Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts

State of Hawaiian sovereignty

SUBHEAD: In one week Scottland may produce cracks in the European Union that could lead to independence for many nations.

By Juan Wilson on 11 September 2014 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2014/09/state-of-hawaiian-sovereignty.html)


Image above: Scottish pro-independence rally draws thousands In Edinburgh on the equinox 9/21/13. From (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/21/scottish-independence_n_3966157.html).

I have been a proponent of Hawaiian sovereignty since I moved to Hawaii in 2000. After moving from Maui to Kauai in 2001 we began publishing IslandBreath in January 2004

At the end of that year there was a conference on Hawaiian sovereignty and featured a presentation by Harvard professor Francis Boyle - an expert on the subject of achieving national sovereignty (see http://www.islandbreath.org/2004Year/16-sovereign/sovereign01FrancisBoyle.html).

Attending were Bumpy Kanehehe, Henry Noa and many other notable Hawaiian sovereignty activists. Those attending represented many different models and modes of achieving Hawaiian independence. However, all came together and heard Boyle's message:
It's time for a provisional government
Boyle's point was that the activists needed to formulate a constitution (not necessarily the one at the time of the overthrow in 1893) and start providing the services of the state: schools, police, social services, etc.

He also made the point that international relations should be re-established with the treaties and diplomatic relations extant in 1893 (16 nations). The 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation still guarantees protection from the United States.

Unfortunately, since then the efforts to gain independence for Hawaii have been separate and uncoordinated. It's like a group of blind men examining an elephant. Each deals with a different beast.

In 2007 we published three articles here and in the Garden Island News trying to make sense of the history of Hawaii sovereignty. If you cannot find them at TGI check them out here:

TGI #17: Sustainability & Sovereignty 11/15/07
http://www.islandbreath.org/2007Year/20-HookahiKauai/0720-17Sovereignty.html

TGI #28: Hawaiian Nation - Part One 4/25/08
http://www.islandbreath.org/2008Year/20-TGI_column/0820-28HawaiiNationPart1.html

TGI #29: Hawaiian Nation - Part Two 4/30/08
http://www.islandbreath.org/2008Year/20-TGI_column/0820-29HawaiiNationPart2.html

I include these material above to indicate that I have thought about Hawaii independence for some time. And it has seemed an almost hopeless goal.

Right now there is a dust-up concerning the recent letter from the Aha Moku Council on the US Department of the Interior's process of native Hawaiian recognition.

But forces are moving to make that goal of real independence and recognition more achievable.

Perhaps one of the most immediate is the referendum in one week on independence for Scotland. Check out the video below from Free Hawaii Blog.


Video above: About Scottish independence vote on 9/18/14 and its relation to Hawaii. From (http://youtu.be/DUiDssAdz0Q).

If you don't think this is a big deal just check out the article below. Some think the Scottish vote could trigger the breakup of the European Union.

The panic grows in the eyes of England's Prime Minister David Cameron as he begins to grovel for continuation of the United Kingdom. Promises of wealth and threats will be next.



Crisis And Self-Determination

By Raul Ilargi Meijer on 10 September 2014 for the Automatic Earth -
(http://www.theautomaticearth.com/debt-rattle-sep-10-2014-crisis-and-self-determination/)

What do you think the situation in Scotland would be like if an army acting on behalf of the London government had just killed thousands of Scots in Glasgow and Edinburgh over the past 6 months and destroyed their streets and homes and water and electricity grids, and if moreover that government had seized power after a violent coup and essentially been handpicked by Washington?

If you’re awake a little, one of the first things you would think is wow, those Scots must really have something those guys in London and Washington want, and badly too. And you would be right.

Scotland has quite a bit of oil, for one thing. You would obviously also think: this doesn’t feel right.

In the same exact way Ukraine has a lot going for it economically. But it also has the added quality of bordering on Russia, which really has a lot of resources. And ‘our side’ wants them, and has figured that occupying Ukraine would be a great way to get closer to them.

So ‘we’ did when we saw our chance in the Maidan protests. But then there were a few million who won’t co-operate, so we started bombing and shelling them. Not out in the open, we had someone else do it for us. So they would get the blame, or, even better, the other side would. And we threw Russia into the blame game as the main perpetrator. It’s all just about media control, and our own media only. Who reads Russian media? That’s all just propaganda anyway, right?

We can start here: what the US and EU did in Kiev during Maidan (and well before) violates the principle of self-determination, as agreed in the Atlantic Charter, signed by FDR and Churchill in 1941 and subsequently adopted after WWII by the UN. The fact that this kind of meddling is as widespread and common as measles doesn’t change that. Wikipedia:
The right of nations to self-determination, or in short form, the right to self-determination, is a cardinal principle in modern international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms. It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference [..]
Especially that last bit seems clear enough. How we define ‘nations’ is less obvious. 1941 being the age of the last great colonial powers, it should be no wonder that the terminology was kept opaque to an extent. Like so:
The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.
There were two intentions in the day: phrase a principle, a charter, a law that many voices clamored for, but at the same time insert enough loopholes for ‘our’ boys to jump through with impunity.
The Atlantic Charter wasn’t the first attempt. As early as 1918, Woodrow Wilson said:
“National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . “
But that still leaves the term ‘nation’ as part of the definition, without defining the term itself.
In 1960, the UN went further in its Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Now we have ‘peoples’, not just ‘nations’

But you just go ask entire scores of indigenous peoples how over the past 54 years UN member nations have ‘interpreted’ the principles they have signed up to. Not a great story. The reason why lies always in what resources are present on, and underneath, the land these peoples inhabit.
After the right to self-determination had been defined and chartered by the UN, it has been violated and ignored more often than it has been honored. But it’s still there. All we need to do is make sure it’s respected, always.

That means the Scots can have a referendum about independence from the UK. Though the feeling is there that they were granted it only because London thought it would fail, it is there. No such luck for the Catalans, who are simply refused the right to a vote by Madrid. The Basque have that right too, says the UN: ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination’. The Venetians. And countless others. The Cree and so many other First Nations in Canada. The list goes on.

Ukraine separated from the Soviet Union 25-odd years ago, as did many other parts of the failed empire. And now, if they want to, East Ukrainians should have the right to do the same. And present day Russia, i.e. what’s left of the Soviet Union, should have the right to be left alone by the US, EU and NATO, and not have missiles installed right outside its borders, the same way America wouldn’t accept those in Canada or Mexico.

The world needs a bigger and better and meaner definition of the right to self-determination, or just for all nations to adhere to the present one. It needs that because there are a lot of self-determination cases coming up as energy and credit crises will make the world a smaller and poorer place. With much less need or desire for centralized power.

While at the same time the centralized powers will scramble for more resources, not less. Just like once the Romans did.

As ultra cheap energy and ultra cheap credit run out, and they inevitably will, more people(s) will want to become master of their own domain. The UN says they have that right. But if we don’t make sure that right is generally accepted, that’s going to lead to 1001 ugly war theaters.

The world will decentralize. Sure, oil prices are low right now, but we all know oil is not in endless supply, and we also know it’s indispensable to our present economic models. So we’ll have to scale down. But that doesn’t have to be so bad if we prepare for it, starting with defining easy and non-violent ways for people to choose their own government on their own land. It’ll still take plenty adapting, but it doesn’t have to involve shelling and bloodshed.

The same goes for debt and credit. We’re way overstretched, and we’re never going to go back to the growth we once had. But so what, we’re over bloated as we are. The thing is to prevent people from fighting over it.

I know, it’s a tall order. But if saner minds take over than the ones we have in charge today, it can be done for most cases, most countries, most peoples. It’s where we can show we’re not just another spineless species.

For much more on this subject read the related stories at the Automatic Earth source article.
.

GMO labeling support slipping

SUBHEAD: Monsanto and Dupont are backing Washington State anti-labeling campaign with $18.1 million. 

By Alison Vekshin on 24 October 2013 for Bloomberg News -
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-25/monsanto-bets-5-million-in-fight-over-gene-altered-food.html)


Image above: GMO corn seed kernel. From original article.

Monsanto (Dekalb)  and DuPont (Pioneer) among the biggest makers of bioengineered crop seeds, are persuading Washington state voters to change their minds about a proposal to require labels on genetically modified food.

The companies are backing an anti-labeling campaign with $18.1 million -- twice that of advocates for a ballot measure next month. The labeling proposal had a 45 percentage-point lead among registered voters five weeks ago that has narrowed to 4 points since opponents began advertising, the independent Elway Poll showed Oct. 21.

“This is a David and Goliath fight,” said Trudy Bialic, a spokeswoman for PCC Natural Markets based in Seattle. Store shelves are lined with tags -- “Non-GMO Project verified product” -- on products from canola oil to granola bars, to reassure those who fear or distrust genetically modified organisms. “There’s no way we can compete with the resources of Monsanto, Dow and DuPont.”

Washington joined 26 states with proposals this year to mandate such labeling or to prohibit genetically engineered food, according to the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. If voters approve Initiative 522, Washington would be the first to require labels. While Connecticut and Maine have passed labeling laws, they won’t take effect until more states do likewise.

PCC, whose nine stores make it the largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative in the U.S., donated $423,174 to support the proposal. “Vote Yes on 522!” is at the top of its website and signs urging support are posted in store windows.

Seed King
Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed producer, contributed $5.1 million to oppose the measure as of Oct. 2, according to MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization based in Berkeley, California. That compares with $1.53 billion that the St. Louis-based company spent on research and development in the year that ended in August, when sales reached $14.9 billion.

DuPont’s Pioneer, the seed unit of the Wilmington, Delaware-based company, is the second-biggest corporate contributor, at $3.6 million, according to MapLight. Dow Chemical Co. based in Midland, Michigan, gave $621,000.

Monsanto and DuPont, the second-biggest seed company, sell corn and soybeans that have been genetically engineered to withstand weedkillers such as Roundup. They also make corn modified to produce an insecticidal protein that allows farmers to fight pests without applying more chemicals.

The two companies were the top donors in a $46 million drive last year to defeat an effort to require labeling in California. Supporters were outspent 5-to-1.

Magic Soaps
Advocates of the Washington initiative have collected $9.1 million, mainly from health and natural food companies, according to MapLight. The biggest contributor is closely held Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the maker of organic cleansing products and lotions in Escondido, California, at $2.6 million.

The Organic Consumers Association, a Finland, Minnesota-based advocacy group, is second at $800,091. Mercola.com LLC, a vendor of vitamins and nutrition products based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, gave $500,000.

The Washington measure would require labels for most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, seeds and seed stocks produced using genetic engineering. The World Health Organization definition is any organism whose genetic material has been changed in a way that doesn’t occur naturally, including through introduction of a gene from another organism.

“Both sides are advertising heavily in what may be the most expensive initiative campaign in state history,” according to the October report by Seattle-based Elway Research Inc.

Support Slides
In September, support for the referendum was ahead of opposition, 66 percent to 21 percent. After advertising on the issue began, support fell to 46 percent, with opposition rising to 42 percent, according to the Elway Poll.

The survey of 413 registered voters was taken Oct. 15-17 and has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

The battle over genetically modified food comes as organic sales are expanding at more than three times the pace of total U.S. packaged foods, rising 10 percent to $29 billion in 2012, according to a Bloomberg Industries analysis. Agriculture companies argue that Washington’s initiative would be costly and misleading to consumers, and isn’t needed.

“Complicated and unnecessary labeling regulations would unfairly hurt Washington farmers, food producers and grocers, cost taxpayers millions, increase food prices and give misleading information to consumers about the safety of the products they know and trust,” Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Jane Slusark, a Pioneer spokeswoman, and Garry Hamlin, a spokesman for Dow AgroSciences, referred questions to the No on 522 Coalition.

Incomplete, Inconsistent
“It provides us incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate information,” Dana Bieber, a coalition spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. “If it’s about the right to know, the proponents went ahead and exempted 70 percent of food that’s even sold in the state.”

The measure would boost food costs as much as $520 per year for a family of four from 2015 to 2019, according to a report last month by the Washington Research Council, a Seattle-based, business-supported organization. Farmers and food manufacturers would incur $264 million in costs to begin complying with the measure, the report said. The proposal exempts food served in restaurants.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a Washington, D.C.- based group that represents companies such as ConAgra Foods Inc. and Kraft Foods Group Inc., has raised the most to defeat the Washington effort, at $7.7 million, according to MapLight.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued the association last week, saying it illegally collected and spent the funds while shielding the identities of its contributors.

Faces Sanctions
The association set up a Washington state political committee and reported the source of its funds on Oct. 18, Janelle Guthrie, Ferguson’s spokeswoman, said by e-mail. The industry group still faces a penalty, she said.

“While the GMA made the requested disclosures, there must be sanctions for violating the law and the case will move forward as filed,” Ferguson said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration supports voluntary labeling by food manufacturers indicating whether their products have been developed through genetic engineering, according to the agency’s website.

Scientific bodies from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the World Health Organization have concluded that genetically modified foods on the market are no riskier than conventional foods.

Still, there are doubters.

“I like to know what I’m eating,” Theresa Witherspoon, a 49-year-old Seattle housewife said in an interview outside the PCC store. “I’m not particularly interested in consuming things that have an unknown effect on your body.”

Witherspoon, who said her sister died of stomach cancer, said she plans to vote for the initiative.

“I’m not putting anything in my body that’s going to potentially adversely affect me,” Witherspoon said.

.

Something wrong with Hizzoner?

SOURCE: Kenneth Taylor (taylork021@Hawaii.rr.com) SUBHEAD: Meeting on subject of Kauai referendum on replacing mayoral politics with a county manager-council system. Image above: Boss William Tweed of New York's Tammany Hall, the home of the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in the politics of 19th century New York City. Mayoral politics... what could possibly go wrong? From (http://stratamaxgames.com/?p=14). WHAT: Tasked with reviewing proposals to change the existing form of county government to a county manager system, members of the Charter Review Commission Special Committee on County Governance are seeking input from Kaua‘i residents. The public is invited to provide their perspective on these proposals at upcoming community meetings: WHEN: Tuesday, June 15, 6 pm, Līhu'e Neighborhood Center (old) Thursday, June 17, 6 pm, Hanapepe Neighborhood Center Following the meetings, the Special Committee on County Governance will submit a report with its recommendations to the entire Charter Review Commission at its June 28 meeting. The Special Committee is comprised of three-members: Patrick Stack, chair; Joel Guy; and Jan TenBrugggencate. Anyone with special needs requiring an American Sign Language interpreter or an auxiliary aid to participate in any of these meetings should contact the Boards and Commissions Office at 241-4922 at least five business days prior to the meeting. To access the county manager proposals, please go to the county website, www.kauai.gov and navigate to the Boards and Commissions page or call the Boards and Commissions Office.
Council-Manager Resource Material By Robert J. O’Neill, Executive Director of ICMA - (http://transformgov.org/en/Page/100086/CouncilManager_Form_Resource_Package)

The collection of articles, statistics, and other information—grouped below as ICMA’s Council-Manager Form Resource Packet—will assist you in helping residents, elected officials, and business leaders within your community gain a better understanding of the value that professional management brings to our cities and towns.

ICMA's origins lie in the council-manager form of local government, which combines the strong political leadership of elected officials (in the form of a council, board, or other governing body) with the strong professional experience of an appointed local government manager or administrator. Under this form, power is concentrated in the elected council, which hires a professional administrator to implement its policies. These highly-trained, experienced individuals serve at the pleasure of the elected governing body and have responsibility for preparing the budget, directing day-to-day operations, hiring and firing personnel, and serving as the council's chief policy advisor.

Although ICMA actively promotes the council-manager form as the preferred structure, the organization also supports professional management in all forms of local government.

We invite you to use these materials as part of your council-manager form adoption and retention efforts. Click on the link to the packet components and you will be taken to ICMA’s Resource Center, where you will find a description of the material and one or more downloads. In addition to the materials contained in the Council-Manager Form Resource packet, scroll further down this page for a list of other resources, or contact Jared Dailey, assistant program manager, at jdailey@icma.org, for more information on form-of-government issues.

Launching an educational or promotional effort in support of the council-manager form can be difficult, but we hope you find these materials useful. Thank you for helping ICMA advocate the value of professional local government management and good luck with your efforts!

BACKGROUND

Brochure: Council-Manager Form of Government: Frequently Asked Questions (brochure)

Forms of Local Government Structure

Sample Ordinance for Establishing a Manager’s Position

Article: Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100

VALUE OF THE PROFESSION

Brochure: Professional Local Government Management: The Benefits to Your Municipality (brochure)

Article: How Professionals Can Add Value to Their Communities and Organizations

Questionnaire for Determining Value of Professional Administrator/Manager

Article: The Mayor-Manager Conundrum That Wasn't

Article: Council-Manager or "Strong Mayor": The Choice is Clear

EFFICIENCY/FISCAL SUPERORITY

How Professionals Save Local Governments Money

Article: Money Magazine's Best Places to Live (2008) and Statistics

Article: San Antonio's Bond Rating

STATISITICS

Form of Government Statistics (2009)

Form of Government Statistics: Council-Manager versus Mayor-Council in Specific Population Ranges

Local Government Longitudinal Statistics

.