Can you spot the breadfruits in this small breadfruit tree?
In this close up they are easier to see.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
The Trees of Kuroda Field
Friday, November 4, 2016
Democracies, Republics and Universal Suffrage
POLITICAL WARNING AS REQUIRED BY -- OH, WAIT, THIS ISN'T A TV AD.
Today's post is a little different. No photos, no travelogue and a mix of optimism, pessimism and personal opinion. Now you've been forewarned so you can read or not depending. . .
By most measures we live in what is still a great country. Definitions of "great" change over the years but even today, with the growth of big government and increased restrictions on freedoms, I would say we live in a great country.
Like greatness, the right to rule or direct the government of a tribe, collection of tribes, state, country or collection of countries has changed over the years.
In primitive times it was usually brute strength that decided who was boss of the group, whether it was a family or a small group of people. Later, as groups grew larger, various methods of determining the leader and/or ruling class developed.
In primitive tribes and other smaller groups there often rose some kind of hereditary leadership passed from father to son (and sometimes from mother to daughter) which was supported by a shaman or medicine man in a sort of symbiotic relationship. The chief was supported by the man who had entree to the spirit world and in return the chief would protect the medicine man. The reigning shaman would pick a bright youth and train him in the art so the spirit world disproportionately maintained its influence. In some cases a council of elders or some other collection of advisors would help the chief rule in a more equitable manner.
In many groups castes or class lines developed and were rigidly observed and jealously enforced by the ruling class. Sometimes there would be a physical sign of belonging to the superior class such as the bound feet in China, caste marks in India or the flat heads of some of the Chinook Indians here in our own Northwest. Only members of the special ruling class could bind the feet or the heads of its members or wear the mark of a special class. I won't mention here the desire of some people in our "modern" society to obtain and/or flaunt signs of belonging to a superior class, but clothes, houses, cars and even purses and shoes come to mind.
In many societies, the right to rule was derived from God, or the Gods. From Japan, where the ruler was actually called "God" (Tenno - "Heavenly Sovereign") to the western countries where the right of a king to direct the government of a country was God given and unquestionable by the common man, God(s) gave the right to rule.
There were exceptions to the rule by God-given right but even in ancient Greece where democracy as we know it got its start (and only lasted a couple hundred years), the right to vote was limited to a small percentage of the total population.
In order to preserve the right of directing the government of any society there had to be rules to prevent much dilution of those rights. Slavery was one of the common ways to have productive workers without allowing them to have a say in their governance. Even that early democracy in Greece had lots of slaves and slaves were, and still are, a common way to get work done without permitting such persons to vote. Even today there are estimates of 46 million people living in slavery around the world. Class distinctions and slavery have been very effective in maintaining a voting elite.
There are also political systems that allow, or encourage, or force, all their people to vote but allow only one choice for that vote. I guess these systems haven't developed much beyond the brute strength philosophy of the early families of humans but they are pretty effective in maintaining the existing political structure of a society. Until eventually the people revolt. . .
Only in the past couple hundred years have we had serious discussions about systems of government where the leaders are chosen by some sort of vote by a cross section of at least some of the people of the country.
It's interesting to consider the progression of "voting rights" as we know that idea today. We started (in our country) with only certain landed males being able to vote and have added other males, former slaves, females, younger citizens (reduced minimum age from 21 to 18), re-enfranchised felons who have completed their sentence (in some jurisdictions), Indians (Native Americans) and others until today virtually every citizen or permanent legal resident of the United States is eligible to cast a vote.
Disregarding for now whether that vote has any significance, we might ask: Should all of those people be entitled to vote? If a person doesn't know the difference between a governor, senator, president or dog catcher, should that person be able to cast a ballot? If a person doesn't know whether she lives in Seattle or London or Los Angeles? If he has Alzheimer's advanced enough that he doesn't remember his own name? If she doesn't care about voting and only registers for "ballot by mail" because some activist signed her up and ends up voting her ballot?
These are questions that are difficult to decide but impact the value of my vote, or your vote, or the vote of any person who is knowledgeable and motivated to act as a responsible citizen. In a democracy where every person is entitled to vote do we really want the apathetic, irresponsible or incapable person to vote? If they do "vote" do we want their vote to carry the same weight as the vote of other, more responsible citizens?
Disregarding these questions for a moment, consider the idea that your vote might be worthless anyway. In Washington we have 12 electoral votes. Because we are a "blue" state with the big chunk of voters in the Puget Sound Basin voting Democrat, if you vote Republican your vote will be disregarded outright, at least for the presidential election, because those 12 electoral votes all will be cast for the Democratic candidate and individual votes for other candidates are relegated to an interesting footnote.
On the other hand, if you vote for a Democratic elector, once the number of votes cast is enough to put the state's 12 electoral votes in the Democratic column, all the additional Democratic votes are wasted too. No matter how many more Democratic votes are cast there will never be more than 12 electoral votes tallied for the Democratic candidate.
If the whole process makes you scratch your head, join the crowd of questioning voters who are proposing different ways of electing the POTUS.
Voting for local candidates sometimes makes more sense and voting for Initiatives, referendums and other direct votes for new laws is a more direct (democratic?) way of tolling the opinion of the people. Not saying that those "direct" ways of voting are best because sometimes they bring about undesirable ends and impose uninformed "majority" rule on undeserving minorities.
It's been said that "Money buys votes" and whether that means trying to sway voters' opinions via advertising or paying workers to gather signatures on initiatives and other requests for change from the people, it seems to be true. Occasionally a candidate who spends less is elected but it's about as common as an incumbent politician being defeated. In both cases it is an uphill battle.
Since there are so many questions about our way of electing our political representatives a person would think there would be more interest in working for change to develop a better system. That doesn't seem to happen since most of our voters just shake their heads and say, "That's just the way it is."
Traditionally people fought (literally, in many cases) for religious reasons, when they were hungry or were insecure. In our country religion has become more and more a non-starter, none are really hungry (despite the government declared "poverty line") and very few are insecure in their personal lives. Despite the uptick in violent crime in some neighborhoods of some cities, most people live safe and secure lives.
I think our people don't care much about change as long as they have a relatively easy life. Americans, for the most part, don't know what danger, or hunger, or voter fraud, or incompetent government is all about. Only when our government runs out of money, voter fraud becomes common and widespread or we completely eliminate the possibility of a poor person becoming a successful entrepreneur (class migration) will we have a real grassroots call for change.
Overall, our "democracy," "republic," "democratic republic," "representative democracy," "constitutional democracy" or whatever name you want to call it has worked. I see a need for changes and others see need for other changes, but our system has allowed a certain governmental stability while permitting changes dictated by changing perceptions of right and wrong, desirable goals for government and yes, even the value of our people themselves.Will it survive long in the natural tide of the rise and fall of nations? Only you and other motivated voters can answer that question.
Election day is a little over a week away. In some quarters it generates less interest than the impending change back to standard time. So cast your vote, friends. The value of your vote is magnified by all those who don't vote and your vote might even have some influence on local or state-wide elections.
Today's post is a little different. No photos, no travelogue and a mix of optimism, pessimism and personal opinion. Now you've been forewarned so you can read or not depending. . .
By most measures we live in what is still a great country. Definitions of "great" change over the years but even today, with the growth of big government and increased restrictions on freedoms, I would say we live in a great country.
Like greatness, the right to rule or direct the government of a tribe, collection of tribes, state, country or collection of countries has changed over the years.
In primitive times it was usually brute strength that decided who was boss of the group, whether it was a family or a small group of people. Later, as groups grew larger, various methods of determining the leader and/or ruling class developed.
In primitive tribes and other smaller groups there often rose some kind of hereditary leadership passed from father to son (and sometimes from mother to daughter) which was supported by a shaman or medicine man in a sort of symbiotic relationship. The chief was supported by the man who had entree to the spirit world and in return the chief would protect the medicine man. The reigning shaman would pick a bright youth and train him in the art so the spirit world disproportionately maintained its influence. In some cases a council of elders or some other collection of advisors would help the chief rule in a more equitable manner.
In many groups castes or class lines developed and were rigidly observed and jealously enforced by the ruling class. Sometimes there would be a physical sign of belonging to the superior class such as the bound feet in China, caste marks in India or the flat heads of some of the Chinook Indians here in our own Northwest. Only members of the special ruling class could bind the feet or the heads of its members or wear the mark of a special class. I won't mention here the desire of some people in our "modern" society to obtain and/or flaunt signs of belonging to a superior class, but clothes, houses, cars and even purses and shoes come to mind.
In many societies, the right to rule was derived from God, or the Gods. From Japan, where the ruler was actually called "God" (Tenno - "Heavenly Sovereign") to the western countries where the right of a king to direct the government of a country was God given and unquestionable by the common man, God(s) gave the right to rule.
There were exceptions to the rule by God-given right but even in ancient Greece where democracy as we know it got its start (and only lasted a couple hundred years), the right to vote was limited to a small percentage of the total population.
In order to preserve the right of directing the government of any society there had to be rules to prevent much dilution of those rights. Slavery was one of the common ways to have productive workers without allowing them to have a say in their governance. Even that early democracy in Greece had lots of slaves and slaves were, and still are, a common way to get work done without permitting such persons to vote. Even today there are estimates of 46 million people living in slavery around the world. Class distinctions and slavery have been very effective in maintaining a voting elite.
There are also political systems that allow, or encourage, or force, all their people to vote but allow only one choice for that vote. I guess these systems haven't developed much beyond the brute strength philosophy of the early families of humans but they are pretty effective in maintaining the existing political structure of a society. Until eventually the people revolt. . .
Only in the past couple hundred years have we had serious discussions about systems of government where the leaders are chosen by some sort of vote by a cross section of at least some of the people of the country.
It's interesting to consider the progression of "voting rights" as we know that idea today. We started (in our country) with only certain landed males being able to vote and have added other males, former slaves, females, younger citizens (reduced minimum age from 21 to 18), re-enfranchised felons who have completed their sentence (in some jurisdictions), Indians (Native Americans) and others until today virtually every citizen or permanent legal resident of the United States is eligible to cast a vote.
Disregarding for now whether that vote has any significance, we might ask: Should all of those people be entitled to vote? If a person doesn't know the difference between a governor, senator, president or dog catcher, should that person be able to cast a ballot? If a person doesn't know whether she lives in Seattle or London or Los Angeles? If he has Alzheimer's advanced enough that he doesn't remember his own name? If she doesn't care about voting and only registers for "ballot by mail" because some activist signed her up and ends up voting her ballot?
These are questions that are difficult to decide but impact the value of my vote, or your vote, or the vote of any person who is knowledgeable and motivated to act as a responsible citizen. In a democracy where every person is entitled to vote do we really want the apathetic, irresponsible or incapable person to vote? If they do "vote" do we want their vote to carry the same weight as the vote of other, more responsible citizens?
Disregarding these questions for a moment, consider the idea that your vote might be worthless anyway. In Washington we have 12 electoral votes. Because we are a "blue" state with the big chunk of voters in the Puget Sound Basin voting Democrat, if you vote Republican your vote will be disregarded outright, at least for the presidential election, because those 12 electoral votes all will be cast for the Democratic candidate and individual votes for other candidates are relegated to an interesting footnote.
On the other hand, if you vote for a Democratic elector, once the number of votes cast is enough to put the state's 12 electoral votes in the Democratic column, all the additional Democratic votes are wasted too. No matter how many more Democratic votes are cast there will never be more than 12 electoral votes tallied for the Democratic candidate.
If the whole process makes you scratch your head, join the crowd of questioning voters who are proposing different ways of electing the POTUS.
Voting for local candidates sometimes makes more sense and voting for Initiatives, referendums and other direct votes for new laws is a more direct (democratic?) way of tolling the opinion of the people. Not saying that those "direct" ways of voting are best because sometimes they bring about undesirable ends and impose uninformed "majority" rule on undeserving minorities.
It's been said that "Money buys votes" and whether that means trying to sway voters' opinions via advertising or paying workers to gather signatures on initiatives and other requests for change from the people, it seems to be true. Occasionally a candidate who spends less is elected but it's about as common as an incumbent politician being defeated. In both cases it is an uphill battle.
Since there are so many questions about our way of electing our political representatives a person would think there would be more interest in working for change to develop a better system. That doesn't seem to happen since most of our voters just shake their heads and say, "That's just the way it is."
Traditionally people fought (literally, in many cases) for religious reasons, when they were hungry or were insecure. In our country religion has become more and more a non-starter, none are really hungry (despite the government declared "poverty line") and very few are insecure in their personal lives. Despite the uptick in violent crime in some neighborhoods of some cities, most people live safe and secure lives.
I think our people don't care much about change as long as they have a relatively easy life. Americans, for the most part, don't know what danger, or hunger, or voter fraud, or incompetent government is all about. Only when our government runs out of money, voter fraud becomes common and widespread or we completely eliminate the possibility of a poor person becoming a successful entrepreneur (class migration) will we have a real grassroots call for change.
Overall, our "democracy," "republic," "democratic republic," "representative democracy," "constitutional democracy" or whatever name you want to call it has worked. I see a need for changes and others see need for other changes, but our system has allowed a certain governmental stability while permitting changes dictated by changing perceptions of right and wrong, desirable goals for government and yes, even the value of our people themselves.Will it survive long in the natural tide of the rise and fall of nations? Only you and other motivated voters can answer that question.
Election day is a little over a week away. In some quarters it generates less interest than the impending change back to standard time. So cast your vote, friends. The value of your vote is magnified by all those who don't vote and your vote might even have some influence on local or state-wide elections.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Hawaii Army Museum at Ft DeRussy
Today seemed like a good day to take a break from the usual tourist activities here in Waikiki so I walked over to the Army Museum to see what was new since I last toured the place ten years ago.
The museum is housed in the old Battery Randolf right on Ft DeRussy. The Hale Koa Special Services Hotel is close by. In fact you can see the corner of the one of the hotel buildings above the trees and below the tall blue building in the upper right side of this photo. Also nearby are the historic Royal Hawaiian and Moana Hotels.
The front of the building has a static display of some old guns and a couple small tanks. On the roof is a Bell AH-1 Cobra "Snake" with armament from the 1967 era in Vietnam.
Constructed in 1911 to defend Honolulu Harbor it originally had two seven-inch guns on disappearing carriages. These were later changed to two 14-inch guns.
This might bring back memories for some of the veterans and their families who took R&R here at Ft DeRussy during the Vietnam war. This doorway leads into the exhibit on Vietnam.
The newest exhibit features local boy, Eric Shinseki, who rose from a humble birthplace on Kauai, through the ranks of the Army to become Army Chief of Staff.
Many of the concrete walls in this old building are twelve inches thick with the seaward walls designed to withstand a direct hit from a 2,000 pound artillery shell, the doors are the original steel doors and the roof is at least 14 inches thick with an additional 12 inch false ceiling in the ammo handling rooms.
The building is interesting in its own right. The old walls, doors and cubbyholes for lanterns in case of power failure are just as they were when they were built. The shell handling trolleys and handling platforms give insight into the pre-WWII ways of handling big shells.
In November 1914 the Army warned the residents of Waikiki that there would be test firing of the original seven-inch guns. Despite the warnings people were shocked and as the historical notes on Shore Battery Randolf say "no one was fully prepared for the effects of the shock wave that rocked the neighborhood. Little actual damage was done, though dishes rattled and some windows cracked blocks away. To avoid damage in later years, as Waikiki continued to grow, the guns were seldom fired."
As Wikipedia says, the big shock came later: "The Fourteen inch guns of Shore Battery Randolph were fired once in a practice shortly after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, shattering many of the windows in the Royal Hawaiian and Moana, and were not fired again.[2]"
After the war was over the guns were cut up for scrap and there were several attempts to demolish the battery building. Since they were surrounded by hotels and other buildings dynamite couldn't be used so in 1976 the building was designated as the home of the US Army Museum of Hawaii.
Now that you know a little about the building, let's take a look at some of the exhibits I found interesting.
The history of armed conflict in the old Hawaiian civilizations was interesting. When I see the old war clubs, wooden spears, rock hammers and shark tooth enhancements I wonder if our generals and other leaders would be so willing to go to war if they had to use such tools to kill each other.
There was a good exhibit that highlighted the 442 RCT and other Nisei outfits during World War II.
There's an extensive exhibit about WWII starting with the attack on Pearl Harbor and going on through the war in the Pacific.
The newest exhibit features local boy, Eric Shinseki, who rose from a humble birthplace on Kauai, through the ranks of the Army to become Army Chief of Staff.
The exhibit on Shinseki traces his growth from childhood through Army career and retirement. It is well designed and I'm sure it's a source of great pride to the people of Hawaii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)