M******A
发帖数: 40 | 1 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
By: Mei Mei Huff.
While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last
census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in
the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was
only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the
Senate Democrats truly had 2/3rd of the Senate votes in place.
But under supermajority rule, unless you are among the groups that receive
preferential treatment, you are what Mr. Woo describes as "non-persons."
What did the Democrats do with their 2/3 supermajority in January? They
passed SCA-5. And under SCA5, Asians are non-persons. Under supermajority
rule, Democrats can pass constitutional amendments like SCA-5, they can
raise taxes, confirm or deny the Governor’s appointments and override the
Governor's vetoes.
All Republican bills were not “dead on arrival” as postulated by Mr. Woo,
but the meager numbers did force Republican legislators to be smarter, re-
evaluate themselves and to build alliances.
How can a Party lose that badly, he asked? It was one vote at a time, one
district at a time, and it was a 40-year slide. But to say that “None of
them (Republicans) can be too politically astute", is not only demeaning,
but misses the bigger picture of representative government. California is
unlike any other state in the nation. Each Senator represents a district
with 931,000 people, give or take a percentage either way. To put that in
perspective, each Senate District in California contains more people than
the state of Delaware. All 12 Republican senators made their case to, were
elected by, and have the confidence of the majority of voters in their
respective districts. This is a cumulative representation by Republicans of
12 million people—larger than most states, but still a superminority in
California.
Mr. Woo’s comment that Republicans were inspired by the effectiveness of
the Chinese-American community in opposing SCA5 misses the point. The
question should be, where was the Asian opposition the previous two times
Senator Hernandez introduced the same racial preference language over the
past five years? Republicans were there voting consistently against the ill-
conceived measures, while the Democrats, including Asian Democrats, voted
for them. SCA5 was not a creation of the Republican Party and it was also
not the Republican Party that taught Senator Ted Lieu or Assemblyman Al
Muratsuchi a lesson. So I fail to see how the Republican Party is to blame
for diving a wedge between the Latinos/Blacks and Asians. Republican
opposition to SCA5 has been consistent through the years, reflecting
principled lawmakers voting for their core beliefs of personal
responsibility and limited government. The dinner table has been set by the
Democrats the same way, three different times in the past five years. This
time Asians woke up and realized they were the main course.
Not only was there never an effort to create or drive a wedge issue, there
is not one now, and my husband and I find that offensive. The 29th Senate
District that my husband represents is comprised of 27% Asian residents, or
254,000 in round numbers. He works hard to represent all of his constituents.
Even though my husband is the Senate Republican Leader, he is not the type
of person looking around for wedge issues. He looks at issues in his
community as well as the state, and tries to address those issues in a way
that makes sense. When Chinese after-school programs were being shut down by
the Democrat-controlled state government as illegal childcare, Senator Huff
fought the battle for about five years, but finally got legislation passed
that made these after-school programs legal.
When school “District of Choice” legislation was about to sunset, my
husband carried successful legislation to extend the program because it gave
parents more control over which schools they could enroll their children,
to get a better education. Senator Hernandez (author of SCA5) fought and
voted against this program because it was perceived that most students who
wanted to leave a school in his district were Asian, and when Asian students
left the districts they lived in for districts they preferred, they left
their home school districts with lower school scores. This is likely why
Senator Hernandez wrote SCA-5 to apply to all public education, and not just
Colleges and Universities.
As for SJR-23 related to the state apologizing for historic discrimination
against the Chinese, and calling on Congress to do the same, the timing is
coincidental with nothing to do with SCA-5. My husband had been working last
fall with some Chinese who had concerns that our Federal and state
governments expressed regrets about this historic discrimination against
Chinese, but they haven't apologized as they have for other minorities. The
bi-partisan, multi-racial LA County Board of Supervisors led the way by
signing a letter asking the Federal Government for an apology.
So, in January, some time before the January 30th floor vote on SCA5,
Senator Huff asked Senator Leland Yee to jointly author SJR23, to show bi-
partisan and bi-racial support from the state legislature seeking an apology
. SJR23’s introduction was delayed for a bit because Senator Huff wanted
the furor over Senator Yee’s subsequent vote for SCA-5 to die down. Senator
Yee was then arrested in an FBI undercover operation, so Senator Yee’s
name was stricken from the bill.
Let’s not get too wrapped up in the thought of political gamesmanship, as
the author is implying. Let me restate that there are no political games
being played here. SCA-5 was bad for our community and bad for the state,
and SJR-23 is good for the state to understand and express apology for past
behavior. Ironically, in perspective, SCA-5 is just a 21st century version
of previous and historic discriminations against the Asian community.
Let's not forget that when the vote for SCA5 ran over the Republicans in the
Senate, then into the block wall of Chinese/Asian grassroots opposition,
that the Speaker of the Assembly sent it back to the Senate without a vote.
It was then that the Latino and Black Caucuses issued a statement that they
still support the principles of SCA5. It was also the Latino and Black
Caucuses who pulled their endorsement of Senator Ted Lieu for Congress as
punishment for withdrawing his support of SCA-5, and then punished
Muratsuchi by killing his bill on the assembly floor, after supporting it in
committee.
The Governor, the Speaker, The President pro Tem of the Senate, and the
Latino and Black Caucuses have all reaffirmed their support of the
principles framed in SCA5.
Our struggle is far from over. If we can't successfully beat the Democrat's
super-majority in at least one of the houses in this year’s elections, we
will see it come back to haunt not only Asians, but all Californians who
strive for a level playing field and excellence in our educational system. | o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 2 zan! 感谢Meimei。 转CivilSociety。 | t****u
发帖数: 8614 | 3 well written!
【在 M******A 的大作中提到】
: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
: A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
: By: Mei Mei Huff.
: While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
: absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
: both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
: the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last
: census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in
: the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was
: only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the
| d******o
发帖数: 147 | 4 顶起来!
in
in
【在 M******A 的大作中提到】
: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
: A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
: By: Mei Mei Huff.
: While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
: absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
: both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
: the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last
: census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in
: the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was
: only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the
| S******2
发帖数: 94 | | c**a
发帖数: 434 | 6 good
in
in
【在 M******A 的大作中提到】
: 何美湄：回吳先關於““Dangerous Politics”
: A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14
: By: Mei Mei Huff.
: While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under
: absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in
: both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since
: the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last
: census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in
: the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was
: only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 7 老吴和80-20，骨子里还是要朝廷招安的啊。
【在 t****u 的大作中提到】
: well written!
| s********o
发帖数: 861 | 8 Good! Go for republican! | n******a
发帖数: 253 | 9 支持Mr. Huff 的提案！
这个提案除了长远的历史意义，当前也有很正面的作用。那就是就着Sca5提醒大众，华
人才是曾经受到全面系统性迫害的。如果要有政策倾斜，也应该是朝华人倾斜。这本身
对缓解目前针对华人的舆论攻击是有很重要的缓解作用。
我可以理解吴先生的顾虑。我们华人人口少，普遍参政意识弱，容易被别有用心的人恶
意抹黑，能够出头领导人也必定事事小心谨慎，以便保护我们本来就珍贵微弱的政治力
量。吴老先生的担心，与之前言辞确切 ，大力呼吁也很有些不同。个人乱猜，也有可
能是出自其人。但猜测有些过了，希望议员先生及湄美不要在意。你们所做所为民众都
看在眼里。
我们华人不是不懂学习的民族，大家日益成熟起来，会有自己正确的判断。
再次感谢！ | M******A
发帖数: 40 | 10 更新了中文版
何美湄：回覆吳仙標先生于二零一四年四月十一日發表的題爲“危險政治”的文章
吳先生談到，在加州，共和黨于民主黨的絕對控制之下求生，因爲民主黨在加州參議院
和凶h院都擁有超過三分之二的絕對多數席位。其實，這個狀況在二零一二年選舉後才
出現，是按人口普查結果重新劃分選區的結果。而且，幾位在任的參議員在二零一二年
十一月選舉贏得國會席位，另一位後來當選洛杉矶市議員，所以直到今年一月，他們的
空缺席位才被填補，民主黨才在加州參議院真正的擁有三分之二的壓倒性票數。
在民主黨絕對多數的掌控之下，你如果不是他們的優待對象，就是吳先生所說的“無關
人士”。請問民主黨依仗絕對多數在今年一月做了什麽？他們通過了SCA-5。在SCA-5面
前，亞裔就是“無關人士”。憑借絕對多數的壓倒性票數，民主黨可以毫無顧忌的修改
加州憲法，比如SCA-5；可以毫無顧忌的加稅；可以毫無顧忌的批准或者否決州長的官
員任命；可以毫無顧忌的推翻州長的否決權。
吳先生毫無根據的假設所有共和黨的提案都“來者即亡”，事實卻不是這樣。絕對少數
席位的劣勢的確迫使共和黨議員們采取更明智的策略，重新評估自己的實力，並組織聯
盟。
吳先生問到：爲什麽一個政黨能如此失敗？加州向民主黨傾斜四十年，一次一票，一次
一區，方有今日。但是，說“沒有一個共和黨人在政治上精明”，不僅貶低共和黨人的
努力，更是沒有看到代議制政府的大局。加州和美國其他任何一個州都不一樣。每一個
加州參議員代表的選區有近九十三萬一千人。換個角度說，每一個加州的參議院選區覆
蓋的人口都比吳先生曾代表的特拉華州整個州多。所有共和黨州參議員都獲得了他們選
區多數選民的認同和信任，從而當選。共和黨代表著總共一千兩百萬民校@比美國大
多數州的人口都多，卻不幸仍然是加州的絕對少數。
吳先生評論到：加州共和黨人受華裔社區阻擊SCA5的成效鼓舞。但是這個看法忽略了一
點，我們應該自問：民主黨Hernandez參議員在過去五年曾經兩次提出同樣的種族優待
政策，我們亞裔的反抗在哪裏？然而，共和黨人一直在反抗，對這些考慮不周的法案，
都堅定不移的投下反對票。形成鮮明對比的是，民主黨人，包括亞裔民主黨人，都投了
贊成票。SCA5不是共和黨的産物，共和黨也沒有教訓劉雲平和Muratsuchi兩位亞裔民主
黨議員。所以，我完全無法理解，爲什麽吳先生責怪共和黨在挑撥離間亞裔和非裔西裔
。共和黨反對SCA5是多年來一貫的立場，是有原則的共和黨議員基于他們核心理念的投
票。他們的中心理念價值觀是：每一個人都應該爲自己負責，同時政府的權力範圍是有
限的。五年三次，民主黨用同一種方式布置了餐桌。唯有這一次，亞裔覺醒，認識我們
才是餐桌上的那道主菜。
吳先生的文字，讓我先生和我覺得頗受不公正的攻擊。我們從來沒有，現在也沒有試圖
制造麻煩來挑撥族裔關系。我先生代表的參議院第二十九選區有高達百分之二十七的亞
裔居民，大約二十五萬四千人。作爲民選議員，他努力爲他所有選民的爭取正當權益。
我丈夫雖然是加州參議院反對黨領袖，但他絕不四處找麻煩來挑撥族裔關系。他從國家
和社區的角度來思考各種問題，尋找有意義的解決方案。這裏我講一個非常有說服力的
案例。華人課後輔導學校曾經被民主黨控制的州政府當作非法托兒所強行關閉。我先生
爲此挺身而出，不懈努力近五年，通过相關立法，終于讓這些課後輔導學校正式在加州
合法化經營。
再說另一個案例。我先生認爲“學區選擇”法案能讓父母有更多的權利決定孩子的學校
從而獲得更好的教育，所以在此法案即將過期失效的時候，他又成功通過立法來延續這
個法案。相反，SCA-5的提案人Hernandez參議員極力反對這個法案，投下反對票，因爲
他認爲大部分要離開他選區學校的學生是亞裔。顯然，亞裔學生離開他們居住地學區會
導致那些學校的成績下降，這也可能是爲什麽Hernandez參議員的SCA-5要涵蓋所有公共
教育機構，不僅僅限于高等教育的大學和學院。
SJR-23決議要求加州並呼籲美國國會爲歧視華裔的歷史道歉。這個決議本身和SCA-5並
沒有任何關系，只是時間上巧合。去年秋季以來，我先生就已經開始和華人一起准備這
個決議。聯邦和加州政府目前只是爲歧視華裔的歷史表示了“遺憾”，並沒有真正“道
歉”；相比之下，遭受類似歧視傷害的其他少數族裔已經得到了真盏牡狼浮Ｋ麄儬懘松
罡胁还？琰h派跨族裔的洛杉磯縣政委員會一馬當先，聯署要求聯邦政府道歉。
因此，在今年一月三十日參議院投票SCA-5之前，我先生就已經邀請余胤良參議員一起
共同起草SJR-23決議，以跨黨派跨族裔的支持要求正式道歉。可是後來余胤良參議員因
爲支持SCA-5遇到群袘嵟目棺h，我先生想稍等風波平息，所以延後了遞交SJR-23決議
。不幸的是，余胤良參議員隨後在FBI的臥底行動中被捕，因此不得不從此決議中剔除
他的名字。
我們還是不要爲吳先生暗示的所謂“政治遊戲”著迷。請讓我再次重申：這裏絕對沒有
政治遊戲。基本事實是：SCA-5對我們社區不利，對我們加州不利；SJR-23有利于加州
了解並悔過從前的錯誤行徑。非常諷刺的是，SCA-5恰恰是歧視亞裔社區歷史在二十一
世紀的重演。
我們不要健忘，SCA-5在參議院憑借民主黨絕對多數的優勢，越過共和黨全黨反對的門
檻後，撞上了華裔亞裔草根反抗邉拥哪蠣潱@時凶h院議長才不得不將此法案一票不投
地直接打回參議院。然後，拉丁裔和非裔黨團聯合聲明，堅決支持SCA-5的原則。同樣
是拉丁裔和非裔黨團，撤銷了他們曾經承諾的對劉雲平參議員競選聯邦國會的支持，作
爲對他撤銷對SCA-5支持的對應懲罰。同樣是拉丁裔和非裔黨團，爲了阻嚇可能不遵守
民主党原则投票的议员，杀一儆百，懲罰Muratsuchi凶h員，先在委員會支持而後又在
凶h院扼殺他的立法提案。
加州州長，凶h院議長，參議院議長，以及拉丁裔和非裔黨團都重申了他們對SCA-5所體
現原則精神的堅定支持。我們的抗爭遠沒有結束！我們必須在今年的選舉中推翻民主黨
對參議院和凶h院的絕對多數控制。否則，SCA-5這個幽靈必將回來，不僅困擾亞裔，而
且讓在教育領域崇尚公平競爭並追求卓越成績的所有加州人民不得安甯。 | | | g********w
发帖数: 2539 | 11 说得很好，8020特别莫名其妙，或者干脆地说，卑鄙的地方，就是指责gop要利用华裔
激化种族矛盾，这是何等可笑的说法，明明是dem架起锅子要炖你，你怪搅翻宴席那人
激化矛盾，你要隔山观虎斗？
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.2.2
【在 M******A 的大作中提到】
: 更新了中文版
: 何美湄：回覆吳仙標先生于二零一四年四月十一日發表的題爲“危險政治”的文章
: 吳先生談到，在加州，共和黨于民主黨的絕對控制之下求生，因爲民主黨在加州參議院
: 和凶h院都擁有超過三分之二的絕對多數席位。其實，這個狀況在二零一二年選舉後才
: 出現，是按人口普查結果重新劃分選區的結果。而且，幾位在任的參議員在二零一二年
: 十一月選舉贏得國會席位，另一位後來當選洛杉矶市議員，所以直到今年一月，他們的
: 空缺席位才被填補，民主黨才在加州參議院真正的擁有三分之二的壓倒性票數。
: 在民主黨絕對多數的掌控之下，你如果不是他們的優待對象，就是吳先生所說的“無關
: 人士”。請問民主黨依仗絕對多數在今年一月做了什麽？他們通過了SCA-5。在SCA-5面
: 前，亞裔就是“無關人士”。憑借絕對多數的壓倒性票數，民主黨可以毫無顧忌的修改
| k****m
发帖数: 4670 | 12 民主党提sca-5就是平权？共和党人提一个真正需要道歉的道歉案就是另有阴谋？
这都不能用自恨来解释了，这是做奴隶做惯了，有人要给争取点公平公正对待，还害怕
的不敢接受了？ | a******e
发帖数: 36306 | 13 这个排华法案的道歉不是据说代价是立法禁止所有关于排华法案的赔偿请求为条件的吗？
【在 M******A 的大作中提到】
: 更新了中文版
: 何美湄：回覆吳仙標先生于二零一四年四月十一日發表的題爲“危險政治”的文章
: 吳先生談到，在加州，共和黨于民主黨的絕對控制之下求生，因爲民主黨在加州參議院
: 和凶h院都擁有超過三分之二的絕對多數席位。其實，這個狀況在二零一二年選舉後才
: 出現，是按人口普查結果重新劃分選區的結果。而且，幾位在任的參議員在二零一二年
: 十一月選舉贏得國會席位，另一位後來當選洛杉矶市議員，所以直到今年一月，他們的
: 空缺席位才被填補，民主黨才在加州參議院真正的擁有三分之二的壓倒性票數。
: 在民主黨絕對多數的掌控之下，你如果不是他們的優待對象，就是吳先生所說的“無關
: 人士”。請問民主黨依仗絕對多數在今年一月做了什麽？他們通過了SCA-5。在SCA-5面
: 前，亞裔就是“無關人士”。憑借絕對多數的壓倒性票數，民主黨可以毫無顧忌的修改
| o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 14 re!
众都
【在 n******a 的大作中提到】
: 支持Mr. Huff 的提案！
: 这个提案除了长远的历史意义，当前也有很正面的作用。那就是就着Sca5提醒大众，华
: 人才是曾经受到全面系统性迫害的。如果要有政策倾斜，也应该是朝华人倾斜。这本身
: 对缓解目前针对华人的舆论攻击是有很重要的缓解作用。
: 我可以理解吴先生的顾虑。我们华人人口少，普遍参政意识弱，容易被别有用心的人恶
: 意抹黑，能够出头领导人也必定事事小心谨慎，以便保护我们本来就珍贵微弱的政治力
: 量。吴老先生的担心，与之前言辞确切 ，大力呼吁也很有些不同。个人乱猜，也有可
: 能是出自其人。但猜测有些过了，希望议员先生及湄美不要在意。你们所做所为民众都
: 看在眼里。
: 我们华人不是不懂学习的民族，大家日益成熟起来，会有自己正确的判断。
| L**P
发帖数: 3792 | 15 可以看这个决议的原文就清楚了
你说的据说是paul fong的那个版本
吗？
【在 a******e 的大作中提到】
: 这个排华法案的道歉不是据说代价是立法禁止所有关于排华法案的赔偿请求为条件的吗？
|
|
