Just about the only thing that the San Jose City Council assured on Tuesday is that they will have to deal with the Little Saigon issue again. The next time they vote on the matter, though, there will at least be a community consensus. Yeah, right.
Dealing with the most thankless, no-win issue ever to come before this city council tested the character and political skills of each elected member, and it was good political theater to boot. After some 300 members of the public spoke to the council, the post-midnight session saw a series of motions, resolutions and votes—and, of course, speeches. For some of them, it would be the best public speaking of their career to date.
For those who missed the drama at Council Chambers, here’s a report card on how our elected officials perform under pressure.
The Bureaurats: City staffers who stayed until 2 am were rewarded with combat pay in the form of an aluminum-wrapped hot potato tossed off the dais and into their laps. Sort it out, now. Heh, heh. There’s really no way to depoliticize this issue, so about the best they can do is consign the battle to bureaucratic Hades (a.k.a. “process”), which is exactly what the City Council seems to want. Courage points: 3; Oratory: 2; Political instincts: not applicable.
The Contrarian: Beard-sporting councilman Pierluigi Oliverio recognized the subject was radioactive as an Ayatollah’s isotope and ducked as best he could, attempting unsuccessfully to latch onto an economic argument that would provide him a tidy justification for an expedient vote. In the last go-around, P.O. conveniently cited signage costs for his lucky nay vote in the original business district naming debacle. That path of inquiry collapsed this week, however, when city staff enlightened him to the fact that the council had not in fact actually voted to spend funds on sign replacement, because funding for signs and banners had already made its way into the budget. So, the Amish-jawed contrarian managed to be twice—yes, two times—on the losing side of the vote: the first time opposing the renaming, and this week in favor of Little Saigon-izing Story Road. Yes, he voted both ways, in effect rescinding his “no” vote while everyone else was rescinding their “yes” vote. Pierluigi won’t go down as the most courageous player in the sorry saga, but then again, being on the losing side of this vote may not be such a bad place after all. Courage points: 0. Oratory: 0; Political instincts: 5.
The Martyr: Visibly pained Madison Nguyen, who learned the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished, was left with the unpleasant task of unwinding the damage and sat sad-eyed through hours of flagellation (and some praise) from her compatriots. The disproportionate response, which included recall threats and accusations of collaboration with commies, has no doubt reduced her chances of becoming the first Vietnamese-American mayor or congressperson. Nonetheless, she accepted her chore with grace, accepting responsibility for a political miscalculation and a brush with a Brown Act violation. With steely comments, she made her points well. And while her delivery was not exactly Obama-esque, it fit the message. Courage points: 5; Oratory: 3; Political instincts: 0.
The Statesman: Sam Liccardo engineered a successful compromise and ran away with the evening’s eloquence award. “Our effort to impose a name on the district in a top-down approach does not and cannot work,” he said in a strong, mellifluous voice. “A community’s identity emerges from the ground up.” Liccardo’s motion carried the day when Labor Council-aligned council members decided that the benefits of damaging Mayor Reed were outweighed by the necessity of rescuing a political ally (Nguyen). Courage points: 4; Oratory: 5; Political instincts: Lucky as a Vegas jackpot winner.
The Prisoner of War: Mayor Chuck Reed, who not too long ago was as inseparable from his flashy, tattered Captain America flag tie as Charlie Brown’s Linus was to his security blanket, got his flag underwear in a twist over reckless allegations that he somehow was taking marching orders from Hanoi. A charge this ridiculous deserved not the dignity of a response from a man who served his country honorably in the military and fathered a daughter who piloted a damaged plane to a safe landing after it had been shelled in Iraq. The stunt worked though. Reed gave one of the better speeches of his mayorship, then deftly outmaneuvered rookie Kansen Chu’s failed attempts to 180 the agenda. Courage points: 4; Oratory: 4; Political instincts: 3.
The Belabored: Nancy Pyle, Forrest Williams and Nora Campos sat shellshocked and equivocated but saved Nguyen’s compact derriere by supporting the Liccardo resolution to do the process thing. South Bay Labor Council comandante Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins gave football signals from the sidelines. Courage points: 0; Oratory: 1; Political instincts: 5.
The Quiet One: Judy Chirco delivered a knockout blow with the most empathetic speech of the evening, praising the protesters with lofty language, then voting against them. It was so smooth, they probably thought she was on their side. Courage points: 3; Oratory: 5; Political instincts: 5.
Lord I Was Born a Ramblin’ Man: Vice Mayor Dave Cortese felt a need to read a long list of anecdotes in a shameless play to bolster Viet support for his supervisorial bid. He fended off an attempt by Mayor Reed to give him the hook when he started talking about his young daughter in the post-1am speech. Let’s vote already, Dave. Courage points: 0; Oratory: -2; Political Instincts: 1.
The Sword Faller: Weirdly, Kansen Chu forgot that Madison Nguyen’s tacit support in his race against Hon Lien helped him win his council seat and neglected to repay the favor. The most strident advocate of the Little Saigon renaming, he was outmaneuvered by the mayor, who ruled Chu’s motion out of order. But the Kanster drew supportive yelps from the cheap seats with his mumbling arguments for bringing the naming saga to an immediate conclusion. Courage points: 2; Oratory: 2; Political Instincts: 3.
The Wild Card: Pete Constant argued that a community survey indicating support for the “Little Saigon” name was more important than the opposition of more than 90 Story Road business owners, and that the district should be immediately renamed. Constant delivered the argument succinctly and forcefully, so it didn’t matter whether it made sense or not. Courage points: 0; Oratory: 4; Political Instincts: 4.
That anyone who doesn’t rely on an ear trumpet to follow local politics would even consider Madison Nguyen fit to serve as a mayor or congressperson demonstrates just how far race can push us off course. This is a woman who, in the midst of an interminable ruckus of her own creation, remains clueless enough to suggest, in a television interview just prior to the council meeting, that what was really needed was “a cooling-off period.” Talk about a “why can’t we all just get-along” moment! What, does Ms. Nguyen believe that the media question- political cliche two-step has degraded to the point where any cliche will do? How the hell could the phrase “cooling-off period” even enter her mind when the city is dealing with huge demonstrations, historic hatreds, and a war hero engaged in a highly-visible and obviously committed hunger-strike? Just how cool will things be a few weeks from now when Mr. Ly Tong croaks?
In the wake of the council meeting Ms. Nguyen was at it again, talking about a “fresh start,” “closure,” and mouthing other inanities as if reciting a trusted chant in an attempt to convince herself as well as salve the much-annoyed majority of San Jose voters.
Let’s face it: Madison Nguyen’s political qualifications begin and end with her ethnic identity, and she has—against all odds—found a way to turn that identity into a liability. Seldom in local politics does such an unmistakable pass-fail issue arise so early in a politician’s career, and should we voters not recognize the evidence (her ‘F’ grade) and learn from it (and stop buying into the race game), well, then we deserve everything we’ve been getting (which is nothing but aggravation).
Last night, my fiancé and I went by City Hall to see Ly Tong. I wanted to see how he was after Tuesday’s Council vote. He is very thin, and very weak. To my deep sadness, he informed us that he has now stopped drinking water, since Tuesday night’s Council vote. Myself, and many of his supporters begged him to stop his hunger strike, or at least to drink water. He took my hand and told me that no one on the City Council cares about his people. He said everyone thinks it is just about a silly name. He said that no one would really care until he is in a coma, or dies.
I asked him why he feels so strongly about this issue, and why the name Saigon Business District name, with the name Saigon in it, was not good enough. He looked at me very softly and said, “Your people do not understand.” He told me that the name “Little Saigon” is a direct slap in the face to the communists, and that it shows the communists that the Vietnamese people are now free, and can no longer be hurt by them. He told me this is about freedom, and democracy, and his deep love of his people who trust too easily.
He told me that one-day, the people would see that the wealthy communists are coming here buying malls, and businesses to gain power, just like they did in Little Saigon. He explained how the man who wanted to pay for Vietnam Town, was a perfect example of what he is talking about. He said that the Americans and our Mayor who is looking for revenue, and jobs for San Jose are being fooled by the money and jobs they are being offered. He said we would not understand the true price we will be paying to get these things, and he will die before he sees this happen here the way it did in Little Saigon. He said he would die before he sees his people hurt ever again.
I’ve got to tell you that I was struck deeply by his words, and the seriousness of his warning. I remembered my mother telling me the same thing about Hitler’s rise to power, and how she wished people had challenged him, and asked more questions about this new leader. His words shook me deep inside, and I found my thoughts going back to the quote Tom McEnery put in his last post, “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.”
As I stood there looking into his eyes, I heard some of his followers promising him that, if he dies, they will continue the strike for him. I must tell you, I have not seen this type of love, or loyality since the days of Martin Luther King Jr., or the Kennedy brothers. If Ly Tong is right, and we Americans are being so blinded by greed that we are ignoring the obvious, I think we’re in a lot of trouble.
Under which dictionary did the Vietnamese communicaty quote the term “democracy?” Do they even understand what democracy means? Apparently not!
The city council should not entertain any further idea of naming a business district for any purpose whatsoever.
This issue should be tabled forever and the city should get on with more important business decisions which affect us all and not just a small group of malcontents.
we Americans are being so blinded by greed that we are ignoring the obvious
That is certainly true, but not about the Little Saigon issue.
The real problem is the MBA “degree” (most useless degree ever conceived), and the outsourcing of jobs, while paying CEOs and other “executives” ridiculous amounts of money. Then, when they decide they need even more money, they layoff more workers and outsource more jobs.
My personal opinion is any CEO who has participated in the outsourcing of engineering jobs is flirting with treason.
Put these “executives” on trial, and I will support “Little Saigon”.
Kathleen:
I have never seen the name “Little Saigon” on any map of Vietnam, past or present. Saigon was there before being renamed by the communists in the 1975, but to my knowledge, no “Little Saigon” ever exisited. Was this an oppressed suburb of what was then Saigon? Has Ly Tong explained to you why adding the name “little” means so much? I get the interest in Saigon, but why “Little”?
Also, making any analogy between this naming debacle and the rise of Hitler in Europe is quite a sensational exageration, even for you Kathleen. I do thank you for explaining the core issue here though. Without this post, I would not have known that it is Ly Tong’s refusal to eat that saves us feeble Americans from the evils of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. We all owe our freedom and basic way of life to this man’s deeds!
To #1’s comment regarding Ly Tong’s hunger-strike, I am not sure how “cool” it will be if he dies, but I will take comfort knowing that he did so on his own accord. Everybody should have the right to die on their own terms. If this is how he wants it done, so be it. Can’t say that I would choose this particular path, but hey, to each his own. To Ly Tong, I say go with God my friend. May there be a huge buffet awaiting you in the next life.
Good gravy, Kathleen. The academy awards were last month.
Ly Tong called passer-by’s ‘Communist sympathizers’ when they wouldn’t march with him. He is a story-teller—nothing more.
Being a city council member absolutely involves leadership and instinct, and I don’t even question the comments about Madison Nguyen’s competence (I kind of doubt she’s a paid communist shill, however). But the job of city council here is not to fight communism or mediate the differences between North and South Vietnam. It is to serve the constituents of this city, this day, in every way vested in them by civic law.
San Jose City Council did not turn the name of a shopping mall into an international incident—Ly Tong did. If he, and San Jose Voters for Democracy, are trying to save the world with a 20 foot banner, they really need to resolve it in their little comic book world WITHOUT dragging the rest of us into it.
Ly Tong’s version of the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech would sound more like Dr. Strangelove and less like an iconic change in the civil rights landscape.
My least favorite phrase in the world is ‘Your people do not understand’. It is inevitably a prelude to assaulting those who do not agree with you, or starving yourself to death as a substitute for political compromise.
#6-#7- You are both entitled to your opinion on this issue, but you don’t get to attack me personally. Say what you will, but be respectful about it.
Kathleen:
First, I will assume you are referring to posts # 5 and 6, not # 7, which is your own. (you didn’t personally attack yourself did you?)
Second, I fail to see any personal attack towards you in either post. I know there was none in mine. I called you out for your gross exageration of the issue when you made this local San Jose “issue” analagous to the prelude for WWII. That’s not an attack, just calling it like it is.
Nothing on the origins or importance of the word “Little” in “Little Saigon”? Seemed like a simple question…..
Kathleen #7,
5-6 did not “attack you personally”, they disagreed with you, or is that not permitted?
By the way, you said #7 disagreed with you and attacked you personally, but you were #7.
Were you writing a rebuttal to your own blog?
frustrated finfan (#10):
I guess we will have to agree to disgaree on this one (hopefully you do not subscribe to Kathleen’s views of disagreement being personal attacks. There is no attack intended here towards you) I agree that this never should have been an issue for the city in the first place, but that does not give anyone the right to attempt to extort the government into following their will. Ly Tong has a personal choice to live or die, and the Council will have no blood on their hands if chooses the latter. I would be more worried for our government if they caved to Ly Tong’s demands.
Kathleen:
I am very sorry if I offended you. I didn’t realize that you were so unaware of your tendency to be a drama queen and that you tend to grossly exagerate on this blog. I know that it can be painful to be called out and have to face reality, so for that, I am truly sorry. Best of luck to you….
Novice:
Yes, real things happened in Vietnam. the Vietnamese and those interested in their plight should do “real” things about it in Vietnam. Here in the good old USA, we San Joseites (lame, I know, but I couldn’t think of a better name…) should concern ourselves with the “real” things happening here.
Red (#5),
First, I’m sure you realize that my use of the word “cool” was to reference the asinine comments of Madison Nguyen. Obviously the response to Ly Tong’s death will be anything but cool. Second, while it’s true that Ly Tong may die (or ruin his health) of his own accord, should he die his corpse will forever hang around the political necks of those council members who voted to send the naming issue back to the staff—an act that will be interpreted and remembered by the partisan community as tantamount to a death sentence. Should any of those council members run for county or state office—or even for reelection, you can be sure that their campaign will be haunted by the martyrdom of “Ly Tong” and the frightening energy of his supporters.
The initial motivation for extending special treatment to the Vietnamese community was political, thus it is only fitting that the backlash for screwing it up be political. Where the council erred Tuesday night was in not realizing the corner in which they’d allowed themselves to be painted. Right and wrong stopped mattering when it was decided to play race-politics in the first place; to think that last Tuesday night was the place to make a stand was wishful thinking. There are no more stands to be made. There is no more principle to be upheld. The first mistake snowballed so rapidly that no “right” solution had a chance to contain it. The council should have caved and put an end to the issue—at least that component of the issue that was beyond dealing with. (Note: Caving is something the city does with great regularity at the staff level, often to put an end to the uproar over a minority harmed by police action.)
Like him or not, by putting his life on the line, Ly Tong shrewdly put on the line the political careers of the entire council, in much the same way that Buddhist Monks put President Diem’s career on the line by burning themselves on the streets of Saigon forty-five years ago (Diem’s reluctance to properly address the problem is believed to have been a key factor in his subsequent U.S. approved assassination). It seems to me that Mr. Ly Tong is one of those rare folks who learns from history.
One would think that given the incredible passion around this issue – by an ethnic minority no less – that our famed bay area compassion would be on full display.
But you would be wrong.
Based on the number of callous and outright dismissive comments on this board, I’m starting to wonder if the Vietnamese are the “right kind” of minority.
You know what I mean, an ethnic minority deserving of allegiances of solidarity and candlelight vigils from the renowned bay area multicultural tolerance establishment.
How could this be?
Have the Vietnamese wandered off the left’s multicultural plantation by having the audacity to hate communism? How offensive that must be to all the Code Pink types and the Che t-shirt wearing morons in the bay area.
That the Vietnamese community so passionately voice their appreciation for their freedoms and the opportunities for a better life here in the United States must rankle to no end the hate-America-first bay area leftists who by contrast choose to spit on their freedom.
Real things happened in Vietnam.
Bay area types would do well to be quiet and listen and exhibit some of that sensitivity and understanding that we’re all so famous for.
#8- That is correct, I meant you and #6. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Again we can agree to disagree on your perception of what a personal attack is. I have a right to express my feelings and thoughts without your editorial comments. #6, calling me an actress deserving of an Academy Award, or you calling me an exaggerator because you don’t think I have a right to equate this situation with Mr. Tong and his people, based on stories my parents told me growing up, is in my opinion, attacking me personally. I don’t make remarks like that about your comments, so I feel the same respect should be given back to me.
Having said that, I feel an immense amount of sadness and concern for this man and his people. I think that what has happened here is the sole fault of our Mayor and Council for sticking their nose into something that was never any of their business from the start. I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary. We have a process, it was followed, and now because they didn’t like the outcome, they changed the rules in the middle of the game, and dumped it on the community to fight it out. Talk about revictimization! The Mayor and Council can try to justify their actions as noble and caring in their own minds all they want, but I have zero respect for the Mayor and Council for doing this.
As Council Member Constant said, “You can’t show up late to the prom, and complain that you missed the first dance.” He also said that the business owners had an opportunity to vote like everyone else, they chose not to, and now they are demanding a do over. I agree with Pete 100%. Regardless of what the Mayor and Council pulled on Tuesday night to save face, I will never vote for anyone of the 7 who voted NO on Little Saigon in future, because I have lost all trust in their ability to treat citizens who do take part in the process, who follow the rules by casting their votes on a survey, who showed interest by attending countless community meetings, with such little regard. I have watched this play out over and over again on so many issues I am sick of it. You can say or do what you want, but people teach us who they are by their actions, and believe me, this exaggerating actress deserving of an Academy Award, has been paying attention in class and will use my voting power much more carefully in any City of San Jose, or County election that will be forth coming.
I’m sorry that some of you feel so little compassion for Ly Tong and his people. I guess I can be thankful, you are the vocal MINORITY.
If you took personal offense, then there was a personal attack—please accept my apologies for it.
Frustrated Finfan, Novice, you both make some very good, well though out points.
Novice said: “Bay area types would do well to be quiet and listen and exhibit some of that sensitivity and understanding that we’re all so famous for.”
That would be a nice change given some of the unkind things I have read on this blog about this whole issue, but don’t hold you breath, it might leave you seeing red….
Frustrated Finfan said: “Like him or not, by putting his life on the line, Ly Tong shrewdly put on the line the political careers of the entire council, in much the same way that Buddhist Monks put President Diem’s career on the line by burning themselves on the streets of Saigon forty-five years ago (Diem’s reluctance to properly address the problem is believed to have been a key factor in his subsequent U.S. approved assassination). It seems to me that Mr. Ly Tong is one of those rare folks who learns from history.”
You are very right about that. No matter how many members of the Council who continue to try and convince us or themselves that they are not responsible for any ill health effects of Mr. Tong’s strike, or even his possible death, many of us will think very differently. If he has a “Do Not Resuscitate Order,” the Mayor and City Council is screwed.
Seeing Red- Your is certainly entitled to your opinion. Talk about a “tendency to be a drama queen,” and the ability to grossly exaggerate an apology! My reply to your sincere heart felt apology is: Sir Seeing Red, I graciously accept your apology from the depths of my heart and sole. And I would like to extend a sincere invitation to you to feel free to skip over any future comments I make on this blog that might offend your senses!
Kathleen:
Your acceptance from the depths of your heart and “sole” was very moving. Did you mean the fish, or perhaps the bottom of your foot? (perhaps both are appropriate in context I suppose…)
I would hate to miss the next installment of “As Kathleen Flynn’s World Turns”, so I am afraid I must decline the invitation to skip over your future posts. (Very kind of you to offer though, thank you.) With the writers stike having taken its toll on new material, there are so few places to find good quality dramatic fiction. Your the tops in my book!! Keep it up.
#9- Steve- This kind of dog piling isn’t necessary, we are all grown up enough to play nice in the school yard. We can also agree to disagree on what your perception of a personal attack is.
#13- Thank you for your apology Kenny, and for having enough integrity to make one.
For those of you who might be interested, I went by to see Mr. Tong tonight. He is much weaker than before. His people let me read a letter that Mayor Reed delivered to Mr. Tong today. (I would post it but I don’t think I’m allowed to scan things onto SJI.) In short, it was a kind letter asking Mr. Tong to stop his hunger strike, and he assured Mr. Tong that he would do his best to work with both sides on this issue.
While I am very unhappy with Mayor Reed’s direction and course regarding this issue, I cannot deny it was most certainly a kind gesture, and I believe a sincere one. Mr. Tong of course has refused to stop his fast, for all the reasons I posted in, according to Steve in #9, in my #7 post above.
My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Tong, and the citizens of San Jose. I’m still hoping the Mayor will find it in his heart to give the Vietnamese community a small patch of San Jose to call their own named,” Little Saigon,” because after all, they are one of the biggest reasons he was elected Mayor.
#17- “With the writers strike having taken its toll on new material, there are so few places to find good quality dramatic fiction.”
Since you are such a drama and exaggeration buff that you’d rather waste time with personal attacks, and trying to engage others in childish games; I highly recommend reading some of SJI’s competing blogs. They certainly are not as accurate or truthful as SJI, nor as well written as SJI, and since you’re not looking for good solid factual reporting, and an honest exchange of opinions on vital issues, while being respectful of other’s opinions, I think you’d really enjoy them.
Oh by the way, you might want to read SJI’s Mission Statement too before you get the urge to blog again because I know you want to follow the real intention and mission of sharing information and comments related to the topic at hand. ” Mission Statement:
”This site is designed to encourage political debate, discussion and change in our city, started by people who value San Jose and are interested in her future and in this valley’s place in the state and nation.”
Sorry I can’t play with you any more James, excuse me, I mean Seeing Red, or whomever you are, I have more important things I’d rather be doing then playing ping pong with you. Have a good weekend.
Perhaps you should take your own advice Kathleen and start posting good solid factual information rather than the usual exagerations and sensationalistic tripe. This little war of words started because you compared this “Little Saigon” fiasco to the rise of Hitler in pre-WWII Europe. That has to be one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen and leads to me to believe you really have no common sense at all. If you honestly believe there is such a strong similarity, then I suggest that your mother did you a serious disservice in the telling of history. If that is the fact, however sad it may be, I am truly sorry.
Also, if this was supposed to be a site where we post opinions on “vital issues” I would suggest we have all been way off base discussing this subject of “Little Saigon” Maybe we all need a refresher on the mission statement?
Lastly, please don’t kid yourself. You clearly enjoy replying to anyone who challenges you, even though you don’t seem to have any interest in responding with any basis of fact, nor do you really do anything but cry the part of the victim of a personal attack. If you truly did have more important things to do, I doubt we would see you on this blog ALL the time. I am curious however. Can you really let someone else have the last word? History tells us no, but I still hold out hope that you are true to your word. In any event, all good things must come to an end, so I will close up shop on this little spat. I wish you a great weekend as well and look forward to our next engagement. Next time, please try to make it a little more difficult to disagree with you. You can’t always be wrong….
Much like “Seeing Red” I have been wondering why the specific name, “Little Saigon” is so important and am hoping Ms. Flynn or someone else can clarify this for me.
From what I understand – and I could be wrong here – a survey was sent out to local businesses and residents months ago for feedback on a name. Although the number of responses was not great, the majority of those who did reply chose “Little Saigon.” For what ever reason, the city council decided on a different name that did not get much support – “Saigon Business District.” I am not Vietnamese so I concur with Ly Tong when he told Kathleen Flynn that, “Your people do not understand.” I hope someone can help me.
I understand when Mr. Tong told Ms. Flynn, “that the name “Little Saigon” is a direct slap in the face to the communists, and that it shows the communists that the Vietnamese people are now free, and can no longer be hurt by them.” This makes sense to me. I can equate this with the same sentiment as “Little Havana” in Miami. Leaving an oppresive government, succeding against the odds then gleefully thumbing your nose at the authority figures who previously oppressed you is an American tradition that dates to the American Revolution. I have read about the flourishing Vietnamese community in Southern Califonia (sorry, not sure exactly where) that is commonly referred to as “Little Saigon” that drives home Mr. Tong’s slap-in-the-face point. This is where I need some help.
If there is already a community commonly referred to as “Little Saigon” in So Cal, why does the name have to be the same in San Jose? Unless talked about while actually in San Jose, couldn’t this just cause confusion unless it is referred to as San Jose’s Little Saigon? Other than the argument that “Little Saigon” was more or less the overwhelmingly wanted name and “Saigon Business District” received less than 10% of the votes that “Little Saigon” received (again my numbers could be way off here, please feel free to correct me), isn’t the use of “Saigon” the more important part of the name?
Does this mean that if in the future, large populations of Vietnamese create thriving communities in New York, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Portland, Boston, Cleveland, etc., such as they have here and in So Cal, that they should call their enclaves “Little Saigon” as well? Why not a different name here so that anyone in Vietnam referencing expats flourishing in the United States could read off a long list of communities instead of just referencing “all the Little Saigons in America?” There is strength in numbers.
Other than because it received the most votes, which probably should have been enough reason to go with it in the first place, could someone please explain why “Little Saigon” is the only acceptable name?
On a different note, the right to peaceful protest is one of America’s greatest virtues. Accordingly, if Mr. Tong wants to go on a hunger strike, that is his right to do so. I hope he listens to reason before it is too late, realizes that he has brought attention to his cause and ends his hunger strike before he dies. But until the naming issue is better explained to me, it is my humble opinion that his actions are a bit over the top and I concur with Mayor Reed when he basically said that Mr. Tong is adult, he can do as he pleases and Mr. Tong is solely responsible for his own actions. Mr. Tong’s claim that if he dies, Mayor Reed, Councilwoman Nguyen and the rest of the City Council shall be responsible is laughable. I can be silly too. Maybe I will go on an eating strike and pledge to eat twice as much in order to make up the difference from Mr. Tong no longer eating. Then if I get diabetes, heart trouble and other related maladies, I can blame Mr. Tong.
Here is an article from the Metro that breaks down the importance of the name Little Saigon. Wow! I even understand it better myself now. Hope this helps~
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.31.07/cover-nguyen-0744.html
Kathleen,
My parents grew up during the hollocaust in Germany too. I heard the same stories you did, and I have to agree with you on this one. I also married a Vietnamese woman, who escaped Communism. So I get your point loud and clear. My wife told me that the Vietnamese people have seen more dead bodies than live ones. She also told me that Mayor Reed took part in getting Ly Tong freed from a Vietnamese Prison. That is why I find it odd that the Mayor is so clueless about Ly Tong’s actions on behalf of his people. There are two sayings I would like to leave you with. The first is “There are none so blind as those who will not see” and “no good deed goes unpunished”. So keep up the good fight and don’t let the igorant bring you down.
#20- Joe, have you read the Needless Battle thread by Tom McEnery? It might help you to understand. There is also an article in the New York Times that does a very good job of explaining this naming issue. If I’m not mistaken, it is on the Needless Battle Revisited blog.
You draw some very good parallels in your post. Very well said. I think it is great you are keeping an open mind. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this issue, being educated on this topic is important.
I would just add one thing.
I would hope those who have sympathy for Ly Tong could extend the same sympathy to Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed.
They are civil servants who have done their jobs and duty. For making mistakes and living in the limelight, they can expect criticism; however, what they have endured at the hands of Barry Do and Ly Tong’s supporters is nothing less than character assassination, personal threats to themselves and their families, and unprovoked accusations of collusion with communists and land brokers.
Think about that: who has received more threats of physical harm in this situation—Ly Tong, or Madison Nguyen? And no question—NEITHER one deserves it.
It is amazingly obvious to me who to sympathize with in this situation, despite the fact that Madison’s situation does not fit the normal ‘underdog’ mode of American sympathy.
The media campaign of ‘San Jose Voters for Democracy’ made this situation possible, for enabling hate speech among its members and never once taking to time to denounce it.
Sorry, Ly Tong. If you only called for civility in your movement as loudly as you called for recognition.
#24- While I don’t agree with your perspective of who started what, I do agree with you 100% when it comes to understanding that EVERYONE has been hurt by this situation. I fear things are only going to get worse because things are not as simple as they appeared in the beginning. I’ve got my paws crossed that some kind of resolution will be found, and found soon.
The bastion of liberalism in SF somehow saw fit to name part of its city LITTLE SAIGON! The great leadership of SJ council maj. and its labor flunkies begged the difference and went the other way. Something fishy there. May be Bill Oreilly should get involve with this BS fiasco.
Dear council members:
You thought a 7-4 vote would resolve the “Little Saigon” fiasco. “It’s a nice thought, and we hope it works” (Mercury News Editorials 3/6/08.) Good luck!
First of all, we acknowledged three of council members were against the November vote. Now, do you really care what a name it is for a 1-mile strip? I bet you don’t. You don’t care one way or another. “It’s a matter of principle,” you may claim. No way! If it were a matter of principle, you had not rescinded your November 20 vote. But you did, unanimously. If it were a matter of principle, you had to defend your vote at all costs (?), but you did not. So you cannot claim it’s a matter of principle because you reversed your own vote!
Through the fiasco of “Little Saigon” the mayor has steered the ship of San Jose to a quagmire and “someone—ideally the mayor—needs to step up as a leader to bring a divided community together for healing.” (Mercury News Editorials 3/6/08) It’s time for healing in deed. If he were a leader, he would stand up “The buck stops here. Es mi culpa.” It looks like the Mayor won’t step up to be a leader any time soon or ever. Then we urge one of you to step up, be a leader and start the healing process.
Why? Because the path to healing has to pass through three waves. The first wave is easy. The second wave is more difficult than the first and the third is the most difficult one.
You already swam through the first wave: acknowledgement of your blunder by rescinding your November 20 vote. The second wave you have to swim through is apology. The path of healing must go through the apology wave. No one else has done that except Councilwoman Chirco. “We owe the community a big apology,” Chirco said. “We mishandled this. And for that I am truly sorry.” (Joshua Molina SJ Mercury News 3/5/08).
Now, we come to the third wave. This is the most difficult one, as I said. There are several ways to swim through this, but “the surest way to do that is to approve Little Saigon.” (Mercury News Editorials 3/4/08)
Council members, choose and pick your ways wisely. “So if any name other than “Little Saigon” again comes out on top, we’ll be right back where we are this week…” (Mercury News Editorials 3/6/08)
Sincerly,
lp
Sam Licardo’s 03/10/08 Little Saigon press release
It appears that our Esquire Councilman and his staff forgot to verify the validity of the signatures submitted by the 92 business owners before relying on it to justify his substituted motion. Go figure, a former prosecutor forgot to check the fact yet sumitted it as truth for the council to deliberate on. This is getting to be nail biting soap opera. What’s next?
#28
Any unsolicited petition submitted by the public has to be taken with a grain of salt. There is no legal requirement regarding the accuracy of the signatures.
It is not any different than members of the public who do not live in San Jose attending a council meeting, and telling council members how they should vote.
#28-29- You are both right. Liccardo should have had a staff member sit down and call the people who signed the petition before he used it to convince the Council to vote his way, because as Not a Novice so accurately points out, “Any unsolicited petition submitted by the public has to be taken with a grain of salt. There is no legal requirement regarding the accuracy of the signatures.”
What is even more disturbing to me is that even though Sam “Smiling” Liccardo knows the petition has been forged; he still won’t allow a revote on the issue or the name.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8530057
I think I know why too, it would actually make each and every Council member and the Mayor not only take responsibility for their screw up, they would actually have to stand by their vote on a no vote on the name Little Saigon, without any more smoke screens like petitions, or already existing procedures to name streets, roads, businesses. That would certainly be political suicide now wouldn’t it?
#29
I doubted that the petition was unsolicited! Our Esquire Councilman was savvy enough to outmaneuvered Council Chu with the substituted motion, i.e., this takes prior planning and knowledge of the petition. We know at minimal that the majority of the council was aware of this petition prior to the vote. The question is when! It’s important because if they had knowlege of the petition at least more than a day then there is a violation of not posting for public discussion. Additionally, Smiling Sam waited until well into 1am to bring up the motion and bushwhacked Chu’s motion.
There’s talk of civil rights violation lawsuit and Viet Dinh believed this case is riped for filing.