Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Musings: New Day Dawning

The stars were shining, the air was crisp, the mountains were clear and my mind, focused on the Presidential election results, was singing “Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the witch is dead,” when the neighbor’s pit bull took advantage of an open gate and charged Koko this morning.

Now when you have a small dog, you get used to it being mugged by large dogs — a kumu hula once told me he turned into a tiger to rescue his Pomeranian from two hunting dogs — so even though my mind had stopped singing and instead was imagining the worst case scenario of Koko’s pin head in the pit’s large jaws — it was too dark to see exactly what was going down — I quickly became, in best “Dog Whisperer” fashion, leader of the pack.

In a loud firm voice, I said, "no!" and then, "easy," and the pit bull chilled and let me pet him. I think he was more curious than vicious, having seen Koko walk past his house hundreds of times.

My neighbor was concerned and sincerely apologetic, which I appreciated, and told him so. Tragedy averted, we continued on down the street, where I ran into farmer Jerry. Although he felt lousy, his cornfield was calling, so he was headed into work to check on his crop.

We both agreed that it was wonderful to have the elections behind us. I could almost feel the nation breathe a palpable sigh of relief. Or maybe it’s just me. For the first time in eight years, I didn’t wake up depressed after Election Day. Jerry wasn’t as enthusiastic as I about Obama’s win, saying: “I just hope he doesn’t tax me to death.”

“Well, if he does,” I said, “it’ll be to pay off all the debt that’s been racked up, like the $700 billion bailout and the $10 billion A MONTH we’re spending in Iraq.”

“Yup, we’ve got to pay that off,” agreed Jerry, predicting that Obama will leave office aged, with white hair. I think he meant because he has such an impossible task before him, and not that he’ll be in there for two terms, which would make him 54, and thus entitled to some white hairs, by the time he gets out.

I told him I’d heard about Obama’s win via an email from my young niece, born and raised in New Zealand, who’d been keeping an eye on the CNN website all day. She sent her congratulations, saying she and her friends thought this would help get America back on track.

Yes, the rest of the world has been freed, like us, from the grasp of greedy, petty tyrants leading us down the slippery slope to fascism. I know Obama’s not perfect, but I'm pretty sure he won’t be torturing people in secret prisons, refusing to meet with leaders of nations deemed the “Axis of Evil” and staffing the Justice Department with neo-Nazis, I mean, neo-cons.

As a friend noted, “Obama is so much more inclusive,” and Jerry and I agreed that perhaps his early years in Hawaii had something to do with that.

On the way back home, I ran into my neighbor Andy, and said, “At least today we’ve got reason to smile,” to which he replied: “Well, half a smile, anyway,” since he’s a JoAnn Yukimura supporter.

I voted for JoAnn, too, but don’t feel we’re headed to hell in a hand basket just because Bernard Carvalho was elected mayor. Well, not any more than we were under Bryan Baptiste, because Bernard will likely just be a continuation of that regime. Still, he could score some giant points by immediately firing planning director Ian Costa.

Andy wasn’t thrilled that Darryl Kaneshiro and Dickie Chang made it on the Council, saying the former was a proven disaster and he had absolutely no hope for the latter, but at least we have three new faces on that panel, and one of them is Lani Kawahara, who seems promising. I would have liked to see Kipukai Kualii in the mix, but hopefully he’ll run again.

Derek Kawakami did amazingly well, coming in second, so it looks like he’s started on a political track that could very well include mayor or the state Legislature.

And Kauai voters did manage to see through the badly worded, to be charitable, and downright deceptive, to be accurate, charter amendments and make the right choices. That is, aside from the sunshine law measure, where they were tricked into thinking that the Council would actually have to be more open, when the current charter is already stricter than the state law.

Oh well. At least the voters spoke loud and clear in saying they’re tired of folks with conflicts of interest and special interest and vested interest running the government and pretending like they’re serving the public interest.

Their overwhelming approval of the last and lengthy measure also shows that people want to put the brakes on growth, at least the kind that caters to tourists. I mean, what’s the point of having a General Plan if it’s not followed? I think anti-growth sentiment also played a role in Ron Kouchi losing his long-held seat on the Council.

I was very pleased to see that Big Island voters passed the so-called “Peaceful Skies” initiative, which makes marijuana the lowest priority for law enforcement and prevents the county from accepting federal funds for marijuana eradication. In other words, no more “Green Harvest,” with those damn helicopters flying everywhere. I’d love to see Kauai adopt a similar ordinance, and am willing to put some energy into it if others would like to help me.

Obama already has pledged that the feds won’t interfere any more with the states that have adopted medical marijuana laws, so that’s a step in the right direction.

“I feel hopeful, even though I know Obama’s not a miracle worker,” I told Andy.

“You know, maybe he will be a miracle worker,” Andy said, noting that the country was in such a malaise after Jimmy Carter that Ronald Reagan was able to come in and make some dramatic changes. Unfortunately, they weren’t the right ones, but Obama, who is also very charismatic, has a Democratic majority in Congress to support him and a public hungry for change.

And with the birds singing and the rising sun casting a golden-pink glow on Waialeale, it did feel like morning again in America.

Until a friend stopped by and said, "Yeah, yeah, just wait a few months and it'll be right back to business as usual......"

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama's campaign platform included:
-ending the war in Iraq
-curbing greenhouse gases
-providing affordable universal health care
-cutting taxes for people making less than $250,000
-providing college tuition assistance in exchange for a commitment to service to the country
-reviewing the national budget line by line and getting rid of waste
If he attempts to do these things, I will be satisfied

Andy Parx said...

People didn’t “see through” the other fraudulent trick question on conflicts of interests and financial disclosures which weakened the measure passed last election. Just watch Richie Rich aka Mr. Big Save aka Derik Kawakami take advantage of the change. He’s already violating OIP recommendations, as I’ll detail later today.

Anonymous said...

Dickie Chang over Ron Kouchi? Wow. I think that Derek Kawakami fellow will do a good job tho, despite being dead wrong on that big box thing.

nunya said...

The next thing coming up, which is just as important if not more than all other issues is the Akaka Bill aka Kaka Bull.

Obama has said he will support it but I think that is because he believes it is a benefit for Kanaka Maoli and isnʻt aware of the details. But youʻd think he would being a senator and having sat through the hearings.

Neil Abercrumbie, whoʻs attempted to surgically attach himself at the hip to Barrack Obama during the campaign, will be on full attack mode to get this bad bill through.

I think the county elections were played with; donʻt know how but the numbers sure donʻt seem right. Especially the primaries. The high numbers for certain council seats was very UNbelievable and the final 7 even more so.

Anonymous said...

If the Akaka bill doesn't pass, Kamehameha School's admissions policies, OHA and Hawaiian Homes will continue to be attacked. Some people criticize these institutions as being ineffective, but how realistic is sovereignty?

nunya said...

Anon:
November 5, 2008 8:20 PM.

Are you saying that Kamehameha schools, OHA, Hawaiian Homes and programs WONT be attacked if the Akaka bill passes????!!!!!

The bill actually states it cannot protect the programs.

Thatʻs a pretty vague statement: ʻthese institutions are ineffectiveʻ.???????

Not to be argumentative but just to hopefully clear up some misconceptions: Sovereignty is very realistic...it never went anywhere...it is still here...it is inherent in the people...it is one of four elements of a nation...the other 3 are...Territory, Citizenry, Government.

Guess whoʻs already got all four?

Anonymous said...

The United States of America; that's who has sovereignty.

Anonymous said...

"Sovereignty is very realistic"

via that akaka bill? some other way? please expand, as i am curious as to what is viewed as "realistic." thanks

Joan said...

"Sovereignty is very realistic"

via that akaka bill? some other way? please expand, as i am curious as to what is viewed as "realistic." thanks


Sovereignty definitely won't happen through the Akaka Bill, which serves to end all claims to an independent nation forever.

I see the Reinstated Hawaii Nation as a realistic way of it being achieved. It essentially has revived the government that was in place at the time of the overthrow. So there is now a lawful government structure in place. What remains is for it to be recognized by the United States.

As to whether it can/will happen, well, to quote the Obama mantra: "Yes we can!"

Katy Rose said...

This leaves the question of a land base open. With US recognition of the Hawaiian government, how do you see a land base being established?

Joan said...

Well, Katy, it could certainly start with all the so-called "ceded lands," which were Hawaiian government lands. And that's a big chunk of land in Hawaii.

I'm sure Nunya can elaborate here, as I'm off to the Naue burial council meeting.

Anonymous said...

Why the Reinstated Hawaiian Government over any of the other groups claiming title to the legitimate Native government? The RHG isn't really a reinstatement of the government that existed at the overthrow.

Anonymous said...

...Why the Reinstated Hawaiian Government over any of the other groups claiming title to the legitimate Native government? ...perhaps because they are an established entity that is operating within the framework of government as mentioned before- Territory, Citizenry, Government,Sovereignty. we may not agree on this but it does answer the question posed above.

Anonymous said...

But there are several groups saying they represent the true legitimate Native Hawaiian government. The question is, why this one over the others?

Anonymous said...

So the “Reinstated Hawaii Nation” group/plan is viewed by a good number of people as having a pretty good chance of largely working? They represent the most “realistic” chance for “sovereignty.”

Well thanks for the response. I will look around in their website more. I guess to rephrase my poorly worked question(s)...”what is the MEANS for doing this?”

For example, would it be more “changing current law, or getting a law passed, that says ‘XXXXXXX sovereignty’” and/or working with existing laws to eventually get a ruling which accomplishes the same thing? I would bet the latter “courts” approach might be a little quicker than a legislature approach.

On their site I see they are putting some weight on, among other things, “international law and the obligation set forth in the United States Public Law 103-150.” I recall this being reviewed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in that ~ “ceded lands” case that is now on its way to the US Supreme Court. I hope that US Supreme Court ruling will shed some light on how related claims under current law will be viewed...at least then the sovereignty folks will know if their time and effort is better spent on legislation.

I hope the US S. Ct. speaks directly to the legal impact of that Apology Bill. In my quick read of the HI S.Ct. decision, the Court seemed to say ~ “we are not saying one way or the other if native Hawaiians should get the ceded land and/or how much of it,etc...we are just stopping the State form selling any of that land trust until the political bodies come to an agreement on the topic of those lands”...and as a basis for saying ~ “there is a binding (political) plan to figure out what to do with these lands” the HI S. Ct. cites this Apology Bill as well as Hawaii State Law.

Anyways, a favorable ruling from the US. S. Ct. would be major. I would not be surprised if in ruling on the import of the Apology Bill’s “whereas” clauses the US S. Ct. rules they have little-to-no weight, yet at the same time say the aggregate intent of that Bill – specially in light of current State of Hawaii laws – is that that they affirm the HI S. Ct. And that would be major for the Hawaiians.

Too bad there are not some “dream team” lawyers working on these Hawaiian cases...I bet such people could rack up some quick “wins” for the Hawaiians...and I bet that would be very invigorating and encouraging for them. and if the main reason for that not yet happening is lack of money to hire those guys...ugghh, what a shame...I bet there are ample self-authenticating ancient documents out there to base a property claim on the likes of which would send big landowners running for the trees (or the settlement conference).

Sorry for the long post.

Joan said...

The long post is fine. I appreciate your desire to learn about this. And yes, it would be great to assemble a dream team of attorneys for Hawaiians on the "ceded lands" case. I think at least a few sharpies on it.

As for the means, RHN is pursuing this through the courts, starting with its Kahoolawe case, in which they are pressing the issue that their nationals can't be liable for trespassing because the land is being held in trust for a legitimate sovereign nation, and they are that. Dan Hempey is the attorney on that one, so they've got a dream team lawyer there.

nunya said...

You got it , Joan! And the link was great. You are on it.

There never was question of land base (territory). The Hawaiians never lost site of their land. Itʻs still here! And it has established itself for thousands of years. The land base consists of the entire Hawaiian archipelago. But youʻre right Joan that the claim starts with the ceded and crown lands.

What people forget or choose not to look at is although Hawaii is a de facto state, it never was America. The continent of America says North and South America on the map, right? Where does any map say Hawaiian America? It is not contiguous with the continent of America.

The Reinstated Hawaiian Nation is different from sovereignty groups because RHG is not a group. It is a government. There have been 31 conventions, legislative convenings since 1999, the last one being hosted by Kauai in June. OHA wasnʻt able to arrange (1)one single convention because of ʻcostʻ.

I wonder if the United States has sovereignty anymore. So far, Bush babies have pawned off what couldnʻt be hauled off: the Intangible Assets. Historic sites, treasures, tour destinations, buildings, etc. have been placed (recently in Kauai via Beth Tokioka) under Preserve America and UNESCO meaning owned by the United Nations.

The United States recognizing Hawaii as a sovereign nation would be the right thing for them to do but all that is necessary under international law for formal recognition is one other nation, any nation, recognizing Hawaii, doesnʻt even have to be U.S.

I donʻt understand how anyone could ever think the Akaka bill, federal recognition, could provide sovereignty.

This is a healthy conversation. Thank you Joan. I only wish more Kanakas would jump on here and do the explaining much more accurate than I can.

Katy Rose said...

What I meant by my question about land base was that I was curious about how the land could be restored to the Hawaiian people, since it has been so carved up under the incursions of US capitalism. Thanks, Joan, for mentioning the ceded lands.

I differ with Nunya's point about the name "America" - that name is an imposed European name given to a continent by colonialists. It is no more appropriate to that region than it is to Hawai'i. It is also merely symbolic of the immense power that the US, in Hawai'i's case, really has - over land, over names, over resources, etc.

In this instance, as in others, semantic hair-splitting can distract us from forming cool, clear analyses of political power.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone polled the Native Hawaiian community regarding the sovereignty issue? While there are passionate supporters of the movement, most Hawaiians don't appear all that interested in sovereignty.

nunya said...

Katy Rose November 6, 2008 9:55 PM

OMG. What ever.

Katy Rose said...

Nunya,
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I think having these discussions that get to the root of things is important. Sometimes airing differing views leads to deeper understanding.

I hope you agree.

Anonymous 9:34:
I think there's a difference between believing in a principle and being ready or willing to make the huge sacrifices necessary to engage in the struggle to see it through.

US history shows that those who organize and resist US power in effective ways, especially people of color, receive a tremendous violent backlash from the government. There is a systemic violence in our system that literally coerces people into acceptance of the status quo.

That's not to say that there aren't many sincere supporters of US hegemony across every ethnic group, but it does indicate that it's misleading to judge the merits of the sovereignty movement on such criteria as polls.

Anonymous said...

it would be interesting to see if a majority of ethnic hawaiians (of what blood quantum i dont know) would vote for the status quo. even if that vote were to occur, and the status quo chosen, i doubt the sovereignty movement would stop (and im not saying they should stop, fyi, just saying)

ps - by the way "US history shows" those that are adaptive, creative, smart, lucky, and work hard will over time tend to have more opportunities and success in the US than in the vast majority of other places.

Anonymous said...

Rose =
"...forming cool, clear analyses of political power."
Not that hard, money = power,
May not be right, but it's so...

nunya said...

Katy Rose said, "..how the land could be restored to the Hawaiian people, since it has been so carved up.."

If people could just say what they mean, the world would be less misunderstood. If you are referring to your property specifically, I donʻt have the answer.

"In this instance, as in others, semantic hair-splitting can distract us from forming cool, clear analyses of political power."

So why go into nitpicking about the ʻwordʻ America? You know the place I was talking about right?

The explanation about the land base was pretty simple. I thought so.

nunya said...

The law is the best clarification regarding the stolen lands in Hawaii:

PUBLIC LAW 103-150. (Paragraph 29)

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States,
either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or
referendum;

Anonymous said...

"Whereas" clauses as used in statues and contracts, have no "direct" legal bearing on the stated and binding terms in the agreement or, in this case, the line items of the Apology Bill. And while such clauses by themselves do not confer any right or obligation, they used to (for example) help clarify any ambiguity as to definitions, and (as is important in the Apology Bill) help show the intent of the document. There are three (3) "Resolutions" in that Bill, and to provide context, elaborate on the Bill's intent, and in part to help explain "why" the Bill exists, we use "Whereas" clauses. In this case, the legally operative language is found in the "Resolutions" section.

nunya said...

Granted we canʻt hold court here but the intent, as you point out, is a clarification, as you also point out, that is also a foundation for holding court. Especially being that it is an admission to a crime.

nunya said...

Thank you for your explanation on the whereas & resolution, anonymous.

Anonymous said...

People who insist there's some natural, organic fit to wrapping Hawai'i in the American flag should read John Adams by David McCullough. Greed-driven imperialism is what our founding fathers fought England to be free of -- and warned America to beware of becoming!

Anonymous said...

It's funny seeing non-Hawaiians speaking so authoritatively and with such righteous indignation for Hawaiians.

nunya said...

Itʻs kind of hard not to say something on the haole blog, because otherwise you guys would have already passed an akaka bill if somebody didnʻt speak up.

I hope Joanʻs comments about sovereignty didnʻt offend you. Because itʻs easy to see this is a tight little clique here and every once in awhile you self righteous and self gratifying know it alls need to hear it back.

No go on feelings and emotions and if hearing the truth about what ʻourʻ kind did here in Hawaii is too much for you to handle...then get over it. Or maybe itʻs time for you to get some sleep.

Anonymous said...

"It's funny seeing non-Hawaiians speaking so authoritatively and with such righteous indignation for Hawaiians."

Hello. If you would please, could you note what (post?) you were referring too? Just curious. Thanks.

And you are welcome Nunya. I appreciate that (and if I was repeating things already known...my bad).

Katy Rose said...

I'd like to clarify my comment, Nunya. First, I don't own property here, so that was not my concern.

As someone who strongly supports liberation for all oppressed peoples, my questions are really an attempt to analyze what we're up against here. (And by saying I'm a supporter, I'm not saying I have done very much at all - I don't think I'll ever be able to say I've done enough!)

I like to read about the history of previous generations' struggles, like those of the American Indian Movement, the Black Panthers and other black liberation formations, and others. So when I ask questions, it's only coming from my limited understanding of the intensity of their struggles.

In my mind, we can never under-estimate the power of the US to crush liberation movements. That doesn't mean that de-colonization movements can't win - because they have in the past. I will say that I'm skeptical about de-colonization movements winning on the basis of court decisions or UN declarations. I am skeptical about the power of the Apology Bill to materially change conditions, given the "trail of broken treaties" on the continent. Any court of law could see the injustice toward the Native Americans, but they haven't won their freedom that way yet, and they've been fighting for centuries.

At the same time, indigenous people in "Latin America" have recently made amazing progress in Chiapas, Bolivia, Ecuador and elsewhere, from under the boot-heel of US imperialism toward true freedom and self-determination. I'm very curious about what we can learn from their victories.

My comment about "America" was kind of unclear, I think. I understand how inappropriate it is for Hawai'i to be called part of "America," but that's not because it isn't contiguous to the continent. Native people on the continent got branded with "America" too, and I'm just remarking on the link to that struggle.

Anonymous said...

> It's funny seeing non-Hawaiians speaking so authoritatively and with such righteous indignation for Hawaiians. <

Indignation at the plundering of cultures isn't the property of any single ethnic group. It is felt by people from many backgrounds.

And there's nothing funny about it.

Anonymous said...

If given the choice between being a citizen of the United States or of the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation, what percentage of Native Hawaiians would choose the latter?

nunya said...

Is that a trick question?

Anonymous said...

Of course it's a trick question. It's the same spurious appeal to self-interest that politicians and the popular press (on both sides of the Atlantic!) used to convince the masses that the colonies were better off under the control of England.

nunya said...

If you are contending that the strive for sovereignty is a scam, you are sadly mistaken.

If the reinstatement of the sovereign nation of Hawaii is to right a wrong and an enactment of justice for Hawaiians, what does it matter what the perceived percentage of repats will be.

The question is inapplicable for many reasons.

Anonymous said...

....'And there's nothing funny about it.'.....mahalos for that!

Anonymous said...

"If the reinstatement of the sovereign nation of Hawaii is to right a wrong and an enactment of justice for Hawaiians, what does it matter what the perceived percentage of repats will be."

oohhhhh. i love that answer. it is a savage burn to the question of "should we vote on this." with the burn to the question being "no, it is not a popularity contest - it is just a matter of declaring right from wrong"

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to clarify my comment, Nunya. First, I don't own property here,"
But you do take up space and rescources. that could be utilized by the locals.

Anonymous said...

1) I hope the effective definition of “oppressed peoples” is not basically anybody who is not “doing well.” Some peoples don’t “do well” because of their habits. Conversely, some (not so common) habits of other groups of peoples are “good/healthy”….in some Asian societies, for example, they tend to have a high savings rate…a good habit. Moreover and relatedly, over the centuries, there have been fewer and fewer truly “oppressed” groups (a casual review of the last 100-200 years of world history clearly shows this trend).

2) For every “crush” of a “liberation movement” by the US (Guatemala in the 50’s is a good example) an example can be cited of the US directly assisting a large group of persons and/or “worthwhile movement” (such as, to stay in Central America for a moment, the US helping the Contras fight the Sandinistas...oh, and if anybody thinks the Sandinistas where a good, nice group of guys that helped poor people…well you might want to double check that). There are many examples of each of the above, and citing both is, in my view, the intellectual honest approach (so yes, the US was the group that came in and really put its foot down in Yugoslavia to stop what was going on in there after a few years of watching the Europeans do essentially nothing directly effective to stop it...and yes, the consistently violent suppressions of Suharto were never openly punished – the US kept doing business with that fellow).

3) If we are talking about ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty efforts, in my view it is misleading to cite any UN actions, rules, etc as well as any “international law” or treaty unless it has been signed by the President and passed by Congress as having a strong potential of being of real assistance to pro- sovereignty persons. US laws...US legislatures...US courts...these are the places that are worthy of focus and efforts. And of course part of the “bad news” is that the US court system, for example – and despite the “right” and “correct” laws often being “on the books” – has been historically “bad” at correctly acknowledging and rectify certain “wrongs.” Let be provide a painfully good example: Rape. Want to see something scary? Look at the rulings regarding rape in, say, 1900. If a judge were to say and do that today they would be immediately run out of town. Could a Native American group – despite having a valid agreement...ie “a good case” – be bullish on success in a US court in the 1900? Not encouraging odds for sure. Thankfully (and it is difficult to pin-point when this started happening) that same Tribe would have very good odds today...not as good odds as the should have (most likely), but nothing to be ashamed about (I have in mind not too long ago when oil was found on Indian reservations the Feds would just bump those people off the land...these days, those tribes have – thankfully – found Federal Judges who correctly stop such efforts).

4) I am curious as to the US tie-ins to problems in “Chiapas, Bolivia, Ecuador.” Is anybody claiming the Mexican government is not responsible – on a vast and overwhelming scale – for the oppression in Chiapas? Do not the upper classes and multinational and South American-based companies bare far, far, far more responsibility for the sad state of affairs in Bolivia than, say, the US? The scale, scope, and ramifications of the US being “buddy-buddy” with several right-wing regimes in Latin America were what they were, and why they were...just like the scale, scope, and ramifications of the US, for example, sending to Latin America money, expertise, and materials (ie, building roads, schools, clean water, etc) was what it was. In South America, “oppression” or death/murder has come from leftist "for the people" groups like the Shinning Path and FARC, as well as portions of almost all of those governments at one time or another.

Joan said...

Anon. wrote: "for every “crush” of a “liberation movement” by the US (Guatemala in the 50’s is a good example) an example can be cited of the US directly assisting a large group of persons and/or “worthwhile movement” (such as, to stay in Central America for a moment, the US helping the Contras fight the Sandinistas.."

Let me get this straight. So the way to support people who are supposedly oppressed by their democratically elected government is to send in death squads funded by the sale of crack cocaine to oppressed people in the US?

As for your #3, you apparently don't seem to realize that the Apology Bill, Public Law 103-150, which gave new life to the independence movement, especially the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation, was passed by the U.S Congress and signed by President Clinton. How much more official does it have to get?

Anonymous said...

> If you are contending that the strive for sovereignty is a scam, you are sadly mistaken. <

Just the opposite: I'm pointing out that the arguments heard today against Hawaiian sovereignty are virtually the same ones used in the 18th century by England (and by many American colonists) against American sovereignty.

"Let's ask the Native [insert ethnic group name here] what they want" is a trick question that is centuries old. It really means "Let's ask them what they want after we've pounded it into their brains for generations that they can't take care of themselves without us -- and if they still say they want sovereignty, we'll just pound harder!"

America is only the latest in a long line of cultural imperialists to deny the paternalistic racism that is at the root of its rigid anti-sovereignty toward the native cultures it has conquered -- and from which it profits.

Anonymous said...

"oohhhhh. i love that answer. it is a savage burn to the question of "should we vote on this." with the burn to the question being "no, it is not a popularity contest - it is just a matter of declaring right from wrong"

From whose perspective? Who speaks on behalf of Native Hawaiians? Nunya? Joan? You? If it is a question of self determination, shouldn't the Hawaiians be the ones making the decision?

Anonymous said...

Really. I don't recall holding a vote on whether the Berlin Wall should be torn down.

Anonymous said...

"Let's ask the Native [insert ethnic group name here] what they want" is a trick question that is centuries old. It really means "Let's ask them what they want after we've pounded it into their brains for generations that they can't take care of themselves without us -- and if they still say they want sovereignty, we'll just pound harder!"

Instead, we'll let you tell the unenlightened what's in their best interest.

nunya said...

Joan, you are astute in your response.

I was starting to get the overwhelming feeling by reading (anon.November 8, 2008 1:42 PM) that there was some pleading: ʻweʻre not as bad as everyone else and allow us a few ʻtakesʻ for all the ʻgoodʻ we have counteracted with...regardless of whether they wanted our help.

U.S. doesnʻt go on humanitarian missions unless the headlines are scripted as such and especially if they arenʻt getting something in return.

The rape analogy: bad one. For the Hawaiians, we are talking rape of their women, children, language, resources, culture, necessities of life, right to self determination, , , Better stop, I think Iʻll run out of space.

Lastly, Americans seem to believe that the law begins and ends with them. Whatʻs so above the fray about the reinstatement process...it is not race based, it does not answer to the U.S. as an ultimate ʻdeciderʻ of what they may and may not proceed with; although it does appear they always make every to work with the U.S. even though the U.S. usually seems to disregard their efforts.

Anonymous said...

> If it is a question of self determination, shouldn't the Hawaiians be the ones making the decision? <

Trick Question #44 on the Colonial Top 100.

The answer is they should be allowed to decide whatever they want to decide, in whatever manner they wish.

The reality is that the political progeny of the businessmen who engineered the takeover have made sure that a toxic tangle of laws, woven over decades, prevents any meaningful "vote by Hawaiians" from happening.

From the 19th century to this day, Congresses and State Legislatures have used specious data on What The Natives Themselves Want to justify their pre-ordained profiteering from Native lands, while weaving an arcane web of regulations to protect the status quo.


> Instead, we'll let you tell the unenlightened what's in their best interest. <

Trick Diversion #12 on the Colonial Top 100.

The answer is, we're not telling the Hawaiians what's in their best interest, you are. We're raising hell with our fellow American politicians and businessmen whose greed perpetuates the colonialism that started this crap in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"The answer is, we're not telling the Hawaiians what's in their best interest, you are. We're raising hell with our fellow American politicians and businessmen whose greed perpetuates the colonialism that started this crap in the first place."

I've never told my Hawaiian friends what to think or what to do, as they are perfectly capable of thinking and acting on their own. I would imagine that if they disagreed with you, it would be because they suffer from having a "colonized mentality". By the way, I haven't notice any "hell" being raised by non-Hawaiians on behalf of Hawaiian sovereignty. Must be an underground movement.

Anonymous said...

"From the 19th century to this day, Congresses and State Legislatures have used specious data on What The Natives Themselves Want to justify their pre-ordained profiteering from Native lands, while weaving an arcane web of regulations to protect the status quo."

Please give me an example of "specious data" regarding the goals of Native Hawaiians.

nunya said...

Thatʻs right, the constitution must acknowledge the Native Hawaiian customary rights..BUT..after every section thereʻs a stopper: unless deemed otherwise by this legislature.

Great thing about the reinstatment process, and they really are to be commended for the impossiblities they have so far overcome,
they are deciding whatʻs best for them, they are aware of the indoctrination obstacles and they are truly self determined. Pretty amazing also considering they donʻt take a dime from county, state, federal or grants.

Anonymous said...

“So the way to support people who are supposedly oppressed by their democratically elected government is to send in death squads funded by the sale of crack cocaine to oppressed people in the US?”

Is that comment for real? I have only met one (1) other person on Kauai that stepped foot in 1970s/1980s Nicaragua, let alone also ever met either a true-blue street-level Sandinista or Contra. If you are the 2nd such person...”hi.” Considering the “crack cocaine” comment (and I will assume that was more of an “emotional” comment, as opposed to an attempt at historical fact) I guess I should be grateful nobody tried to cite me as saying “Somoza was a great guy” (as I am loath to note he never placed guns in the hands of any kids...much like I am loath to note a pretty good health care system for the poor in Chile was put together when Pinochet was around…”health care for all…but some of you I might shoot in the head”).

As for the Apology Bill...credit is due to the Supreme Court in Hawaii for trying to give that Bill more teeth than it has. I am tempted to call the Apology Bill “gutless.” Why? The 3rd tenant of the Bill disavows all liability (like a disclaimer). And to the extent to it gave or does still give new life to a group of people and/or a worthwhile social movement? Great. Fantastic. I am glad.

Ps – Internal Contra financing operations, “the US ‘helping’ the Contras 101,” bases in northern Costa Rica (yes I lived there as well), a DEA guy bumping into a CIA guy as he gets out of a known drug plane...all old news thanks (and welcome to the complexities and difficulties and shades of gray to it…as you are already aware of the stupid missteps, US inter-agency fighting and diametrically opposed priorities and policies). New(er) scenario: For many reasons you want to eliminate a group of armed people in a given valley who are “very bad guys”….you need to do this ASAP...the only 3rd party that can help you do this such that you have a decent chance of success is also a 3rd party that is heavily involved in the drug trade….what do you do? Long term partnership with that 3rd party? Work with them some on this one thing for a little while? Look around for another 3rd party? Tough but real questions. Did the US drop the ball in Afghanistan by not helping it after the Russians left? Boy is that an understatement.

PPS – The US worked with the Chinese/Hong Kong mafia to smuggle some dissidents out of China after Tiananmen? I hope that was ok with everybody.

nunya said...

You know, your views, whether they come from experience or reading too many fiction books, I donʻt know and donʻt care.

Why? Because for all your justifications, in most part could be from guilt over having done ʻthingsʻ to people like Hawaiians, for instance, or even inner city kids (as Joan correctly referenced) as victimized by-products of the U.S. policies and filthy people like the bush family, the U.S. HAS NO (0) zip credibility. One wrong to cover another wrong and over and over.
So whatever you say, your rationales are all fruit of the poisoned tree.
And gee I really was impressed with the Sandinistas as I struggled to decipher U.S. spin or truth.

Anonymous said...

Wow. “Basic historical facts” need not apply huh? Nice. And if that genuinely seemed like “science fiction”...well then that impression tells me much.

Just out of curiosity: The murder rate in the major slums in Brazil, the troubles of the Tamil Tigers, fighting in Sudan...is all of that on the shoulders of the US?

And was that post a retort? Boy I hope not. If it was...here, let me do it for you:

“Most US foreign policy directed towards Latin America, including the billions in humanitarian assistance via A.I.D., was motivated by and calibrated to “combat” a sometimes real and sometimes only perceived “threat” from the former Soviet Union – that US “assistance” was not simply and only a series of random and benevolent acts. After the collapse of the USSR, such funding and projects decreased.”

The above paragraph is true, and at the same time there is a truthful response to it which supports the contention that “the US” still does a lot of good work in Latin America.

nunya said...

"
“Most US foreign policy directed towards Latin America, including the billions in humanitarian assistance via A.I.D., was motivated by and calibrated to “combat” a sometimes real and sometimes only perceived “threat” from the former Soviet Union – that US “assistance” was not simply and only a series of random and benevolent acts. After the collapse of the USSR, such funding and projects decreased.”

Yea, thatʻs my point. You said it. The U.S. doesnʻt do anything unless thereʻs the payoff. And of course the people in the field probably have to, in many instances, ʻfix the policyʻ to stay. They get so caught up in assignments they perpetuate them at the risk of international catastrophes.

By the way, got any thoughts on Venezuela and why the U.S. keeps trying to mess with Chavez?

Joan said...

Anon., just because you lived in Central/South America doesn't mean you had an accurate grasp of what was going on with the region's political, guerilla and social movements. I'm assuming you live here, yet you don't seem to know much about the Hawaiian independence movement.

You do seem to recognize America's real attempts to destabilize and influence the region — not for the good of the people there, but for its own self-interest. Yet for some reason that doesn't bother you.

Yes, historical facts should apply, so on what "facts" are you basing your dismissal of the drug-contra link?

As for getting in bed with the mafia and drug runners, where does morality come in? What about the hypocrisy of that approach when we're supposedly waging a "war on drugs?" Where does that "ends justify the means" approach take a nation, except into moral bankruptcy?

Anonymous said...

Actually no, it was not “your point”...it was “my point” (or my helping you make a point...or my giving some basis as to what you might have been possibly thinking...or my charitably providing you with “a/the retort” which seemed to be missing from your post).

Now, the next “truthful” response is that increasingly in the years prior to, and after, the USSR went by-bye...many portions of Latin America no longer needed as much US AID as was being received during the Cold War 0or such was the view at least). By 1990, for example, places like Brazil, Costa Rica, and Argentina were making significant progress on their own...and, thankfully and understandably, many other countries started to give more aid to Latin America (like the re-built Germany, and much more recently, China). Anyways, “just fighting Russians” logic does not completely carry the day...NGO activity, percentage of GNP/GDP given as foreign aid, and genuine goodwill and humanitarian efforts (and more things I would imagine) factor into it. The US still does nice things there.

Did the US (finally via Sen. Lugar, among many others) pressure the South African white guys to stop/ease up/change the very truly classic oppression of the Black population there? Yes. Was that US pressure very late in coming? Yes. Did the US know it had a heck of a lot of influence on this? Yes. Was this in the best economic interests of the US...was there really a “payoff” to it? No. Should the US get some degree of credit for this (as well as scolding for being overdue)? Yes. Did the US do more for Blacks in S.A. relative to the ANC or Madela? Heck no...those fellows did the hard struggle, not the US.

I’ll stick with another Africa example – recent increased US funding of fighting the AIDS problem there. This one is more grey. Other than humanitarian dividends...does the US get much out of this? No. Did Bush put that funding forward for humanitarian reasons? Who knows...I suspect some, sure, but it also smells like political grandstanding. Were other countries way ahead of the US in helping Africans with AIDs? Yep.

I will admit I hesitate to give examples that (at a minimum) cause another person to pause in their “assertions” because often you get a “well that is just one example/exception to my belief/impression/interpretation/world view...it still stands” response. Ok so then what? More examples? 5? 25? How many examples need be given? I am not interested in playing that game.

Chavez? He is like a President Peru used to have...he really liked (likes) being President, and he is a “home grown” guy. Plenty of middle class people left there prior to his arrival, and he has certainly given many more cause to leave. Do I feel bad for Exxon? Yes and no. It sucks to have assets nationalized or get a threat like that (please see also Peru) and it sends out bad signals...on the other hand, Exxon, BP, etc...those are big boys, I am not worried about them (they are not the underdog in that one...in Russia yes, in Ven. they are not). Is Chavez a renegade? Yes? Does most of the world not like him? Yes. Does he give oil money to the poor? Yes (see "re-election). Does he suppress “human rights” there? Yes. Would the US/Bush have you believe he lines people up and kills them? Yes. Does Chavez do that? No. Has the US been friends with guys, in Africa (again, for example), who line up people and shoot them? Yes. Did the US make a half-assed attempt to help overthrow him? Yes. Would Ven. be better off with another President? Yes (many of those L.A. Presidents are pretty respectable). Do I hope Chaves is using more oil money (more than I and others realize; and I don’t pretend to follow this much) to do basic reinvestment in that country so it has a better future? I sure hope so.

nunya said...

For a long time I have noticed a pattern with U.S. policy; whenever a leader is popular, tries to better the citizens or internalizes resources and assets...the U.S. paints the smear. Whenever we hear about treacherous regimes, old or rising up, brutal dictatorships, we discover the long time affiliation and propping up tactics by the U.S.

The pattern is almost a gauge. And now, whenever I hear the U.S. slant on a countryʻs leadership, I can know in my heart, it is the opposite.
They sure trashed Mugabe because he returned his people to THEIR lands and kicked the occupiers out.

So whatever you say, or any U.S. propaganda says about Chavez, I have only seen eye opening deeds of good public policy from him. And what a courageous man, the only one that called Bush out for the lowly coward that he is.

All the lies that surrounded Saddam too. Unbelievable. He never gassed his own people (citizens) he executed traitors. What do they do in the U.S. for other than treason? The maximum penalties. What do they do for treason in U.S. - promote the bastard.

Anonymous said...

Anon., just because you lived in Central/South America doesn't mean you had an accurate grasp of what was going on with the region's political, guerilla and social movements [granted, as I hope was/is obvious, I am not claiming perfection on all things L.A...but sorry, my understanding of that region – as to some things – is pretty darn good; sorry if it conflicts with your view/understanding/recollection/eye-witness accounts...and my compliments on the link, it was nice to see that effort]. I'm assuming you live here, yet you don't seem to know much about the Hawaiian independence movement [yes I do not know a “ton” about it...but I have gleamed a thing or two...though if you are seeing misconceptions or like items on my part as to that movement, please point it/them out so I can better consider it/them, thanks]

You do seem to recognize America's real attempts to destabilize and influence the region — not for the good of the people there, but for its own self-interest. Yet for some reason that doesn't bother you. [I think I would be able to laundry list what you are referring to better than…well, I’ll just say “most” – as well as provide a valuable “context.” Yes, that is a vague response on my part. Some want or can to only see the "good," and some just the "bad"...I think it is better to see both, and I am grateful that on some things I can...or at least I'm starting too.]

Yes, historical facts should apply, so on what "facts" are you basing your dismissal of the drug-contra link? [I would no sooner try to claim with a straight face Contras never smuggled cash paying drugs than I would suggest it never occurred to the British to drug-up the Chinese with Opium. What I am saying is that the circumstances, choices, big picture, motivations, etc etc etc are not accurately encapsulated in “CIA gives out crack in Los Angeles to control bla bla bla”....which is a school of thought that is out there. That said, can a valid argument be made that the US should not have helped the Contras at all? Sure (tho it has not been made here, and nor do I, at this point, want to debate Ortega's merits...the "big picture" interests me more). So...I am dismissing the simplicity of it...and I am dismissing that idea the US is – and we’ll keep it in L.A. – doing nothing more than, and/or just largely, simply “screwing” with L.A.]

As for getting in bed with the mafia and drug runners, where does morality come in? What about the hypocrisy of that approach when we're supposedly waging a "war on drugs?" Where does that "ends justify the means" approach take a nation, except into moral bankruptcy? [Yes, the world is complex...and yes I have no problem with asking for mafia help to stop NY harbor sabotage during WWII or help retaking Sicily...and yes I hope US agents are willing to work with whoever they need to - including a drug smugglers - in pursuit of plutonium or a high level terrorist operative. Oh and I just thought of a Hawaii/Kauai specific "moral bankruptcy" topic...so many steps are taken to avoid, and many concerns are expressed as to, "drugs"...yet the attitude towards cannabis use is quite lax...is there any conflict there? See a bit of a paradox? I am not claiming this is a great example, it is not, and of course cannabis is a far cry from methamphetamine...still...ah, anyways - thoughts welcome. thanks]

Anonymous said...

For a long time I have noticed a pattern with U.S. policy; whenever a leader is popular, tries to better the citizens or internalizes resources and assets...the U.S. paints the smear. [[too simplistic...too general...many, many exceptions]] Whenever we hear about treacherous regimes, old or rising up, brutal dictatorships, we discover the long time affiliation and propping up tactics by the U.S. [[id]]

The pattern is almost a gauge. And now, whenever I hear the U.S. slant on a country’s leadership, I can know in my heart, it is the opposite.
They sure trashed Mugabe because he returned his people to THEIR lands and kicked the occupiers out. [[...you have got to be kidding...want a class act? See Mandela. Want to see a guy who has been acting like a thug lately? See Mugabe]]

So whatever you say, or any U.S. propaganda says about Chavez, I have only seen eye opening deeds of good public policy from him. And what a courageous man, the only one that called Bush out for the lowly coward that he is. [[just a random item here...not really on point as my head is still spinning from the Mugabe comment – but did you like the part where Chavez shut down all those TV and radio stations that had a thing or two to say that was not in lockstep with his program?]]

All the lies that surrounded Saddam too. Unbelievable. He never gassed his own people (citizens) he executed traitors. What do they do in the U.S. for other than treason? The maximum penalties. What do they do for treason in U.S. - promote the bastard. [[are you fing kidding? That guy mowed down Kurds like it was going out of style. Only now do I understand these other comments you make. Wow. And by the way, not that mine are any work of art...but give “sentence structure” another shot...something – it was getting hard to follow that towards the end there. Thanks. ]]

nunya said...

Yea youʻre right - itʻs getting a little choppy. Vague and general too, in case you havenʻt been reading what you write. Be nice, sentence structure isnʻt something you should be calling me on.

You see I donʻt claim to be the armchair politico expert as you do talking to minions, you missed my point: what I believe has been formulated from the relentless lies of the U.S.

"but did you like the part where Chavez shut down all those TV and radio stations that had a thing or two to say that was not in lockstep with his program?]]"

Oh as a matter of fact, I liked it very much. Since you decided to be very ʻgeneralʻ on this also...he shut down U.S. corporations infiltrating the airwaves. Probably setting up for another coup.

You go, Chavez! Donʻt get me started on Fidel. Americanos, got their nasty fingers in everybody elseʻs business.

If Americans didnʻt try to homogenize everybody elseʻs country into the likeness of Burger King and McDonalds sprawl zones so their mediocre populace could take ʻsafeʻ unfettered vacations - we might not be having these world conflicts.

When I travel to a foreign country I like to enjoy the diversity. Itʻs to GET AWAY from America.

Anonymous said...

Yea youʻre right - itʻs getting a little choppy. Vague and general too, in case you havenʻt been reading what you write. Be nice, sentence structure isnʻt something you should be calling me on.

-- You are granted the traits of “nerve” and “wishful thinking” (by the way – what educational system claims you...and feel free to be as vague as you wish, truly). And sorry about all of my numerous "vauge and general" specific and on-point examples...

You see I donʻt claim to be the armchair politico expert as you do talking to minions, you missed my point: what I believe has been formulated from the relentless lies of the U.S.

-- Sadly, but as is now a pattern, you mistake casual observations and widely known material as something “expert”...and it is far from that. What you seem to believe...heck if I know, but we have seen some “gems” for sure.

Oh as a matter of fact, I liked it very much. Since you decided to be very ʻgeneralʻ on this also...he shut down U.S. corporations infiltrating the airwaves. Probably setting up for another coup.

-- I apologize for assuming you know more than you do.

You go, Chavez! Donʻt get me started on Fidel. Americanos, got their nasty fingers in everybody elseʻs business.

-- Your understanding of the world was indicated earlier.

If Americans didnʻt try to homogenize everybody elseʻs country into the likeness of Burger King and McDonalds sprawl zones so their mediocre populace could take ʻsafeʻ unfettered vacations - we might not be having these world conflicts.

-- It is little more than moderately interesting (to me anyways), but feel free to list the “conflict” zones over the last 20 years and cross reference them with where McD’s can be found. This information, such reports, can be found online. If your point was (but it does not seem to be) that many Americans end up visiting McD’s while abroad...then yes, and others have noticed this as well.

When I travel to a foreign country I like to enjoy the diversity. Itʻs to GET AWAY from America.

-- Please visit FARC and/or Mugabe.

-- Do my responses seem curt or harsh? They are pretty close to it. And they were also a reflection of the quality of your commentary. But if you are by chance under 16 (or 18), then I apologize and sincerely compliment your being aware of some of the names mentioned and having an interest in the issues noted.

Katy Rose said...

Chavez - and I am not uncritical of him, or any leader for that matter - was elected overwhelmingly by Venezuelans three times.

The elections have been deemed fair and democratic by international observers.

I think the Venezuelans have indicated their preference.

US policy in Latin America has always been driven by corporate interest. It benefits capitalist accumulation in the US to keep wages low in Latin America and to keep resources flowing cheaply to the north.

Neo-colonialism, whereby wealthy elites in Latin America act in concert with US interests to supress wages and workers' rights,privatize natural resouces so that they benefit the big market players rather than the population, and enforce the concentration of land into the hands of the very few, is a terribly old story line in Latin America and across the global South. (See Galleano,"The Open Veins of Latin America.")

Again and again, with astounding persistence, the poor of Latin America (and elsewhere) have fought to assert their rights to land, food, shelter, medicine and control of their own resources. Again and again, with grim predictability, the US has poured in resources, troops, arms and deadly schemes to re-assert, or maintain, the neo-colonial order. (By the way, the claim that health care access improved under Pinochet in Chile is absurd. Perhaps the commenter meant it had improved under Allende, who was assasinated in the US-backed coup which installed Pinochet and ushered in a reign of terror and Chicago-school neoliberal privatization which decimated the social safety net of the general Chilean population and further concentrated the wealth into the hands of the very few.)

These days, the ideology of the neo-colonial order is generally known as "neoliberalism." The people of Latin America have shown their rejection of this ideology consistently over the past decade in a string of overwhelming electoral victories for a different model known as Latin American "developmentalism." (See Klein, "The Shock Doctrine.")

Latin America is a region of great natural resouce wealth. I see no problem whatsoever in the people of Latin America choosing to use that wealth to care for the needs of the average person there, rather than for the global elite.

Anonymous said...

Chavez - and I am not uncritical of him, or any leader for that matter - was elected overwhelmingly by Venezuelans three times.

-- Yes and it was good to see him acknowledge the couple of electoral/constitutional amendment defeats.

The elections have been deemed fair and democratic by international observers.

-- Kinda, sorta, like Nicaragua in '84

I think the Venezuelans have indicated their preference.

-- I hope you are not suggesting the political climate is “free” there...it is about as “free” as Singapore..

US policy in Latin America has always been driven by corporate interest. It benefits capitalist accumulation in the US to keep wages low in Latin America and to keep resources flowing cheaply to the north.

-- [Certain aspects of] US policy [and/or or actions] in Latin America [have] been [influenced] by [US] corporate interests [and direct lobbying]. Over the course of several decades in a few key L.A. countries in particular, and largely ending in the 1970’s via US congressional acts, the CIA blab la bla (in short – see Dulles, Pinochet, Dole...it is a heck of a list). Conversely, save for a few key examples, such as the Panama Canal, US policy generally towards L.A. did not begin to materially benefit the region until after WWII. The bulk of the region could be described as “still developing,” and is assisted by various international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Neo-colonialism, whereby wealthy elites in Latin America act in concert with US interests to supress wages and workers' rights,privatize natural resouces so that they benefit the big market players rather than the population, and enforce the concentration of land into the hands of the very few, is a terribly old story line in Latin America and across the global South. (See Galleano,"The Open Veins of Latin America.")

-- You might consider reviewing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...and the extent to which it is enforced….and similar rules in other countries, and the extent to which those countries enforce such a rule. This review, if complete, will not jive really well the “US is bad” view, but will help in part the reviewer better frame some of what you describe.

Again and again, with astounding persistence, the poor of Latin America (and elsewhere) have fought to assert their rights to land, food, shelter, medicine and control of their own resources. Again and again, with grim predictability, the US has poured in resources, troops, arms and deadly schemes to re-assert, or maintain, the neo-colonial order. (By the way, the claim that health care access improved under Pinochet in Chile is absurd. Perhaps the commenter meant it had improved under Allende, who was assasinated in the US-backed coup which installed Pinochet and ushered in a reign of terror and Chicago-school neoliberal privatization which decimated the social safety net of the general Chilean population and further concentrated the wealth into the hands of the very few.)

-- Clearly you see the US as a net (or completely) “Bad Global Actor”…a contention which I suggest does simply not hold up to objective scrutiny.

-- I notice some people REFUSE, for example, to note and/or give credit to, the high literacy rate (just to pick a program/stat) in Cuba under Castro...I always thought was weird, as well as a sign of a combination of intellectual dishonesty and/or people having a simplistic or painfully incomplete understanding of Cuba. Please note – this is not a criticism of a given person just not being “aware” of certain facts (in this case literacy in modern Cuba)...it is a criticism of an unwillingness to acknowledge when presented evidence. Buy hey…people are people...they can get emotional...they have agendas...many tend to want to see things as orderly and black and white...so such “unwillingness” (“unreasonableness,” in my view) is to be expected to an extent. Noting that some good, innovative and effective health-care programs were adopted in Chile when Pinochet was there often generates a very similar response…and some people don’t want to hear that, let alone acknowledge it (as if to do so is tantamount to OKing everything else Pinochet, rather than wonder who the internal policy people were who oversaw such programs and/or how they were organized to perhaps gleam something for modern application and/or consideration). As a side note – your chances were much better of showing that the Sandinistas were able to do some good things (and had a net positive impact)...and that the Contras were not worth “helping” (to I would have responded... ~ “ a large portion of the Contra leadership originated within the initial Sandinista movement that took power...but Ortega started to get ‘Castro power hungry’ and they left...and that large subset of the Contra movement was worth supporting).

-- The “pace” for many countries is going to be different...small El Salvador can not really well follow all of the steps taken by resource rich Peru...Nicaragua is a ways away from being able to follow the “tech” investments strategy of Costa Rica. I believe this is obvious to the casual observer.

-- The above [“rejection” paragraph] strikes me as overstating changes and policies made in L.A. over the past 10 years (and if I were a better typist...I’d describe why, country by county...as well as readily note the examples which support what seems to be your contention).

-- Good. And you will be happy to learn that the lion’s share of the world’s proven lithium reserves, such as are needed for li-ion car batteries, lay under Bolivia, Chile and Argentina.

PS - "Why I write" A review of nunya's comments were, unless written by a juvenile, showing examples of an understanding of the world that is arguably as disheartening as a US high school senior not able to find Canada on a map. Yes, nunya is a rather extreme example. But I picture a person a couple of levels up from that, yet in some ways similar. And I wonder "where do the inaccuracy come from...why the warped views?" Poisoning the minds of people with some of the "information/views" posted on this page is just as bad, just as harmful, as the "information/views" put forward by what I suspect are your ideological opponents, such as: 1) ... ~ "protestant work ethic" bla bla bla "and that explains everything about countries A,B,C" 2) Obama is a socialist 3) "trickle down economics is theoretically sound" 4) "the bell curve is largely true/accurate" 5) "too many international food programs support co-ops (aka communisim)

...not the nest examples, but you kinda get my drift. some of what i see here is about as helping as smoking in front of kids, sorry.

also and lastly,if one wanted to also better understand a large part of why L.A. (as it has been discussed a lot) tends to be corrupt...lots of payola...bribery...it was/is the basic MO...and to be expected...etc....well there are a number of dynamics of course as to why this is, and one of the more interesting ones is the historical legacy of how the Spanish (in Spain) administered their colonies.

Anonymous said...

Trick Diversion #13 on the Colonial Top 100:

Set up numerous sovereignty groups in order to divide the movement.

Anonymous said...

"Trick Diversion #13 on the Colonial Top 100:

Set up numerous sovereignty groups in order to divide the movement."


Apologies for nitpicking, but that's #14.

#13 is to scare sovereignty groups into believing their national security would be in danger without the military might of their colonial masters to protect them.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, but not surprised, that the responses seem to have ended. The time taken to so respond is appreciated. It allowed for a number of recollections to be refreshed. So thank you, and I hope I was able to pass along some information that is of value to you.

Anonymous said...

"Set up numerous sovereignty groups in order to divide the movement."

Nobody set them up. They formed themselves. So the question remains, why the Reinstated Hawaiian Nation, which isn't after all anything of the sort. Nice try ducking the question btw, but your typical left with undergrad speak doesn't cut it as real arguments.

nunya said...

Anon.November 11, 2008 8:14 AM

Sorry couldnʻt understand a damn thing you just said.
Do you have any thoughts that are not broken, that you would like to share with everyone?

Anonymous said...

Kaua'i needs to vote on cannabis initiatives to stop wasting millions of dollars on invasive Green Harvest helicopters and to uphold the medical marijuana laws in this State.
Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. The historical deaths from cannabis are ZERO.
I refuse to accept a drug scheduling policy created by President Nixon that says cocaine and meth are less dangerous than cannabis and have no medicinal value.
What then, is Marinol? Marinol is synthetic T.H.C. that has been approved by the F.D.A.
Cannabis prohibition is a lie and it is the War on Citizens. Read "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer.