September 6, 2005


Senate May Approve Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians (David Freddoso, Sep 2, 2005, Human Events)

With most of the nation distracted by the destruction of Hurricane Katrina and the first Supreme Court confirmation hearings in nearly a decade, the Senate may quietly approve a bill to recognize native Hawaiians as a new Indian tribe and establish a separate governing authority for people of their race within Hawaii.

“This is the worst bill you’ve never heard of,” said John Fund, political analyst for the Wall Street Journal, speaking at the Heritage Foundation August 30.

The bill would create an open-ended negotiation process between a proposed native-Hawaiian governing entity and the federal and state governments. The process could ultimately give this entity the powers of taxation and law enforcement, hundreds of thousands of acres of Hawaiian land and the right to discriminate based on race. Members of the tribe would be enrolled based on race, and the tribe’s governing entity could become immune from civil rights laws, much like American Indian tribal authorities, which are permitted to establish state religions and discriminate based on race and sex.

Among other things, the bill would allow the Kamehameha Schools—public schools that discriminate in their admissions in favor of racial Native Hawaiians—to continue discriminating, despite an August 2 ruling against the practice by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D.-Hawaii) even said in an NPR interview that his bill may lead to Hawaiian independence, although he later clarified he does not personally support independence.

Hawaii should be independent. It faces no imperial threats from other nations any longer and is perfectly capable of thriving on its own.

Gambling boom awakens sleepy Macau (Gary LaMoshi, 9/08/05, Asia Times)

Contrary to what you may have heard and read, Macau is not Las Vegas, at least not yet. But it is enjoying an unprecedented boom thanks to a US$12 billion wave of hotel and casino construction spurred by Las Vegas high rollers.

The former Portuguese colony, a peninsula and two islands about 60 kilometers (and at least 60 decibels) away from Hong Kong, first legalized gambling in 1847.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2005 8:38 PM

The Union is indisoluble.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2005 10:04 PM

Where's the outer limit of "small is good", oj? Well short of the self, one presumes.

Posted by: ghostcat at September 6, 2005 10:34 PM

You're asking TimeZoneBoy this question as if you didn't know the answer already.

Posted by: joe shropshire at September 6, 2005 10:40 PM


For nations other than the United States it appears to be about 10 million, with islands having all kinds of other advantages.

Posted by: oj at September 6, 2005 10:43 PM

The union is indisoluble and it is idiocy to abandon the strategic spot in the midddle of the Pacific.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2005 11:08 PM

That strategy was antiquated fifty years ago by Curtis LeMay. Clinging too it was disastrous.

Posted by: oj at September 6, 2005 11:15 PM

This law is a violation of the Constitutional guarantee that every state will have a republican form of government, and the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. And like Campaign Finance Reform, none of that will stop Congress or Bush from enacting it.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2005 11:45 PM


Though it goes against my Unionist grain (with a nod to Mr. Schwartz), I'd be willing to give back Hawaii with an 'in perpetuity' lease (a la Guantanamo) on Pearl Harbor and the Marine base at Kaneohe. Easy for me to say, though. I was engaged to a woman whose Mother was from Hawaii (Kahuku, north Oahu, to be exact) who dismissed the independence movement thusly: "The day after Hawaii becomes independent, it goes from first to third world status." [And she was of Philipino descent]

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at September 6, 2005 11:49 PM

Let's auction off the 50th star so we don't have to change the flag.

Puerto Rico doesn't deserve it, can't make up their minds.

There's some land above and below which might be interested......

Posted by: Sandy p at September 7, 2005 12:04 AM


One suspects that total population, social structure, geographic size, transportation systems, and communications technology would all be relevant. What matters most is a sense of coherence and we-ness. That's a function of many variables.

Posted by: ghostcat at September 7, 2005 12:38 AM

Bush should certainly veto this odious bill, but I really wonder if he will.

Posted by: PapayaSF at September 7, 2005 1:45 AM

"That strategy was antiquated fifty years ago by Curtis LeMay. Clinging too it was disastrous."

Technological Arrogance.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 7, 2005 2:04 AM

Hawaii wouldn't become a 3rd world country overnight. It would probably take about 24 months...

The main argument about letting Hawaii go should be that it really has a fundamentally different history from every other part of the country, including Alaska. The plantation dominated era led to arguably the closest thing to a peasant class and mentality that the US has ever had--hence the strongly socialistic nature of island politics.

But all in all, the only people advocating independence are the lunatic fringe, so it's not a real issue...

Posted by: b at September 7, 2005 3:34 AM

Give up Hawaii--the next you know somebody will want to give up the Panama Canal.

As usual, the spiritual consequences outweigh the material. Contracting, as though we were European, is a symptom of malaise and decline. You remember malaise. Peanut boy used to talk about it when he wasn't busy giving up the canal and Iran.

The worst thing about malaise is that it gives the bad guys ideas, like thinking they can do bad things and not pay the price. Giving up Hawaii is the kind of thing Hanoi John would have come up with. It a prescription for war.

The worst thing about it is the message it sends to ourselves, a message of weakness, and lack of confidence.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 7, 2005 5:09 AM

OJ, I'm not surprised at you. I suppose you have thought of the consequences of allowing some "indigenous" group to separate and become independent. Let's hear it for the Indian Nation, the new country of Mexifornia! Since I'm mostly Dutch with a touch of Indian I've got dibs on Long Island.

I guess I don't have to ax you what the Ivory Tower crowd you hang out with thinks about this.

Posted by: NC3 at September 7, 2005 7:41 AM


Indians have these powers already.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 8:29 AM


Islands were so easily taken over by the Imperial powers, particularly the British and Americans, that all those things have been taken care of on most of them, from Ireland to Japan.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 8:37 AM


Puerto Rico could likewise thrive on its own.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 8:42 AM

Independence of any state is a non-starter.

Now, that being said....

IF, I say IF, it looked like that 'had to happen' for whatever reason, the solution is simple.

Independence for all but Oahu. That would hold Pearl Harbor and the largest commercial entity in Hawaii, one that is NOT racailly "Hawaiian", and would still be a viable 50th state.

Hawaiian independence racists (which is what they are) would be absolute fools not to grab that deal and run with it, and, in such a case, should they be so foolish, should be waged war upon if for no other reason than their own selfish absolutist racism.

Posted by: Andrew X at September 7, 2005 8:52 AM

On further reflection: Small is good for some things; big is good for some things.

What big is good for is concentrating the power required to defend the good small things. In Tolkien-speak, there can be no Shire without Gondor. (Guess who watched his LOTR DVD's this weekend when he wasn't on his boat.)

The world isn't through with Alfred Thayer Mahan yet, nor is it time to sit on our bayonets.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 7, 2005 8:52 AM


Aboriginal peoples are always treated differently. Let the Hawaiians under President Lingle sort themselves out.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 8:59 AM

We should on to not just Pearl but also to the top of the Mauna Kea volcano on the island of Hawaii. Its got some of the best telescopes in the world up there.

Posted by: rps at September 7, 2005 9:03 AM

The Navy doesn't defend anything but congressmen's jobs.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 9:05 AM

The Indian problem will have to be settled once again.

Posted by: Sandy P at September 7, 2005 9:39 AM

Aren't native (racial) Hawaiians a minority in Hawaii? So what, we are to abandon the rights of all the other Americans (most of Japanese and European descent) on the islands because a particular group of racists have some sort of an axe to grind against other races? Didn't we as a nation decide not to do that sort of thing 140 years ago?

Posted by: Shelton at September 7, 2005 9:47 AM


What rights would non-natives lose?

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 9:52 AM

If racial Hawaiians are successful in their quest to secede and create a independent Hawaiian government (controlled exclusively by racial Hawaiians) the non-natives could lose everything - their rights, their property, their right to live on the islands. Thats really what these racists want to kick whitey and the japs off the islands and re-establish the glory days of the Kingdom of Kamehameha. Those of us whose minds arent clouded by the irrationality of racism know that would be a disaster for everyone (Hawaiians included), but nevertheless thats what these people want.

Now if they want a reservation style society like some other American Indians in the States have then I guess Id be ok with that, as long as the property for the reservations is not taken from private holdings and isnt extended into urbanized areas, and as long as the special privileges end at the border of the reservation. If native Hawaiians really want to shoot themselves in their own foot then so be it.

Posted by: Shelton at September 7, 2005 10:47 AM

What they want is casinos, and if this bill passes they will spring up within 3 years. Stickin' it to whitey and the japs is just frosting on the racist cake.

Posted by: Patrick H at September 7, 2005 11:11 AM

"nor is it time to sit on our bayonets."

That would smart.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 7, 2005 12:01 PM

"The Navy doesn't defend anything but congressmen's jobs."

Silly. Just plain silly. OJ when you get backed into a corner, you just won't admit you made a mistake. Then you say things that are patently silly.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 7, 2005 12:04 PM

If we are going to start cutting parts of this country loose, I say we start with the net liabilities Little Canada and Kennedyland first.

And just because we already have the atrocious Indian Reservation system on the mainland is no reason to spread it to other parts of the country. If these racists want their island paradise,they why don't they buy up Maui with their own money.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 7, 2005 12:24 PM


Nantucket has talked about it.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 12:38 PM


What corner? The Navy is a waste.

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 12:40 PM


Who do you think wins that fight?

Posted by: oj at September 7, 2005 12:48 PM

Throw a heaping helping of Liberal White Guilt into the fray and there is no telling how it will turn out.

Posted by: Shelton at September 7, 2005 1:49 PM

"the union is indisoluble"

Yes and New Yorker Magazine publishers have seen to it.

Posted by: at September 7, 2005 4:57 PM

Get rid of the Navy and find out what kind of world you live in.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 7, 2005 11:45 PM

Speaking of Hawaii, oj, are you related to the famous Judd missionary family?

Posted by: b at September 8, 2005 3:31 AM


Yup. All the Judds in America are descended from Thomas Judd.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 7:03 AM


Mahan is dead. Le May lives.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 7:30 AM


Airpower's presence is fleeting. The Navy can exert a far more persistent presence.

Anyway, regardless of airpower, Mahan has long been dead -- you do know, of course, Mahan's primary assertion, don't you?

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 8:01 AM

He stressed the importance of control of the seas. That doesn't require boats anymore.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 8:49 AM

Read Mahan more closely.

Naval power has persistence Air Power doesn't have.

Never mind that some foreign policy objectives -- say the continued independent existence of Taiwan -- are uniquely supported by a robust Navy.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 10:51 AM

Yes, Mahan doesn't think air power is as effective. I'll give him the British Navy of his day and I'll take our cruise missiles and Air Force. Bet he rewrites his book afterwards.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2005 10:55 AM

That is a false dichotomy that ignores the basic point. This is not a choice between the British Navy of Mahan's day and our AF (what ever led you to concoct something so silly?), but, in your terms, a choice between the Navy of today and nothing.

Naval power, including its air arm, has persistence that air power alone does not. For just one example, should we desire to defend Taiwan from attack, or deter China from making the attempt, the Navy is an important asset.

Editor's Note: please adopt a pseudonym of some kind so folks can address you when they address your points.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 12:09 PM