Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
From Tuesday's Honolulu Civil Beat:
https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/07/a-tipp...a-a-wakea/
" For one of many examples, the project’s highly toxic construction — whose footprint equals that of the Eiffel Tower — threatens to contaminate the water aquifer below. The state of Hawaii, however, often peering through a colonialist perspective, continues to push for the 18-story monstrosity.
Its disregard for legal, environmental and cultural protocol has made appearances throughout this decade-old conflict, then reappeared on June 20. In the middle of the night Hale Ku Kiai Mauna (a traditional Hawaiian prayer hut), two ahu (small stone shrines), and Hale Kuhio were all destroyed.
Though the structures were not unsafe, illegal or environmentally destructive like the TMT, the state insisted they were “unauthorized” and had to be “dismantled.” To say that the ahu did not “constitute a traditional or customary right or practice” is a bald-faced lie in clear violation of First Amendment rights."
Is it worth playing the game of spot the lie? I see at least seven in those three paragraphs alone.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
I think the bigger problem is that ‘authority figures’ ie Mitch Roth, David Ige etc give these lunatics any credence whatsoever.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
I’d sign one of those online petitions to ask local public figures to publicly announce their intent to follow the letter of the law in the days that come and not abrogate laws for any cultural or racial consideration.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
I think the bigger problem is that ‘authority figures’ ie Mitch Roth, David Ige etc give these lunatics any credence whatsoever.
Though it does paint you in a rather poor light to call anyone a lunatic is certainly your prerogative. But to expect politicians to speak of their constituents like that is a little unrealistic methinks. Like it or not the people you speak disparagingly about are your neighbors. People who, I imagine, you'd take offense to if they spoke that way about you. People who, even though I am sure your opinion doesn't permit you to see clearly, are active members of your community. Some even celebrated, widely loved.
Maybe it'd be more better if you learned to respect folks with differing opinions rather then blind yourself to the world around you with your intolerance. After all, in the real world, they have the same rights to their opinion as you do yours. And, as much a right to speak it, and act upon it.
Posts: 11,008
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
Maybe it'd be more better if you learned to respect folks with differing opinions rather then blind yourself to the world around you with your intolerance.
Would this include tolerance by and for people on all sides of an issue? Would respect also include respect for truth, that is if one really respects a person would they, to the best of their ability speak the truth with them?
Is intolerance also refusing to listen to information which may influence your opinion? For instance if someone explains (with proof) how the TMT will not pollute the water table, should you listen to and consider that information, or blindly keep repeating that the TMT will pollute the water table (without any proof)?
Is respect and tolerance a one way street or two way street?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Is respect and tolerance a one way street or two way street?
More like a cul-de-sac. Consider the "protectors" who fully embraced the rule of law so long as it fit their agenda -- as soon as it didn't, they ask for "not what is technically legal, but what is fair".
The laws of the State grant special privileges to the "Native Hawaiians" which makes prosecution unclear. This is not Roth's fault, nor is it something Ige can easily solve.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Lunatic is an antiquated term referring to a person who is considered as mentally ill, dangerous (places rocks in on a steep mountain with low visibility), foolish (makes false claims about groundwater pollution, etc), unpredictable (protests harming the sacred mountain, all the other environmental harm gets a pass?), or crazy—conditions once attributed to lunacy. The word derives from lunaticus meaning "of the moon" or "moonstruck". The term was once commonly used in law.
I’m sure we could all fill in these parentheses, no doubt in many ways to satisfy many agendas. I will stick to my word choice! (Copy pasta above from wiki)
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
This is not Roth's fault, nor is it something Ige can easily solve.
Both of these guys need to do better. Yes, their jobs are difficult, but they both showed a real lack of backbone in the face of blatant lawbreaking that endangered others.
Ige shows every sign of being an invertebrate and only got re-elected because he was seen less of a cutthroat good old boy than his opponent. We'll see if he has changed now that he doesn't have to worry about getting elected again.
As for Roth, he continues to prosecute marijuana offenses, saying he has no choice as long as those laws are still on the books. (He also vehemently defended a confiscation law that took people's property with no due process whatsoever. Seems he liked all the money that rolled in.) Yet when it came to people rolling rocks dangerously down a mountain, he managed to get choosy about what laws he would or wouldn't enforce. He may be worse than Ige when it comes to hypocrisy.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
blatant lawbreaking that endangered others
It's not lawbreaking if the perpetrators are protected by the law.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
It's not lawbreaking if the perpetrators are protected by the law.
A simple truth so many here seem to have forgotten.
|
