I’m Out. Are You?
More Links
The United States has something that doesn’t belong to it. There’s a lot of tourist activity there though. In conventional terms, the United States is made up of 50 separate states, the most recent addition being Hawaii. States joined up over time making a larger and larger nation of smaller sovereign governments sharing their sovereignty with a federal power. American federalism is an interesting subject but this post is about something much more nerdy I think.
It would seem, that Hawaii never legally became a state. Oh sure, the vote was taken and Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly for statehood over being a territory but looking at and accepting the result as a simple truism is to ignore the cause. How did Hawaii actually become a territory in the first place and was it traded away from the indigenous people that lived there? The answer is a fairly complex story that I’ll try and simplify here.
Hawaii actually used to be an independent nation overseen by a Monarchy. Going even further back to see how the monarchy was established, you could read on how local chieftains were warred upon and their lands claimed by a central power. Bloody but legitimate in a way. The manner in which the monarchy was put down in the late 1800′s however is a different sort of tale.
The Monarchy was styled after British governance in 1795 and successive constitutions over the years limited the power of the Monarch in phases, placing it in the hands of an elected legislature. American and European influences on the island nation ensured that these groups enjoyed more rights as elected law makers under each successive constitution. What remained clear however was that the Monarchy and constitutional government that existed was independent of any other nation.
Hawaii was undoubtedly its own independent state.
As the United States did its thing, American plantation owners shipped sugar to the main land in boat loads. Unfortunately, despite the sugar being grown in large part by American land owners, it was subject to tariffs as Hawaii was an independent nation. It was a terrible sight for Americans to look on as their own government made more money off their sugar crops than they did.
Speculation seems to indicate that the solution thought of by American and European landowners was to have Hawaii cede its sovereignty to the United States and become a dependant territory under American rule. Among the over 40,000 Hawaiians at the time, a group that advanced this idea made up almost entirely of American and European land owners (and numbering about 400 members) pushed this agenda with incredible vigour.
We’re skipping over a lot but unless I want to make this post as long as a short novel, we’ll forge ahead to the Hawaiian constitution of 1887. It was nicknamed by its opponents as the “bayonet constitution” because King David Kalakaua was threatened with his death should he not sign it. The new constitution stripped the Monarch of almost all of what remained of his personal powers and established cabinet government. It also empowered the people to elect members of the House of Nobels who had previously been appointed by the Monarch. generally speaking, this doesn’t sound so bad but the constitution did a few other things which we would probably look back on as questionable.
Firstly, it increased the value of property required by eligible voters. This further disenfranchised a number of native Hawaiians. The constitution also denied voting rights to Asians, some of which had become naturalized subjects of the Hawaiian monarchy. Americans and Europeans were also given voting rights on the island Nation without requiring citizenship.
After King David’s death, his sister Lili?uokalani ascended the throne and received petitions from 2/3rds of her native Hawaiian subjects in support of drafting a new constitution restoring some power to the Monarchy and stripping American and European residents of the suffrage they had obtained after the signing of the bayonet constitution. When it was found that she intended to draft and declare the new constitution unilaterally, a group of American and European residents formed a “committee of safety” which would shortly after, seek to remove the Queen from her office and annex Hawaii to the United States.
Rebellion could be felt in the air and a quick and bloodless coup was sought by the American and Europeans on the Island. To force the issue, they approached the Queen with a threat of force and backed that up with a sympathetic United States Government Diplomat, John L. Stevens. Stevens ordered the landing of 162 uniformed marines from the USS Boston. The marines marched to Arion Hall directly across the road from the Queen’s Iolani Palace. This show of force and demands by the Committee of Safety resulted in the Queen surrendering to “superior forces of the United States of America” in an effort to avoid any bloodshed on the Island.
Not only is it important to note that Stevens did not have the authority to order such a landing as the basis for landing troops was spurious at best, but also that Queen Lili?uokalani surrendered not to annexationists on the Island, but to “superior forces of the United States of America” that had landed. In her statement, she not only protested the action carried out against the constitutional government but made clear that it was not possible without the actions of Stevens who she said declared support for those claiming to have established a provisional government on the Island.
In short, Queen Lili?uokalani never yielded her sovereignty to Americans and Europeans on the Island, but had surrendered to American forces who had landed under an authority that did not Exist. Presumptively, Stevens recognized the provisional government’s legitimacy on behalf of the US and established Hawaii as a protectorate. Immediately afterwards, the provisional government sent a delegation to Washington with a treaty of annexation in hand. No delegation of behalf of the queen was allowed to travel on the steamer they had chartered. Then American President Benjamin Harrison immediately sent the treaty to the senate for further discussion and ratification.
After President Grover Cleveland was elected, he immediately informed the Senate that talk of annexation was to be halted and he sent a commissioner to the island nation to determine the events that had lead up to the establishment of the Provisional government and the overthrow of the Monarchy. This resulted in the Blount report.
In his report, James Blount wrote that he could not find a single person in favour of annexation that was eager or even willing to have the issue bought to a popular vote and that U.S. Minister to Hawaii Stevens had landed troops under a false or exaggerated pretext to support anti-royalists. He had participated in forbidden partisan activities in the capacity of his office which were instrumental in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarch. The report resulted in Stevens being recalled to the United States in disgrace followed by his nearly immediate forced retirement.
After much investigation, Cleveland sent a message to Congress calling the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy an act of war made on the presumed authority of an American diplomat and without any authority of Congress, the only political body in the United States with the authority to do so.
Lili?uokalani was offered restoration by President Cleveland in exchange for amnesty being granted to the Americans who had been responsible for her overthrow. She refused outright but the new American Minister to Hawaii eventually persuaded her to accept the terms. President Cleveland then sent a message to the Hawaiian provisional government’s president, Sanford Dole, ordering him to dissolve the provisional government and restore Queen Lili?uokalani to her throne. Dole vehemently refused and president Cleveland sent the matter to congress which then authorized the Morgan report.
The Blount report was countered by the Morgan report which found no fault with anyone involved in the overthrow aside from the Queen. It in fact gave the United States a completely blameless slate and vilified Queen Lili?uokalani. Morgan was an annexationist and though he was a democrat, sympathized publicly with the republican expansionists at the time. The Morgan report was so controversial even in its own committee that none of the U.S. Senators who authorized it would sign it for differing reasons. Indeed, the only signature appearing on the executive summary of the report is that of Morgan himself.
To bring us back to an important legal issue, despite all that had happened, the Queen still had not surrendered her sovereignty to the revolutionaries. Indeed, the provisional government that had been established had neither the majority support of Hawaiians, nor a legitimate claim to sovereignty over that of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Amid Queen Lili?uokalani’s delay in accepting the terms of her restoration, Cleveland was replaced by pro-annexation President William McKinley in 1897. Hawaii was annexed to the United States the following year.
When the chance to become a state came up, Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly in favour of becoming a state. The only other choice offered on the ballot was to remain an American Territory. A great deal of criticism was levelled at the ballot issue as the question did not include an option of independence. Even if it had however, there still remains the criticism of no one having properly claimed sovereignty from the Hawaiian monarchy.
The final blow in the case for Hawaii’s illegal overthrow is U.S. Public Law 103-150 signed by President Bill Clinton in 1992. It is a clear admission that the overthrow was illegal and that the Queen indeed never surrendered her authority to the island nation’s revolutionaries.
You know what though…in the end, it doesn’t seem to matter. Despite all the evidence of an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government aided by the United States and the admission of the American government to such a fact, I guess the sentiment seems to be “Hawaii is ours now and that’s that. We’re not giving it back.”
Practically, Hawaii is the 50th U.S. state. Legally, I think it’s still an independent nation.
I’ve heard this twice now in as many years and it’s getting tiresome. Before going any further, let’s get a couple of things straight.
Doctors require a great deal of education and know more about diagnosing and treating illnesses than I likely ever will. Doctors must be able to achieve incredible academic feats to become a doctor. Doctors do require brain power.
That being said, a lot of them are pricks and I am constantly reminded why I have so very little patience for them.
The thing I have heard a couple of times now is that a doctor requires a special license to sign a medical marijuana access regulations form granting a patient exemption from the controlled drugs and substances act in possessing marijuana for medical reasons. No such license to sign said forms exists and any doctor who has been told it is required is either misinformed or enough of an absolute god damned prick to mislead their patients just so they don’t have to deal with them on a controversial topic any more.
Let’s be clear here.
ANY GENERAL PRACTITIONER OF MEDICINE IN CANADA CAN SIGN A MEDICAL MARIJUANA FORM!
Some ailments for which medical marijuana may be obtained (not prescribed. An MMAR card is not a prescription) do also require the endorsement of a specialist but again, no special license is required of a GP to sign a medical marijuana application.
Doctors are generally a close minded bunch who deal with us, the uninformed and unwashed masses of course; but I just wish that every so often they would come off their damned pedestals or even be honest with their patients.
Ever seen www.omegle.com? Like all good things, it was concieved by an 18 year old in his basement…er uhh…ok. Anyway, leave it to a teenager to come with the idea that talking to strangers is an idea worthy of technological might and coolness.
omegle is a service that costs nothing and when engaged in it, doesn’t even have any advertisements. Click on a random chat and you might end upw ith something like the following.
You’re now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!You: I just started a chat with you.Stranger: oh reallyYou: Well I think so. how do I verify?Stranger: probably by looking at your scren!You: Well, this has been fun Thanks.You have disconnected.
Recently I posted an I’m sorry post because my own harsh realities have ensured that I couldn’t live up to a $5,000 USD commitment to fund a KIVA lending account, only being able to fall far short and live up to a meagre 20% of that. As if that weren’t bad enough, I actually forgot to do this on yesterday on Jan 01 as I had said I would. It wasn’t until just a few minutes ago that I remembered this pledge and as a result, have just now deposited $1,000 USD into a KIVA lending account.
I have made no loans as of yet but I’m just about to do so to figure out where this money should go to helping third world entrepreneurs realize their dreams and needs. I strongly encourage you to do the same by opening a KIVA lender’s account to fund micro loans to those in the third world.
Though KIVA does work with some micro lenders in North America, I have decided that my KIVA money will not be lent to any North American entrepreneurs. This is a personal matter of principle in not defeating the purpose that I see behind KIVA as assisting economic progress in the third world.
Recently, I managed to mix myself up in some one’s religious views on a blog comment under a post linking to a debate about whether or not Atheism could be considered a new kind of fundamentalism. What I had to say as a short comment managed to offend some one, another sask’ blogger. Actually, his blog ain’t so bad for a pastor’s blog. I mean, he does call the senate “a festering pustule on the arse-end of Canada’s democracy” in one of his recent postrs so it’s not like he’s an idiot. Anything but.
Anyhoo, he seemed to take offence at my comments as posted on Enormous Thriving Plants…which I think I’ll need to add my my links on the left hand side there. This should drive down yet again the frightening percentage of homosexual blog authors on my blog roll thus comforting some truckers who may associate with me from time to time though not enthusiastically.
The rest of this blog post is actually a blog comment that was too long to be posted on Audrey’s blog and so I offer it here to Malcolm, the fellow I offended and anyone else who wants to read it.
People! It’s blog drama. This is the good stuff! Malcolm’s commentary is italicized. My response is plain except near the end where I quote myself because I’m such a grand and awesome fellah! So, without further ado, this is the comment I respond to below.
There is a strong intellectual case for atheism. If you care to make that case, Zach, I’ll happily take you seriously. Since all you can manage is snide and belittling comments, I’ll conclude instead that you don’t have the intellectual confidence of your position and must therefore resort to childish insults.
Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God (regardless of the understanding of God) can be proven, therefore your claim that there is no God has no more intellectual merit than my belief that there is one.
You then commit the logical error of conflating all religious believers into one gang of authoritarians, imposing their own religious view. I think that, were you to think on this issue instead of merely flinging insults, you might notice that there are a range of religious views on such matters as the use of secular authority to enforce religious belief. In fact, if you approached the issue with any honesty at all, you might notice that most religious folk (at least in the last 100 years or so) would actually have issues with the broad imposition of religious dogma by the secular authority.
I don’t ask you to respect my beliefs, Zach. I do, however, expect you to respect my right to hold them. You claim to do so, but your deliberately offensive comments rather put the lie to that.
It is indeed unfortunate Audery that the thread went south so quickly. It’s also unfortunate that I was accused here of conduct that I wasn’t engaged in. Name calling for instance and that Malcolm took my mention of religion being given the force of law in the past as being offensive as referring to him as an authoritarian…well also unfortunate. Malcolm should learn to be much less defencive so he doesn’t take offence to unapologetic opinion.
It’s some times an amazing wonder to me that so many religious folk can take so much offence to even so simple a concept as mentioning that unicorns don’t exist as a comparison for faith related arguments. I mean heck, one of my best friends from Manitoba is such a fanatical Christian that he was kicked out of a baptist congregation for challenging the authority of the pastor almost causing a split in the church. Kind of entertaining actually but I wonder why it is he can talk unapologetically to me about his religion and not throw a snit every time I make an unapologetic argument that compares his belief system to fairy tales. Perhaps he’s more secure in said system of belief than Malcolm is.
There is a strong intellectual case for atheism. If you care to make that case, Zach, I’ll happily take you seriously. Since all you can manage is snide and belittling comments, I’ll conclude instead that you don’t have the intellectual confidence of your position and must therefore resort to childish insults.
Frankly, I have no interest going toe to toe with a pastor or whatnot. I’ve done it many times in the past and I’ll do it again but why waste the time today? These arguments very often end up boiling down to matters of faith and not on the part of the atheist.
As for snide and belittling comments, please point them out. I’m certainly not going to try and be diplomatic but I think that you’ve taken offence to any of this (especially anything in my first post) is much more an indicator of how you feel rather than how I do. Hell, you actually ignored Audry’s entire post which she seemed to put some effort in to and chose to zero in on me because you were offended. If my post was so terrible, why not just ignore it and engage in the pleasant and diplomatic conversation that Audry offered?
Is your problem here the fact that I’m so completely ready to admit openly and readily that I have no respect for religion? Would you rather have me pretend to respect you? Frankly, wouldn’t that be an unforgivable insult to pretend you respect an argument when you in fact do not? Would you rather I lie to you?
Actually, when I re-read my own posts, I can’t for the life of me see where I called you a name. I can’t even see any demeaning insults on my part. I really think you’re just insecure and oversensitive perhaps though I can’t claim to know that for sure.
Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God (regardless of the understanding of God) can be proven, therefore your claim that there is no God has no more intellectual merit than my belief that there is one.
There is intellectual merit in claiming that there is no proof of God and thusly that the idea should not impact our lives to any great or notable degree aside from perhaps good fiction novels. There in intellectual merit in trying to find out if God exists though there seems to be no credible indication of such a being existing and certainly not as any religious organization has illustrated that being to be.
Let me make this clear again Malcolm; (codsarn it, I’m being draw in like a fruit fly!) giving a religious book any intellectual weight is no different than giving a garden variety fairy tale the same type of intellectual weight. This is as ridiculous an argument as you insisting that because I can’t prove that mother goose does not exist, we should seriously consider that she does and has an impact on our lives somehow beyond the consideration of fictional works. There is intellectual merit perhaps in wanting to develop a scientific process of examination to prove absolutely that mother goose does not exist, but the authority is exceptionally insignificant isn’t it?
There’s no problem in trying to find an answer but there’s every problem in creating ridiculous institutions like marriage all because you’ve started believing in mother goose…err…God without proof. Do I believe in the nonexistence of mother goose? I do indeed. If mother goose was proven to exist would I adjust my world view to include the existence of a mother goose? Sure, why wouldn’t I? Does this mean I have faith that mother goose does not exist? Absolutely not. It just means that mother goose isn’t a part of my life and is absolutely insignificant to me. That people like you insist on making it significant is where some consternation can be realized. It’s like a five year old insisting that I play a simplistic video game when I have no interest in it.
This actually makes me think of a theist who, upon finding out that I’m a non-theist asked me how I could be against God. She seemed to think that god was a part of my life and that since I professed no belief in the being, that I was somehow in opposition to God. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am no more against God than I am against Puff the Magic Dragon.
Now, I’ll bet you’re getting offended again so I should be clear that my comparisons to fairly tales and those too young to drink spirits are not an attempt to upset you. you seem to think they are but they’re not. I’m telling you clearly, on what type of plane I see this issue. It doesn’t mean I think that you’re childish or stupid because generally, people aren’t these things despite it being so tempting sometimes to project these qualities onto another.
I’ve seen no indication that you are anything but a sensible and considerate fellow who is convinced of certain things. I just happen to think that those things you are convinced of are silly and that you’re wrong. Again, I’m not going to hide that opinion for the sake of appearing to be something I’m not.
You then commit the logical error of conflating all religious believers into one gang of authoritarians, imposing their own religious view.
Well, generally speaking, religion does forward the notion of using the coercive power of the state to make people act and think as some religious leaders do. It is no accident that the word “theocracy” exists. If you want to look back to religious roots, I suggest you see how the Roman emperor Constantine bought his empire around to his way of thinking as an early Christian. In fact, when he bought Bishops from around the empire together to bang out a bunch of writing, he established a good portion of the foundation for what modern Christianity is today.
You know an anti-blasphemy law was passed just a short while ago in Ireland? Given half the chance, there are a very alarming number of religious folks who would enact laws that force their religion on others. This is not a logical fallacy, (though it is the way you took it) it is simply what happens in government when people arrive with an agenda. This is one reason that I am an anarcho-capitalist of sorts; because I don’t believe that government power can ever escape the entirely fallible human condition that puts us in so great a mess all of the time. While I think you should live one way, you likely think I would be better of living another way and it’s because of this type of thing that government as a one size fits all authority is so terribly illegitimate…but again I wander into a different topic.
Not all Christians are authoritarian scumbags…in fact, the vast majority of them are not. You’re right on that count, but then I never said otherwise. I said that in the past, religion has been given the force of law and that’s true. I also said that such a thing is offensive and to me, that is certainly also true.
If I’m conflating, let me ask you, have you condemned the Irish state’s recent passage of a law that calls for penalties inflicted upon those who would blaspheme against God? It’s not too late for you to do so if you have not done so yet.
But again, this is not to say that religious folk are authoritarian. In fact, in my own example there, you can find a great number of religious groups being kind of baffled. No one was really asking (aside from a very small group of extremists) for this law. No one notable really wanted it and every one was fairly surprised when it was revealed that it was quietly shuffled through the government halls of power into the law books. This is however a danger of religion in that it certainly can be very very easily used to coercively impact the population at large.
Does that mean religion should be banned? No! As an avid gun rights fellow myself, to me, this simply means that it should be discouraged, much like general gun use. Aside from hunting…and I guess in the case of religion, aside from play acting and such.
I think that, were you to think on this issue instead of merely flinging insults, you might notice that there are a range of religious views on such matters as the use of secular authority to enforce religious belief.
I think that if you tried to understand a blunt point of view, you may not be so inclined to be insulted by some one who does not intend to insult you. I don’t apologize for my point of view, why do you think I should?
I’m aware of a number of views on the topic. I also have my own view which I’m giving to you with no request for anything in return.
In fact, if you approached the issue with any honesty at all
So, was that tit for tat?
you might notice that most religious folk (at least in the last 100 years or so) would actually have issues with the broad imposition of religious dogma by the secular authority.
I have noticed that. Have you also noticed that a notable number of religious individuals have taken to the opposite tack? This is like talking about how war is a non-issue in the early 1940′s because Switzerland can be cited as an example of neutrality in the world. Well, not that extreme, but certainly there is a significant threat of the abuse of the “secular authority” by religious wing nuts all around the world.
Lemme ask you, do you think marriage licenses should be distributed by the state? Why or why not? Please be honest in your approach to the question.
I don’t ask you to respect my beliefs, Zach. I do, however, expect you to respect my right to hold them.
BUT…*sigh* RIGHT THERE! Second comment!
I have very little respect for your belief system though all the respect in the world for your right to engage in it.
You claim to do so, but your deliberately offensive comments rather put the lie to that.
How? Even if I was being deliberately offensive, how would that really indicate that I had no respect for your right to engage in religious belief? I’m failing to make a connection here.
If I was calling for religion to be banned or billed as child abuse under the law as some seem to think it should be, then perhaps I would have a little bit of trouble defending myself here but again, I think you’re falling victim to your own sensitivity. Respect does not necessarily carry with it, particular mannerisms and tactful pussy footing around an issue of contention among parties involved. Very often, respect is demonstrated by engaged parties casting off the feeling for a need to hide their intentions and feelings from one another.
I, in general, respect that people are better served by discussions which do not omit points of view or facts of contention for the sake of giving some one an inflated sense of ego. If you should take this as an attempt to insult you, you have misinterpreted and I ask that you reevaluate why I may express myself to you as I do.
I guess I do have some desire to engage in this argument. Disappointing actually because frankly, I don’t know how I’m going to find the time as I go back to the grind tomorrow but I promise that I will certainly try if you desire it Malcolm.
Peace out Bruthah!
