Silly Rabbit, Pork is for Kids
I have occasionally been known to have moments where my senses go off the charts. My family still makes fun of me for the time that I smelled root beer. Thing is, I am just as sure today as I was then that I really did smell root beer in the air that day. Anyway, I tell you that so that you understand that I may not be entirely trustworthy as a guide to some things.
I am fairly sure that this is not one of those moments. I have been backed up by other people – like the time in Imabari at Bill’s bar, when he made a new drink up, but substituted a normal ingredient. We passed it around, and I took a few sips and declared that it tasted like the crust on an average loaf of white wonder bread. Guess what? They agreed with me. Bill made a cocktail that tasted like bread crusts.
Anyway, the title of this entry is an altered version of the Trix commercials in America. Trix is a fruity cereal, incredibly sugary, which is marketed to children. The tagline is, “Silly rabbit, trix are for kids!” Well, I want to know who decided to meld Trix with my lunch. I bought a bowl of Ginger Pork & Rice today from the shopping center, and I kid you not, the ginger sauce, while tasting of ginger, tasted like it shared the same base as the Trix fruit flavorings.
I know, you are asking yourselves, “How can that be? Ginger isn’t fruity, the two tastes are completely different.” I submit Mountain Dew (original) and Code Red for evidence. They taste different – but anyone familiar with the original detects it immediately in Code Red. In fact, you taste both at the same time. You taste the base, but with the redness as well. (I also submit Juicy Fruit, which is neither juicy nor fruity. Bad product name, folks.) Anyway, it can happen, and today, it happened. I distinctly tasted ginger pork – but it had the undertones from Trix cereal in it. Call me crazy, go ahead, I am just sharing.
***
In other news, I was asked to elaborate on the federal judge’s ruling in Hawaii that I mentioned in an earlier post. Let me make this abundantly clear: I am not from Hawaii, I cannot speak with authority on topics Hawaiian, and do not pretend to do so. I am merely related this story as I came upon it. Also, I am not anti-Hawaiian. I actually consider it one of my daydream paradises (not that have a monopoly on that). There, I think that covers my preemptive disarming comments section. Ha ha. 
This link will take you to the Star Bulletin’s copy of the text of the court ruling (which apparently took place in November of 2003, which strikes its former status as a current event on my radar). Turns out it’s old news. Oh well. Moving right along.
This link will take you to the Star Bulletin’s coverage of the issue. (In other words, the reporting, not a copy of a court document.) I suggest anyone interested read those bits for themselves.
I am unsure of the events that took place during the 1893 end to the Hawaiian monarchy, and am not trying to couch this in terms of haole vs. hawaiian conflict. I simply don’t know enough to make an informed judgement call on that side of things. Therefore, what I am saying is that my personal immediate philosophical response is that this was a bad call. I don’t want to seem like I am some weirdo anti-minority guy (which is generally thrown at people who say disparaging things about policies put in place to benefit minority groups). I just want to say that equal is equal, and Hawaii is a part of the USA now (despite the fact that the school was established while it was still under the monarchy). Thing is, you can’t say Hawaii is alone in this. Institutionalized racism is in every state. Therefore, I am not finger pointing at Hawaii. Just thought I would point out that a federal judge has ok’d it in this particular instance too.
Also – I think it is absurd that in the ruling the court tries to separate bloodline and skin color as identifiers for race. (In other words, skin color doesn’t matter, because it’s the blood that determines whether or not you are a native Hawaiian, and somehow this is a less inflammatory method of identification.) What a ridiculous claim. It’s still discrimination based on a physical / genetic aspect of a person’s identity. That, in my book, is racism – well intentioned or otherwise. The court has left options open in the future, too. By the way, I think that as native Hawaiians continue to intermarry and have offspring that carry their blood, the school’s population will differentiate anyway. The pool of genetic material can only stay limited for so long. But that is a completely different story.
It seems that the aid is supposed to left alone because it is targeted to the victims in Hawaii – victims whose socioeconomic future was unsettled by the US when it aided in the overthrow of the monarchy. I am not saying the US was correct. I am not saying that they were not victims. I am saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. Is that fair?
***
Update! This case IS recent. December 6th, 2006. Sorry for my ignorance, guys. Here are some links I found.
MSNBC Coverage (Local)
Star Bulletin (from 12/06/06)
KITV Honolulu
Honolulu Advertiser
LA Times (I know…LA Times??)
Hope that helps. Again, sorry for the ignorance. At least I am correcting it! Ha ha.
