WWTBAM Bored

Thursday, May 1, 2008

According to reports, a group of Hawaiian natives, referring to themselves as the "Hawaiian Kingdom Government" under leader Mahealani Kahau, entered the historic 'Iolani Palace Wednesday to allegedly restore the former self-governing nation, overthrown over a century ago.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Native_Hawa ... _nation%22

SwampyTurtles must have been busy.

I will have to ask for insider info.

Oh, and May Day is celebrated in Hawaii with a festival and when I was in high school we had a king and queen and a MayDay court.

It was fun.

They should be arrested for Treason.

I'm not kidding.

I love it. More minority groups should rebel. The Kurds, for instance, should be given their own area in northern Iraq and left alone.

It is one thing to participate in a social contract if you have the opportunity to choose it, but being born into a system means you often have no choice. The folks in this story are asserting their right to choose. Their ancestors were assimilated because of where they lived, and because their property was valuable to the U.S. as a military presence.

I love this.

Ritterskoop wrote: It is one thing to participate in a social contract if you have the opportunity to choose it, but being born into a system means you often have no choice. The folks in this story are asserting their right to choose. Their ancestors were assimilated because of where they lived, and because their property was valuable to the U.S. as a military presence.

I love this.

I'm trying to follow your logic. Are you advocating the re-secession of North Carolina from the Union? I was hoping that conflict had been resolved.

Ritterskoop wrote:I love it. More minority groups should rebel. The Kurds, for instance, should be given their own area in northern Iraq and left alone.

It is one thing to participate in a social contract if you have the opportunity to choose it, but being born into a system means you often have no choice. The folks in this story are asserting their right to choose. Their ancestors were assimilated because of where they lived, and because their property was valuable to the U.S. as a military presence.

I love this.

Skoop, I don't think you've thought this through. If you give Kurdish and Hawaiian rebels the right to take back what was once theirs, you give Native Americans in my state the right to take my property (and my life, because they'd have to.) Then they might head back east to Tennessee and South Carolina, two of the many states from which their ancestors were relocated. Perhaps they'll knock at your door. This sort of thing could extend to all of the United States and Canada -- and then all over the world -- because only a relatively small number of us live in the place to which our ancestors were indigenous.

History cannot be undone. If it could, there's no evidence that the majority of people affected would be better off than they are today.

This is sort of on the same subject. I read that a teacher from Cal State Fullerton was fired because she refused to sign a loyalty oath. She tried to add a statement to the oath indicating that she would non-violently defend the Constitution, because she is a Quaker, but she was told that she couldn't. She had to sign the oath, as is, or get fired.

Here's the oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0956.story

I'm not saying everyone should get back what their ancestors had. That's not practical.

I'm saying it is a good thing to draw attention to stuff that involves unbalanced power relationships.

I don't mean all rebellions should proceed. I mean they should be started, if they draw attention to something wrong. I do not include the Southern secession in that group, because the thing they wanted was immoral.

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm not saying everyone should get back what their ancestors had. That's not practical.

I'm saying it is a good thing to draw attention to stuff that involves unbalanced power relationships.

I don't mean all rebellions should proceed. I mean they should be started, if they draw attention to something wrong. I do not include the Southern secession in that group, because the thing they wanted was immoral.

I"m going to assume that you mean that the secessionary states were only interested in being able to own slaves. I agree with you that that is immoral.

I do not agree that that was the only issue, or really even the primary one, in the secession of South Carolina. But I've tried to have this discussion before, with others, and it's about as productive as trying to convince BiT that evolution is valid.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm not saying everyone should get back what their ancestors had. That's not practical.

I'm saying it is a good thing to draw attention to stuff that involves unbalanced power relationships.

I don't mean all rebellions should proceed. I mean they should be started, if they draw attention to something wrong. I do not include the Southern secession in that group, because the thing they wanted was immoral.

I"m going to assume that you mean that the secessionary states were only interested in being able to own slaves. I agree with you that that is immoral.

I do not agree that that was the only issue, or really even the primary one, in the secession of South Carolina. But I've tried to have this discussion before, with others, and it's about as productive as trying to convince BiT that evolution is valid.

Yeah, what you said. I know it was more than slavery.

I heard a cool clip by a gadfly named Tim Wise in class the other day, where he says, "Yes, it was about states' rights. It was about their rights to own slaves."

It is complicated. But I am pretty sure if the slavery issue did not exist, secession was unlikely.

My original point was that some rebellions are necessary, or the injustices will keep happening. I don't intend they culminate in bloodshed. I mean more like nonviolent demonstrations, which is what I thought the Hawi'ian group was doing.

I love the line from 1776, when Ben Franklin says "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person - 'their rebellion' - that it becomes illegal."

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:This is sort of on the same subject. I read that a teacher from Cal State Fullerton was fired because she refused to sign a loyalty oath. She tried to add a statement to the oath indicating that she would non-violently defend the Constitution, because she is a Quaker, but she was told that she couldn't. She had to sign the oath, as is, or get fired.

Here's the oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0956.story

The same thing happened to a state employee in the Bay Area.

It seems they were peacefully claiming to be the rulers of the Hawaiian Nation.

It doesn't sound like they wanted to take possession of the entire island chain.

They left peacefully with no arrests.

The ancient Hawaiians were considerably more viscous.

christie1111 wrote:
The ancient Hawaiians were considerably more viscous.

I know what you mean (vicious), and I know we have had a lot of spelling corrections around here lately. Maybe too many. But I have enjoyed this. Thanks.

Ritterskoop wrote:

christie1111 wrote:
The ancient Hawaiians were considerably more viscous.

I know what you mean (vicious), and I know we have had a lot of spelling corrections around here lately. Maybe too many. But I have enjoyed this. Thanks.

I am pretty sure it was a typo.

But that was funny!

christie1111 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:

christie1111 wrote:
The ancient Hawaiians were considerably more viscous.

I know what you mean (vicious), and I know we have had a lot of spelling corrections around here lately. Maybe too many. But I have enjoyed this. Thanks.

I am pretty sure it was a typo.

But that was funny!

I wanted to point it out with affection before anyone else got to it.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They should be arrested for Treason.

I'm not kidding.

You need to read the Constitution a little more carefully. "Treason against the United States, shall consist <I>only</I> in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 2 (emphasis added). I'm fairly confident that even this Supreme Court would not agree that peacefully barricading a tourist site for a few hours does not constitute "levying war" against the United States. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They should be arrested for Treason.

I'm not kidding.

You need to read the Constitution a little more carefully. "Treason against the United States, shall consist <I>only</I> in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 2 (emphasis added). I'm fairly confident that even this Supreme Court would not agree that peacefully barricading a tourist site for a few hours does not constitute "levying war" against the United States. --Bob

Right, it's sedition, not treason.

Ritterskoop wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote: I know what you mean (vicious), and I know we have had a lot of spelling corrections around here lately. Maybe too many. But I have enjoyed this. Thanks.

I am pretty sure it was a typo.

But that was funny!

I wanted to point it out with affection before anyone else got to it.

Well, since some of the ancient Pacific Islanders (I don't know if the Fijians are Poleynesians) were known to sacrifice humans and essentially use the bodies as rollers to launch boats, maybe "viscous" is the right term. I just finished "Sea of Glory" by Nathanial Philquist and he mentioned the practice.

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:They should be arrested for Treason.

I'm not kidding.

You need to read the Constitution a little more carefully. "Treason against the United States, shall consist <I>only</I> in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 2 (emphasis added). I'm fairly confident that even this Supreme Court would not agree that peacefully barricading a tourist site for a few hours does not constitute "levying war" against the United States. --Bob

Right, it's sedition, not treason.

And 150 years after the Sedition Act, the United States Supreme Court finally got around to declaring laws against sedition unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment. --Bob

Ritterskoop wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm not saying everyone should get back what their ancestors had. That's not practical.

I'm saying it is a good thing to draw attention to stuff that involves unbalanced power relationships.

I don't mean all rebellions should proceed. I mean they should be started, if they draw attention to something wrong. I do not include the Southern secession in that group, because the thing they wanted was immoral.

I"m going to assume that you mean that the secessionary states were only interested in being able to own slaves. I agree with you that that is immoral.

I do not agree that that was the only issue, or really even the primary one, in the secession of South Carolina. But I've tried to have this discussion before, with others, and it's about as productive as trying to convince BiT that evolution is valid.

Yeah, what you said. I know it was more than slavery.

I heard a cool clip by a gadfly named Tim Wise in class the other day, where he says, "Yes, it was about states' rights. It was about their rights to own slaves."

It is complicated. But I am pretty sure if the slavery issue did not exist, secession was unlikely.

My original point was that some rebellions are necessary, or the injustices will keep happening. I don't intend they culminate in bloodshed. I mean more like nonviolent demonstrations, which is what I thought the Hawi'ian group was doing.

I love the line from 1776, when Ben Franklin says "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person - 'their rebellion' - that it becomes illegal."

You can read the secessionists own words and make up your mind.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina


IMO it was largely about slavery.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: I"m going to assume that you mean that the secessionary states were only interested in being able to own slaves. I agree with you that that is immoral.

I do not agree that that was the only issue, or really even the primary one, in the secession of South Carolina. But I've tried to have this discussion before, with others, and it's about as productive as trying to convince BiT that evolution is valid.

Yeah, what you said. I know it was more than slavery.

I heard a cool clip by a gadfly named Tim Wise in class the other day, where he says, "Yes, it was about states' rights. It was about their rights to own slaves."

It is complicated. But I am pretty sure if the slavery issue did not exist, secession was unlikely.

My original point was that some rebellions are necessary, or the injustices will keep happening. I don't intend they culminate in bloodshed. I mean more like nonviolent demonstrations, which is what I thought the Hawi'ian group was doing.

I love the line from 1776, when Ben Franklin says "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person - 'their rebellion' - that it becomes illegal."

You can read the secessionists own words and make up your mind.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina


IMO it was largely about slavery.

Of course it was about slavery, which is to say, about money.

Southerners prior to the Civil War believed that state law should trump federal law- EXCEPT in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Missouri Compromise (which would have required certain states to enter the Union as slave states, even if the citizens of a state would prefer not to).

When the big guys can help you out, suddenly federalism looks like a great idea.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: I"m going to assume that you mean that the secessionary states were only interested in being able to own slaves. I agree with you that that is immoral.

I do not agree that that was the only issue, or really even the primary one, in the secession of South Carolina. But I've tried to have this discussion before, with others, and it's about as productive as trying to convince BiT that evolution is valid.

Yeah, what you said. I know it was more than slavery.

I heard a cool clip by a gadfly named Tim Wise in class the other day, where he says, "Yes, it was about states' rights. It was about their rights to own slaves."

It is complicated. But I am pretty sure if the slavery issue did not exist, secession was unlikely.

My original point was that some rebellions are necessary, or the injustices will keep happening. I don't intend they culminate in bloodshed. I mean more like nonviolent demonstrations, which is what I thought the Hawi'ian group was doing.

I love the line from 1776, when Ben Franklin says "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person - 'their rebellion' - that it becomes illegal."

You can read the secessionists own words and make up your mind.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina


IMO it was largely about slavery.

Yes, most of the state ordinances of secession made it pretty clear that slavery was the driving issue. And if there had been no slaves, there would have been no issues (people sometimes throw out stuff about 'tariffs,' but 'tariffs' were only an issue because they protected manufacturing industries, and slave-based economies tend to have few of these).

Something that is interesting in the ordinances of secession is that they actually use words like 'slaves' and 'slavery'-- in the original Constitution, they were careful never to use the 'S Word,' they liked to talk about things like 'involuntary servitude.'

They want to put Lillilukiana (sp?) back in power?