Go here, watch the video and read the writing to get some background information:
http://www.newson6.com/story/14211098/vinita-man-beaten-after-accidentally-killing-dog?redirected=true

     Monday, May 9th, 2011 will mark the 2nd month since Osborne's violent beating of Yang occurred on March 9, 2011.  To this date there exists no news about him being charged with aggravated assault or not.  If charged with aggravated assault, Osborne can receive a term in prison since such action falls under a felony crime.  If you watched the video or read the article, shouldn't this case have been solved already with Osborne charged with aggravated assault?  I say what the heck is taking so long?
    
     It is clear that Osborne attacked Yang with disregard for his life or humanity.  Osborne claims self-defense.  What is self-defense? Beating a man half your size almost to death only when he apologized and even offered to pay for the dog.  Even without offering to pay for the dog, no justification exists for Osborne's behavior towards Yang.  Osborne nearly killed Yang who needed a facial reconstruction after the incidence.  Maybe if Osborne just hit Yang once it could be justifiable, but obviously Osborne hit him repeatedly in the face and kicked him in the ribs breaking two ribs.  How can he even claim self-defense?

     People can argue that it was Yang's fault and he deserved it because he ran over the dog.  I say, no matter how expensive the dog, a dog's life can not amount to that of a human being's life.  Also, the road does not belong to Osborne so Yang did not trespassed onto private property and run over his dog.  The dogs chased after his car while he was driving passed the house and then he accidentally ran over the dog.  First of all, an owner should not let his/her dogs run loose unless in the owner's yard.  Second of all, the fault should not be on Yang but on the dog for running towards the car while it was moving.  For example, if you as a driver was driving on the road and somebody decides to jump out into your pathway causing you to run over the individual, does that put you at fault?  Not only so, what do you expect Yang to do?  Just stop? The dogs won't go away.  Get out and move the dogs?  Yang will likely be attacked by them.
    
     In the case of Chai Vang, his trial in court only lasted a week.  In this case, the law is trying to do everything to protect the white man as long as it can.  Even the sheriff department decline to file any charges against Osborne and handed the case to someone else.  In addition to this, the sheriff department might even charge Yang with reckless driving which it definitely not.  I might sound like a racist, but I am not.  I am just pointing out the facts.  Like Yang himself said, if the story was turned around and Yang instead recklessly inflicted as much injury to Osborne, Yang would be charged with felony and incarcerated already; even if Yang was half the size of Osborne.  Somehow others tried to also justify Osborne's action arguing he attacked Yang only out of a "heated moment" because his dog died.
    
     Overall, what message does this case send out to the public?  It says the law won't protect you if someone beats you up because they feel like it.  A more specific message it sends out to minority groups is the law does not really care for you.  I don't hate Osborne, I just dislike his abhor beating of Yang.  No human being should have to experience what Yang experience regardless of any animal being harmed.

He deserves more!

          The nurses treated James Nichols’ knuckles in the emergency room due to injuries that incurred to him while he hunted in the Peshtigo Harbor Wildlife Area in Wisconsin.  Just a couple hours earlier Chong Yang, Choua Lee and Pau Vang reported a missing hunter in the same area Nichols hunted.  It became increasingly apparent Nichols was involved with the missing hunter as police interrogated him in the hospital.  To sum up the incidence, hunter Cha Vang and James Nichols confronted one another in the woods while hunting.  According to Nichols, he told Vang to go away because he was already hunting there when Vang intruded his area.  Vang then shot at him and the bullet swiped his right knuckle.  Nichols laughed at Vang and then charged at Vang.  Vang shot again and punctured Nichols hand.  Before Vang shot the third time, Nichols approached Vang and they started wrestling until Nichols stabbed Vang in the neck six times and buried him beneath some leaves in attempt to conceal Vang’s body only to be discovered later and linked to Nichols in the emergency room.

               
          After trial, the court found Nichols guilty of second-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse and felon in possession of a firearm.  However, they only sentenced him to sixty-nine (69) years in prison instead of first-degree intentional homicide which would impose a lifetime sentence.  Why?  According to Wisconsin,

Premeditated murder, murder with malice and aforethought, and wanton or depraved heart murder are common law terms equivalent to Wisconsin's first degree intentional homicide statute. Premeditated murder is murder with malice and aforethoght; malice is an intent to kill, and aforethought is the deliberation upon that intent. Deliberation only requires a second thought, a momentary reconsideration. 

Second degree intentional homicide is, in essence, common law manslaughter….If the state prosecution either fails to prove or concedes that it cannot prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist, then the charge is mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide.  (Van Wagner and Wood)

The reason Nichols received second-degree intentional homicide comes from the point that the prosecution failed to “prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist.”

               
          Nichols was cross-examined and found to be lying to investigators with his story about the shooting incidence.  Nichols told multiple stories and even said, “The Hmong people are ‘mean,’ they ‘kill everything’ and ‘go for anything that moves.’” (haseaac.inofrme.com)  His co-worker even testified that Nichols said he would kill a Hmong person if he ever had a chance.  Nichols also testified that he never goes hunting at the Peshtigo Wildlife Area anymore because of the Hmong people who hunts there.  Not only so, Nichols have a record of burglary and other convictions.

               
          What the heck!  So how hard was it to believe that mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense, did not exist for Nichols?  Obviously he went to the woods with intent to find a Hmong person to kill.  To claim that he was shot at first and then laughed is bogus.  He killed the man by stabbing him 6 times and then hid the corpse.  Nichols even went home first before heading to the hospital for treatement.  Why didn’t he call the police and report what happened if he was so innocent?  The defense can argue that Nichols was in shock to explain for his behavior, but what about the case of Chai Vang who shot and killed other hunters and claimed self-defense?  Obviously it did not matter to the jurors because they saw Chai as a dangerous, crazy man on the loose.  Nichols on the other hand was seen as an innocent, scared man who fought back in self-defense.   But is this true?  Did investigators even bother to research into who shot first and what really happened?  Was it Cha who fought in self-defense instead?  But of course none of this matter because he is dead and his story does not count. Nichols should have received a first-degree intentional homicide charge and sentenced to life in prison.  What the heck!

Guilty until Proven Innocent

                

                What the heck! Fine, I’ll leave.  I climb down from the tree stand that someone hammered into the tree 20 feet above the ground.  Not knowing the stand belongs to someone else, I also didn’t know I trespassed onto private property.  I did not see any signs indicating I was on private property.  I am also sort of lost so where do I go? Then some people show up and tell me to leave and start yelling at me.  I ask them which direction I should head towards to get off their property.  For some reason they keep on shouting racial slurs at me, calling me a gook and derogatory terms.  What the heck is their problem?  I keep walking away and then all of a sudden someone steps in front of me trying to prevent me from walking away.  They all continue shouting racial slurs at me.  I told them to fu*k off and let me go.  Finally I am able to push pass the one standing in front of me and start walking away.  The shouting and yelling continues.  I turn back to see if they were leaving also and I see a guy on the ATV pull off his rifle from his left shoulder, points and shoots at me.  I instantly duck to the ground and see the bullet struck the leaves near me.  I automatically change into defense mode and take off my rifle as well.  I turn to see where they are, point and boom!  I start shooting back.

                Such was the story defendant Chai Vang told the jurors in Sawyer County Courthouse on September 10, 2005.  With a public defender, Chai’s main argument included self-defense and that he feared for his life but on September 16, 2005 the jurors convicted him of six first degree murders and two attempted murder.  On November 8, 2005 Chai was sentenced to six consecutive life terms plus seventy years.

                A huge controversy emerged from this incident ranging from topics such as racism and cultural differences to private property and social injustice.  I’m just going to talk about one topic though.  I am very disappointed by the fact that all jurors were Caucasian.  I am not being racist or anything but isn’t it obvious that this incidence involves race?  Even though the jurors were selected randomly, I still feel that none of the jurors understood and would never be able to understand Chai’s position, history and how that contributed to his reaction.  It is even more obvious that Chai was guilty until proven innocent instead of “innocent until proven guilty” especially when the verdict was decided only after 12 hours.  The jurors already came into the case with a biased perspective on Chai whether consciously or unconsciously.

                The big question was, “Did Chai shoot first or did he shoot after being shot at to act in self-defense?”   Unfortunately, the vision going into the trial was to prove that Chai didn’t shoot first.  Instead, I believe the vision going into the trial should have been to prove that Chai shot first.  In other words, he was already guilty in the eyes of the jurors, the public defender, and the people in court besides Chai’s family and relatives.  The media even portrayed him as a dangerous man who lost his mind going on rampant killings.

                Others argue that it doesn’t matter even if he shot first or not because he killed 6 people and injured 2 while some of them did not possess guns.  All I have to say is you cannot deny the fact that there were other guns present and the others would have tried to kill Chai; particularly when he killed one of their friends/family members.  Also, when you’re in a hostile situation similar to Chai, it’s either you die or they die.  You choose.

                I’m sure if Chai died instead, the others would not even receive accusations.  Their story would have been taken as the truth and Chai would just be another case shoved under the rug without any investigation because investigation was insufficient even for this case.  I would also like to point out that if Chai wasn’t Asian, but a white guy, this incidence would have never occurred.  Instead, there probably would have been a nice greeting between the two parties.

                In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not bummed out that the jurors found Chai guilty or am mad because Chai is Asian; I am pissed off at the resources dedicated for the trial and the unjust trial process.

That's what he thought!

Listen to this song:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/DAVER-IP/dave032211_americanidoits%20steveo.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=11689&STATION_ID=DAVER-IP&PCAST_AUTHOR=Dave_Ryan_SHow&PCAST_CAT=Entertainment&PCAST_TITLE=Dave_Ryan_Show_Daily_Clips 

In case you missed it, here are the lyrics:

“30 Hmongs in a House”

No room for a couch
    Cause we sleep on the floor
    One big group of Vangs
    Hmong family of twenty-four
    Kids work in St. Paul
    Hang out at the mall
    Cause I know they dwell so well
    Thirty Hmongs in a house
    Hmongs get pregnant early
    First baby at 16
    Seven kids by 23
    Over the hill by 30
    Like sardines they live
    Packed in a two-room house with the kids
    But you know they age quite well
    They be Hmongs

Source: http://www.avclub.com/twincities/articles/now-you-can-sing-along-to-kdwbs-hmong-parody,53924/

Funny right? I mean, it is a parody poking fun at Hmong people so shouldn’t it be funny?  Well, that's what Steve O thought.  Unfortunately, or should I say fortunately, the reactions appeared more like "WHAT THE HECK!"  It was not funny to many Hmong, supporters of diversity and anti-racists organizations and groups.  After this aired, many Hmong leaders and activists took action to challenge the demeaning and stereotyping song by engaging community leaders and organizing a protest against the radio station.  In response to these actions against this perpetuation of racism, a couple of large advertisers such as  “HealthPartners and AT&T say they didn't see the humor in the parody song ‘Thirty Hmongs in a House,’ and are pulling their ads from the radio station in St. Louis Park” (Minnesota Public Radio).  They voiced their concerns stating they do not support such business partners who engages in discrimination or hate behavior.

Sung on KWBD “Dave Ryan in the Morning Show” radio broadcast by “Steve O” LaTart on March 22, 2011, the parody became a controversial and significant part of KWBD radio broadcast.  Due to the retraction of advertisers along with some loyal listeners and external pressures, the morning show apologized a few times: once on air and a few times by a facebook post on their page.  The apology posted on facebook read:

Our listeners understand that The Dave Ryan in the Morning show is a comedy show meant to entertain, and that much of its content is parody. While we've received positive feedback from many Hmong listeners who let us know that they found the song in question very humorous, we apologize to anyone we may have inadvertently offended, as this was never our intent. (twincities)

Many people did not accept this apology because they believed it holds no sincerity at all and I totally agree with them.  Just to point out an obvious reason why many believe so, KDWB does not acknowledge the fact that it affected and damaged many people directly and indirectly.  They even boasted about receiving positive feedbacks from many Hmong listeners in attempt to reduce the negativity emanating from their “parody” instead of just straight up apologizing genuinely.  It would be similar to an individual beating up another individual and it would be fine because others enjoyed it.  What the heck! Doesn’t make any sense at all right? 

            So then you may wonder what many of us are so angry about.  All I will say is whether or not the intentions aimed at creating humor, it definitely also created social consequences that many Hmong will continue to face throughout their lives due to the fact the song portrayed Hmong not as humans but wild, stupid animals/fishes.  Steve O can argue that he believes in diversity and did not intend to hurt anyone but it still demonstrates that he possesses a disparaging view towards Hmong.  This song only serves to perpetuate and promote these demeaning views into the heads of kids, teenagers, students, adults and etc. and Steve O serves as a perfect example of this with this song.  Thus if we let this song go unchallenged it will only continue to negatively impact Hmong people.  It doesn’t matter if you think the stereotype is true or if you think Hmong are too sensitive or if you believe it will only affect us if we let it.  The point is this issue points a finger at the Hmong people and degrades them without ever trying to understand who they are as Hmong, their history and the institutions imposed by the United States which “inadvertently“ affected many minority by placing them in a subordinate position to white skin people. 
               
            Racism is a social construction and Dave Ryan in the Morning Show is the constructer.  If we let this construction continue, it will continue to build right over and on top of us.  Then when you notice people walking over you, taking away your resources for the construction, pushing you aside to continue making the construction, and disregarding your ideas about the construction, you’ll try to bring the construction down but by then it might not even be possible.  Even if you succeed in bringing down the construction, people will always know and remember it was there and it’ll continue to be in the heads of people for a very long time.  But if you prevent the construction when it is in the early stages, less will know about it and not remember much about it so the construction will die away sooner.  That, I believe, is what many of us are trying to do.  Although I do realize that other constructions have been already built, that's why we have people like Steve O, and thus we may just be stopping one in progress, but I hope no such incidents occur again.  I'm also glad that KDWB took the invitation to resolve this issue with the local community.

Sources:

·         http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/cities/archive/2011/04/healthpartners-and-att-pull-ad-from-kdwb-after-hmong-parody-song.shtml

·         http://www.twincities.com/ci_17736144?source=pkg&nclick_check=1

It is not a waste of time.

    Games are often viewed as a waste of time, something that does not contribute any real meaning to the user.  Some people even call it plain stupid.  What’s worse than spending seven hours or more of your life each week indulged in Tetris, Angry Birds or Halo?  After all, it is impossible to get those hours back.  Others claim that games do benefit the user in many ways intellectually and socially.  From my experience, when I was still a child playing Tetris and Pokemon on the Nintendo Gameboy, I did not become smarter.  Neither did I improve my social skills.  Instead it appeared to be the opposite as I reflect.  I was more antisocial as my eyes glued into the small screen and I studied less.  All this only lead my parents to hate games which is now understandable.

    To hold the same view today would be incorrect though.  Games have developed far beyond the small screen Nintendo Gameboy into complex machines that enables the player to play with many others around the world if desire.  Designers also incorporate social features into games today to further involve the player with physical movements besides sitting down.  The Wii and the Xbox Kinect clearly demonstrated this well.  The Wii senses your movement with the remote(s) you hold in your hand while the Xbox excel beyond using something like a webcam combined with motion sensing to detect the user’s movements eliminating the use of a controller.  In addition, it takes voice command from the user.  

    All these innovative features open up new realms of gaming beyond the first consoles and Gameboy.  Sports and dance games incorporate these new capabilities into them which allow users to physically move to control their character.  With multi-player and challenge mode everyone in the family can get involve from all ages without feeling too old.  Online games allow players to connect and talk with others from anywhere.

    All these new features of gaming enable the player to develop his/her social and cooperation skills.  My cousins and friends love Halo.  They have to play it almost every night and each time they play lasts for at least three hours .  At times I observe them play and see them all very engaged; even yelling at each others when someone cheated or gets upset.  I do see teamwork and communication skills develop through this game though.  Each player in a team has some skills that he is great at and they work together to conquer the enemy through talking to, trusting, and working with each other.  If they do not encompass teamwork, they will lose to their opponents and this further push them to develop better communication and teamwork among each other.  Other games such as “Dance Central” for the Xbox Kinect keeps the player in shape by requiring the player to move constantly.  It also permits the player to challenge others adding a social aspect to it.We also need to keep in mind that games are not exclusive to game consoles game only.  There are also board games and social word games that develop the player(s) intellectually.

video belongs to IGNentertainment

Who knows what the future beholds for games.  It may even become more social and and interactive to reach a larger audience because solo games do not appeal to light gamers.  But what I do know is that some games are not a waste of time.  I am not claiming that games are the best method for an individual to develop nor do I encourage playing games for a long time.  Other activities exist that possess more capability for an individual to develop, but not everything works for everyone. 

More leaks please!

       WikiLeaks poses a threat to many people and governments in the world.  Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is now one of the most dangerous person in the world, or possibly the most dangerous in the world.  Why is that the case?  Well, if you have not checked out one of WikiLeaks website, you should.  If not, he can easily be found on Youtube along with video clips of a very controversial incidence between the United States military, two Reuters journalist and Iraqis in the suburb of New Baghdad.
       A controversial issue also surrounds Julian himself.  Many people consider him as an ignorant dangerous man who puts too much information online endangering lives and possibly compromising national security.  At the same time there are many who praise and encourage Julian to pursue his mission of information transparency and keeping governments open/accountable.  Personally, I am undecided also.  Julian is exposing too much information in my opinion and this puts many people at risk.  Some information are better kept secret because unveiling them may only do more harm then good.  People might go crazy if they discover some information that seriously affected them in a negative way.  Of course such  things should not have occurred and such information should not exist anyways but the matter of the fact is the world is corrupt in one way or another.
       On the other hand I support his mission to keep governments, institutions, businesses and people accountable for their actions.  Today, corporations and businesses have too much influence on our governments, politicians and media; therefore affecting citizens and defeating the purpose of a government.  The people need to capture their media and voice back to use to keep institutions liable for their actions.
I encourage Mr. Assange and whistle-blowers to continue.  Specifically I request that some whistle-blowers send in information regarding the "Secret War" that occurred from 1955 to 1975.  Let me explain to you why.  The United States' CIA recruited Hmong villagers, led under General Vang Pao, to help them fight against the spread of communist and rescue US soldiers during the Vietnam War.  Many sacrificed their lives and left their families to become "guerrilla fighters" to intercept enemy lines and gear transportation routes.  They were told to fight the enemy without knowing that one day many will be left stranded behind in a war torn country only to be hunted down like animals in the jungle of which used to be their home.  Some were lucky enough to come to the promise land which was then known as the US, but this further separated families and left many behind to pay for the consequence in the form of genocide.  Here is a short clip from Youtube and I warn you of gruesome images: 

       As of today what does the US or UN do?  Nothing.  What the heck!  Why?  As mentioned before it is a "Secret War" and the US plans to keep it a secret.  General Vang Pao, who the CIA recruited to gather thousands of Hmong and train them into guerrilla units, just recently passed away.  For all that he has done for the CIA, costing the lives of so many Hmong and Laotians who fought alongside US soldiers, he was still rejected from the Arlington National Cemetery dedicated to recognizing US combat veterans.  The ridiculous decision by the Pentagon was because space was limited.  In reality, the US wants to keep this "Secret War" a secret.  Even the movie Gran Torino, directed by Clint Eastwood involving Hmong families, actors, and culture try to keep the war a secret.  The movie was subtitled into English whenever Hmong was spoken, but one scene was not subtitled.  That scene consisted of a Hmong woman talking about the "Secret War."  Obviously the intent was so no other ethnicity can hear about it except the Hmong who already knew about it.

"What the heck!"

       Only through transparency of such information by WikiLeaks can we ever hold the government responsible for what they do and not do.

To Have, or Not to Have

What does this “net neutrality“ term floating around in the internet mean?  Freedom of speech? Non-discrimination?  Competition? Government regulation? Innovation?  Its very core principle aims at making all internet content unrestricted and accessible at the same speed.  The purpose is to make the internet a level playing field for anyone who wants to do anything legal.  Recently, congress has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to impose such regulations.  Many are afraid this will make the internet into a “tiered” playing field for anyone who wants to put their services or contents online.  Proponents for “net neutrality” argue its removal can lead to discrimination, site restriction, and favoritism by internet service providers (ISP’s).  This will definitely hinder innovation as well as competition.

Opponents such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T say "what the heck!"  They claim the regulation clogs the internet and prevents them from offering better services for their customers.  If removed, these ISP’s will be able to create a “fast lane” for certain content that are willing to pay more.  It will better the service of the content provider, the users of the content and the ISP.  It’s a win win situation for everyone so why not?  Theoretically it appears as a sound business strategy and it is.  As Comcast or AT&T, I would fight for the removal of such regulation so I can further maximize my revenue to increase my infrastructure.  They already claimed not to degrade or restrict access to any site to counter fears of discrimination and favoritism.  What the heck. What’s the problem then?

 Let’s put it this way.  “Net neutrality” is removed.  Facebook decides to pay ISP’s more money so it can have a “fast lane” for its users.  This is great news for Facebook users, advertisers and will attract many more users or even cause switch overs.  The problem here is what about other social networks who can’t afford the fast lane service.  They get left behind.  One can argue this as pure competition, but when there is only two major ISP’s does real competition exist?  This places new start-ups at a disadvantaged position because if they cannot offer faster access to their content or service, users will choose those who can.

Remove the regulation and there is no limit to what ISP’s can do and will do.  The bigger picture here is trust between users and ISP’s.  Unfortunately history is not on ISP’s side.  History illustrates that some ISP providers have blocked certain contents and sites before.  It is just hard to trust a profit maximizing business who wants to dominate the market.  Who cares much about users if they are getting money from somewhere else.  Furthermore, who guarantees they will not block or restrict any site?  Once a blocker, always a blocker.  If net neutrality is trashed, more issues can arise.  Politicians can use their money to their advantage by bribing ISP’s.  It is possibly already happening anyways, but this will enable it a degree higher.  To an extreme, ISP's can influence what you choose and therefore what you see.  Should we let the “free market” decide on its own after it has led us to a spectacular recession recently? Or is there even a market?  You choose to have, or not to have.

With Passion Comes Success

In five days Facebook would be seven years old. But that's not it. Facebook would also be a top social website with more than six hundred million active users and no that is not a typo.  It is currently valued over fifty billion dollars and believe it or not that is not a typo also.  Amazon on the other hand has dropped down to seventy-five billion dollars.  Facebook has achieved greatness and has nearly replaced MySpace in seven years.  All I can say is, “What the heck!” What is it that makes Facebook so successful and powerful? What is it that makes users come back almost more than two to three times a day? What is it that makes it able to still acquire new users by the thousands daily?  I can say it is not the page layout and I am sure it is not because users are not able to change or design their page.

I am not an expert on Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg or other founders of Facebook, but I can say that Mark’s dedication and strong adherence to his passion and dream are main factors in making Facebook one of the largest social networks today.  Mr. Zuckerberg created Facebook with the help of some roommates and friends in his Harvard dorm after realizing the shortly successful “facemash.”  From there on it took off jumping from campuses to campuses and now available worldwide.   Mr. Zuckerberg was offered one billion dollars for his start-up after a year of officially establishing Facebook.  How many of you would have sold your start-up if someone offered you one billion dollars after a year?  For some I bet it does not even have to be half a billion dollars.  Honestly, I probably would have sold it and retired.  But Mr. Zuckerberg had a larger vision, a more grand vision that overpowers his want of money.  Money was not something he cared much for.  He wanted to connect the world and increase information transparency and held onto his dream.

You can see that the most successful people are those who chase after their passion and dream.  They don’t let money deter them from their path or obstacles bring them down easily.  One example of this is Dr. Myron Wentz whose parents passed away from degenerative diseases when he was only seventeen years old.  Dr. Wentz set out with the passion to find cure for these degenerative diseases and developed the highest quality nutritional supplement, later to be known as USANA Health Sciences world wide.  You can find many more examples out there. 

Contradicting, money is a huge part of life.  It is almost as valuable as air because nearly everything revolves around it.  It is what pushes our economy along and creates job for students.  Unfortunately it has misled many and created greed.

Whether Facebook will continue successfully or not depends upon Mark Zuckerberg’s adherence to his passion and dream.  Once the focus shifts towards maximizing profit by cluttering ads all over the place and selling user information to outsiders, Facebook users will switch over to something else.