak English well, and composed mostly by unemployed people, has actually grown in size with more supporters, and has recently collected enough funding to sue City Hall. This indicates more and more people have grown fed up with the dirty and tricky political tricks Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed are playing on the underprivileged people."
-Stereotyping is wrong. Political tricks are wrong, on BOTH sides. However, accusing Madison and Chuck of playing on underprivileged people? Chuck, maybe, but at the very least, Madison has long supported initiatives that benefit the lowest income people in San Jose. I still don't like her, but besides being a ridiculously inept councilwoman, I actually agree with her policies. Of course, claiming huge amounts of support should make one excited for a ballot vote, not scared of it.
"In an environment where dirty politics is being played by the officials over the people, it is the people's duty to rise up and challenge the government! They can't afford to stay still because otherwise, when it comes to more complicated matters, City Hall will again mess them up, and that time, Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed will be undoubtedly emboldened to create more mess and more wrongdoings! They have got to be stopped!"
-Absolutely true. Which is why I support an actual ballot vote on this name, because as bad as Chuck and Madison are, hijacking the street name and accusing people of communist ties without solid evidence is also a dirty trick. And boy, am I glad that we found out how corrupt Chuck and Madison are because they messed on naming a street...I mean, how low can you get? What's next? I bet you their hiding Osama Bin Laden in their basement. Damn hippies.
"In a democratic society, it is the people's responsibility to question and challenge the government and its public officials. Those who think their public officials being right all the time, and protect them instead of challenging them apparently haven't escaped the Third-World mentality. They're still stuck with their previous lives in Vietnam, where they had to obey the authority, no matter what. These people are pseudo-intellects. They might quote Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill, but they're useful idiots, and they don't deserve the democracy here in America."
-I actually think this part is hilarious. The first sentence is dead on. Hell, I do it all the time. The funny thing is that NOBODY made the claim that public officials are infallible. This person goes on to accuse people who support Madison of carrying third-world mentality, when the Little Saigon supporters are so dedicated because they think they're fighting the Communists! How ridiculous can this be! And of course, the last line is the worst of all! ALL PEOPLE deserve democracy, not just the ones that agree! I guess it wasn't actually funny, just immensely idiotic.
Okay, I'm pooped.
-I actually think this part is hilarious. The first sentence is dead on. Hell, I do it all the time. The funny thing is that NOBODY made the claim that public officials are infallible. This person goes on to accuse people who support Madison of carrying third-world mentality, when the Little Saigon supporters are so dedicated because they think they're fighting the Communists! How ridiculous can this be! And of course, the last line is the worst of all! ALL PEOPLE deserve democracy, not just the ones that agree! I guess it wasn't actually funny, just immensely idiotic.
Okay, I'm pooped.
No comments:
Post a Comment