Misc. Ramblings

Monday - 21 February, 2000

Vacation Time. Today is President's Day. A national holiday. Speaking of holidays. She Who Can Not Be Denied and I are planning a two week vacation in May. Probably to Los Angles and San Diego. With a short hop to Las Vegas perhaps. Yes. I know we just went to Las Vegas but the air fare is actually cheaper if, at some point in our vacation, we stay over at least one day there.

When in LA, we plan to go to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Other than that, and visiting my sister and her family in San Bernardino, we haven't decided on anything else. San Diego will be Sea World and perhaps the zoo.

We have also started to plan a vacation for next year. Probably sometime in the early part of the year to see the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York. We've been watching the show on TV for the past several years and always enjoyed it. Since it's been awhile since either of us have been back East, we decided to take a trip and see the dog show. We also plan to visit Chicago and Washington, D.C.

So you ask; "Do we have any dogs (the four legged kind)?" Not right now. My wife had a mixed-breed BC called Micky that was 14 or 15 years old when it died a year-and-half ago. We've decided (OK, I've decided) not to get another one until we move to another house that has a big enough sized yard. Our "yard" currently consists of a strip of grass about four feet wide by 50 feet long.

When we do get one, she insists on getting what I call a frou-frou dog. You know. A Pomeranian or Taco Bell dog. I, on the other hand, being the master of my domain and Lord as far as the eye can see, want a Labrador or Doberman. Ummm. What is that you said dear? Yes, dear. Right away dear. So, anyone know where to get a Spanish speaking Chihuahua? "Yo Quiero Taco Bell!"

Fantasia 2000. SWCNBD and I went to see Disney's Fantasia 2000 in IMAX on Saturday. Even if you don't have children, it would be worth going to see. Over 300GB of data, five miles of film. Thousands of animators. James Levine and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Music by the masters. A five story high IMAX screen. A projector lamp so bright that if it was on the moon, you could see it from Earth. See Ebert's review here. Only bad thing about it was that it is only 75 minutes long.

Beethoven - Symphony No. 5
Respighi - Pines of Rome
Gershwin - Rhapsody in Blue
Shostakovich - Piano Concerto No. 2, Allegro, Opus No. 102
Saint-Saëns - Carnival of the Animals
Dukas - The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Elgar - Pomp and Circumstance
Stravinsky - The Firebird Suite

Aloha!

Top / Home / Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday / Friday

Tuesday - 22 February, 2000

Final Arguments. The lawyers will have their final say today in the MS anti-trust trial. Even as other lawyers try to engineer (isn't that an oxymoron?) an out-of-court settlement in Chicago. I would be very surprised if there is a settlement at this stage. No mater what the Judge rules, there will be years of appeals. So why settle? MS has enough money to continue if it wants to. The only recent change is the change in CEOs. And so far, this has not signaled a change in strategy.

Painted Palms. 3Com introduces today their Palm IIIc. So what's new? It's their first color screen display. The price, $449. Also new is a collapsible keyboard ($99) and a new version of its operating system software. Scheduled next week is their IPO. Do you think there is a connection? Doh!

Aloha Also Means Hello. Speaking of taking tours. The Governor of the great state of Hawai'i is touring the Silicon Valley this week. He will be meeting with Oracle, Cisco, Xerox and others to try to interest them in creating public-private partnerships. If you see him, say Aloha for me.

***** Noon Update *****

This Day in History. On this date, in 1375, the first authorized public dissection of a human body takes place in Montpellier, France. Up to that point, dissections of humans were considered cruel, immoral, and sacrilegious. [courtesy of The Far Side 2000 Calendar].

The Numbers Don't Lie. Another in a series of posts trying to bring rationality to the public discourse. Today's post brings to the fore the debate, by some misinformed people, that it is better to not have a vaccination against certain diseases because those diseases have all but "disappeared" from the U.S. The story is here [note: this a 600k pdf so you may want to look at the other sources instead of this one]. More info from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is here and here. The bottom line is while some diseases are under control in the US, that does not mean they are controlled elsewhere. And since we live in a global economy, any disease, no matter how rare here, is just a plane ride away. Yes, there is a possibility of getting adverse reactions from the vaccination, and I am not a medical doctor so I will not give medical advice. But the numbers speak for themselves. Discuss this with your M.D., and then you decide.

Aloha!

Top / Home / Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday / Friday

Hump Day Wednesday - 23 February, 2000

Freedom of Speech. In the US's first such ballot measure, voters in conservative Holland, Michigan voted against requiring the public library to install Internet filters to keep children from looking at x-rated sites. The ordinance would have cut-off funding to the library unless librarians installed filter programs to deny access to certain web sites. Opponents say such filters don't work and often prevent access to legitimate information. Score one for the libertarians.

Rice v. Cayetano, 146 F.3d 1075 (98-818). The local political scene was rocked by an expansive US Supreme Court ruling (see the opinions and a summary here from Cornell University) today which will forever change the way native Hawai'ians are represented in their own council. The council, known as the Office of Hawai'ian Affairs was heretofore voted on only by those of native Hawai'ian ancestry (well, duh). However, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, held that the restriction to native Hawai'ian voters violated the 15th Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, throwing the entire process into an uproar which will take years to sort out. Nothing like an activist, radical right-wing court, making decisions based on "glittering generalities", to stir things up <g>

It is clear from this ruling, although perhaps not intended, that native Hawai'ians will have to create our own nation, completely separate and independent from the state and federal governments if we are to have control over our own destiny. It did not have to be this way, but the Supreme Court has forced the issue. So shall it be. It is on their heads.

Disclaimer: the views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer. See also my general disclaimer here.

Today in History. Speaking of vaccines. On Feb. 23, 1954, the first mass inoculation of children against polio with the Salk vaccine began in Pittsburgh. See the New York Times story from that date here.

Aloha!

Top / Home / Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday / Friday

Thursday - 24 February, 2000

Hot Rice. The old saying that power does not exist in a vacuum is holding true. The Supreme Court decision striking down the ability of Hawai'ians to self-determination has created such a vacuum. And into that vacuum rushes the Governor and the Legislature.

The Governor is saying he will, in the next 30 days, remove all of the elected Office of Hawai'ian Affairs trustees and replace them with appointees that he will select. It is unclear at this point, whether he needs/has the power to do this since the case must still be remanded back to the court of origin here for final rulings. And since this is an election year, a case could be made to simply open the election to everyone and let the voters decide in November. However, on the face of it, it appears that the Governor wishes to "pack" OHA with what I can only describe as "lackeys" who will do what the Governor wishes. I hope this is not true, but this is what it looks like at this point.

The Legislature, not wanting to be left out, met in a very rare emergency session last night to discuss the situation and to decide what statutory or state constitutional changes will be required. It is unclear as to what direction they will go at this point. But suffice it to say, it is doubtful that they will have the best interests of Hawai'ians as their first priority.

Relating to this subject is the following email from J.H. Ricketson in San Pablo:

To: Dan Seto
From: J.H. Ricketson [culam@micron.net]
Subject: Native Hawaiian?
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:21:50 -0800

Dear Dan,

Just finished reading your 02.23 Daynotes re:Rice vs. Cayetano. "...The council, known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was heretofore voted on only by those of native Hawai'ian ancestry..."

This raises a question in my mind: I was under the impression that those of "native Hawaiian ancestry" were those people whose ancestors were indigenous to Hawaii - as "Native Americans" are those whose ancestors were indigenous (American Indians, if you will). I, although a many-generations-back American, have only a slight bit of Native American blood in the mix, and cannot legitimately claim Native American status. Please enlighten me on the fine points as applied to Hawaii & this decision. Not argumentative - merely curious, really.

<snip>

Regards,

JHR

From: Dan Seto
To: J.H. Ricketson
Subject: Re: Native Hawaiian?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:49:13 -1000

First, thanks for being interested in what is going on way out here in the Pacific. Now, as to your question. As I understand it you are asking for a definition of what a native Hawai'ian is? If this is correct, then there are two answers.

As background, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is governed by an elected nine-member board of trustees, the members of which "shall be Hawaiians"and shall be "elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law." Haw. Const., Art. XII, §5; see Haw. Rev. Stat. §§13D-1, 13D-3(b)(1) (1993).

The term "Hawaiian", in this case, is defined by statute as follows: "'Hawaiian' means any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and which peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawaii." §10-2, Haw. Rev. Stat. In other words, to be qualified to vote for an OHA trustee, you must have some level of Hawai'ian blood in you. Note, it does not matter how much. Even 1/500th is enough. Or 1/1000th. Or whatever. ANY amount of Hawai'ian blood is sufficient. Note also, that in practice, all you have to do is declare on a form that you have Hawai'ian blood and that is sufficient to qualify you for voting.

There is also a legal definition of what a "native Hawai'ian" is. And this definition is used for benefits which may accrue from what is known as the Hawai'ian Homes Commission. This Commission is not part of this case and is separate and distinct from OHA. But in order to qualify for benefits from this agency, "'Native Hawaiian' means any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920. Obviously, this definition is much more restrictive. But again, this does not enter into this case and is provided for completeness.

I hope this answers your question. If not, feel free to let me know and I will try to provide the answer. You may also wish to read the majority opinion which has background material on the history of the Hawai'ians and why there are agencies set aside to assist us. The link is http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZO.html.

Aloha - Dan

MS Rant #2845. Before installing my MS Explorer USB mouse a couple of months ago, I removed the OS/2 port MS mouse I had been using. From that point, I've had to put up with a error condition in Device Manager.

Device Manager says about the PS/2 compatible mouse port; "This device is either not present, not working properly, or does not have all the drivers installed. (Code 24). Try upgrading the device drivers for this device." Since it didn't seem to be harming anything and I wasn't using any mouse port, much less the PS/2 one I didn't care that it wasn't working (even though it was using system resources such as IRQ 12).

Yesterday, I decided to delete the PS/2 compatible mouse port from the Device Manager since I wasn't using it, nor its IRQ 12 for anything (and several devices were sharing interrupts, something I still find hard to believe is a Good Thing).

So, I open Device Manager, highlight the mouse port and click on the remove button. So far so good. I reboot and Windows begins to come up. But then hardware detection indicates that it has found new hardware (gee, did it go shopping at CompUSA while I wasn't looking?) and is installing the software for it. Would I like to reboot?

OK. I'm game. Go ahead and reboot. So it reboots and Windows comes up. I check Device Manager, and guess what? The port that I removed is back and it has the same error as before. Hmmm. This is really strange. On one hand, Windows is saying an error condition exists. But if I try to remove the hardware that seemingly is causing the error, Windows just goes ahead, without my permission, and enables and installs the hardware drivers for it anyway.

But do I give up? Well, you know that answer to that. So, figures I. Maybe it just needs updated drivers (see the error message above). So I click on Properties, Update Driver, Next, MS Windows Update. It goes online and searches for an updated driver. Which it does not find and says so.

OK. I can't remove it. I can't get an updated driver. I guess it could be "not working properly". So, power down, unplug the USB mouse and plug in a PS/2 mouse. Power up and it works fine. No problems. No error message. So, I power down again, remove the PS/2 mouse, plug in the USB mouse and power up. And of course, the error message is back. I take a moment to bring my blood pressure down from 300/250 and try to think of something else to do. Remember that the error message is about the PS/2 PORT. Not that there isn't a mouse in that port.

Getting desperate now, I try removing the port again via Device Manager and reboot. But this time I go into the BIOS (after typing in the password that "protects" from anyone making changes without my permission). The second page of the BIOS screen has the option of turning off the port and freeing up IRQ 12. I turn it off and reboot. Windows comes up and says it's found new hardware and is installing the software for it. WTF? Reboot? OK. Go ahead, knowing full well what will be the end result. And sure enough, the port is back and so is the error.

So I reboot again and take a look at the BIOS (after typing in my password that "protects" the BIOS from any unauthorized changes). WTF X 2? Windows has re-enabled the PS/2 port in the BIOS! How can this be? This is password protected! Note to virus writers, decompile the section of Windows that bypasses BIOS passwords. This will enable you to corrupt the BIOS regardless of any safeguards in place.

So, let's summarize here. Removing the PS/2 mouse creates an error condition in Device Manager for the PORT. Trying to remove the port in Device Manager *AND/OR* in the BIOS is short-circuited by Windows since it INSISTS on enabling the port, even if it is not wanted or needed. Upgrading the drivers does nothing. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200, go directly to the funny farm. How insanely stupid is Windows and the programmers who did this?</RANT>

Tip of the Day. If you do not use MS Internet Explorer, but you want to download the latest updates to Windows, you can do so by going here. Microsoft has conveniently created a page that lists all of the available updates for all of the MS operating systems from Win 3.1 to Win 2000.

***** Noon Update *****

Please do read the US Supreme Court's majority opinion (see the link above). Especially the background information leading up to the creation of the Office of Hawai'ian Affairs in the 1978 state Constitutional Convention. This information sets forth the most important point that anyone reading anything about Hawai'i must know. Namely, the sovereign nation of Hawai'i was illegally invaded, occupied, and then permanently stolen from the indigenous people. If you understand nothing else of what is going on here, understand that. Understand that certain Republican business men, with the direct support of the US military, stole the islands from the king. Know that over the years there have been armed revolts against these men. Know that the US Congress, Presidents, and courts have acknowledged the illegal taking. And know that none of these people would ever voluntarily give back what was stolen ("We stole it fair and square. Why should we pay for it, or heaven forbid, actually give it back!").

So, with that history lesson; where do we go from here? Well, given that the last right to self-determination that Hawai'ians had has been removed by the Supreme Court, the only recourse is sovereignty. Now, don't be surprised by this answer. The subject has been bubbling on the burner for some time (see the two following references here and here and bibliography). The problems have always been, what type of sovereignty, who to head it, and how to create it. You can read the above links to get a feel for what is happening on that front. But if nothing else, the court's ruling leads clearly to this conclusion as the sole avenue to self-determination. For that we must thank the court.

Browser Stats. It's nice to see that the, acclaimed in Europe, cat powered browser from Bo-Finger Industries known as SalemScrape ver. 3.61 is moving up the charts. IE needs the competition. The only problem I have with it is that it leaves fur balls all over the place.

Aloha!

Top / Home / Monday / Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday / Friday

Aloha Friday - 25 February, 2000

It's Friday!

Sorry my posting is a little late this morning. I needed to respond to an email from John Doucette. He had a short question about the Supreme Court decision noted above. And I had a long answer [we always knew you were long winded - Ed.].

From: John Doucette [jhdoucette@home.com]
To: Dan Seto
Subject: sovereignty
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:32:32 -0700

Hi Dan

First I have not read the material you posted links for as a back ground to the sovereignty issue. I state this so to further display my ignorance of the issue.

I feel like I have foot in mouth disease. I want to ask a simple question, but my I feel the need to lay some ground work on where I am coming from and it is not going well, thus I have deleted much of what I have written so far, so I'll just come out with it.

Native Hawaiians have been living under U.S. rule ( I believe ) since 1778. Given this why can't everyone just accept that Hawaii is a multi cultural state and live under the existing government. The majority of the wrong that has been done to the Hawaiian people was done long ago. Why does something that happened circa 1778 need to be an issue in 2000.

I ask this not to be an ass, but to better understand what Hawaiian people think and feel.

Regards
John

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Seto
To: John Doucette
Subject: Re: sovereignty
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:53:38 -1000

Hey John,

Thanks for reminding me to bring this subject up. I meant to say something in yesterday's post but I just plain forgot. I do ask that you read the Supreme Court opinion because it gives the reasons as to why the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in the first place. The history of Hawai'i is one of a *continuing* discrimination against the original inhabitants of these islands. This point is critical in understanding my answers. Now as to your question, why is this an issue today? The short answer is, because the Supreme Court made it so. The long answer is set forth below.

Before I begin, I hope my answer above and below does not offend anyone nor seem like I am lecturing anyone. I am not. But there needs to be an understanding of ones history, if for no other reason that it is instructive in determining where we are now and where we may be in the future. Please bear with me as I point out a few things.

So, I need to give some background information first. It comes down to money (doesn't it always) and who controls it. The great majority of funding for the Office of Hawai'ian Affairs comes from what is referred to as "ceded lands." These lands were a part of the lands taken/stolen/annexed by the US in the 17 and 1800s. However, the majority of the voting population of Hawai'i, 22 years ago, voted on a state constitutional amendment which gives OHA 20% of all income from those lands. Note two things here. First, the land is Hawai'ian land. That is, ownership is not in dispute. It belongs to Hawai'ians. Second. Everyone in Hawai'i, Hawai'ian or not, had the opportunity to vote on the state constitutional amendment which acknowledges ownership of the land and created the Office of Hawai'ian Affairs to manage those lands. It further acknowledges that "rent", in the form of the 20% set-aside, must be paid to the owners, i.e. OHA, from any income that those who now occupy those lands gain from its use.

Secondly, Hawai'ians, no mater what blood quantum is used, are in a minority here. In fact, there is no majority. Although, if the current trends continue, the majority will soon be rich conservatives from the mainland. I note this reality not to be divisive but to point out the simple fact that if Hawai'ians were in the majority, there would be no need to set-up a special voting process. And the reason we are not in the majority goes back to the history of these islands and the hundreds of thousands who were killed/died after the coming of Captain Cook.

Now, with that background. The Supreme Court invalidated the process by which the owners of the ceded lands (OHA) pick their trustees. They based this on the fact that OHA is a state agency that comes under the Governor. As opposed to a tribal agency that comes under a council of American Indian chiefs. Fine. They are right. Race is used in determining who can vote for OHA and it is a state agency. But the population of Hawai'i voted on this and the majority said yes, this is the pono (right or just) way for Hawai'ians to determine their own destiny and control their own lands.

So where does that leave us now? Well, the lawyers who brought this suit to the Supreme Court are now openly soliciting clients to bring further suits to dismantle OHA and, by inference, stop paying any rent to the owners of the land. I find this patently unfair and illegal. If you or I don't pay our rent, we are evicted. If the rich people who occupy Hawai'ian lands don't pay their rent, they get the courts to say they don't have to. Tell me why we should disregard this.

Given the continuing discrimination against Hawai'ians, is it any wonder that we now seek what is known as "nation within a nation" status, i.e. sovereignty? This is similar to what the native Americans have set-up. There is precedent to do this and the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled it to be legal. I personally, did not want to go this far. I prefer to work within the system. But the system has left us only two choices. Sovereignty or death. I choose sovereignty. I do not expect others who do not know our history to agree with me. But I hope they at least understand the choices left to us.

I welcome any questions, comments, perspectives or solutions that you may have my friend and I hope your job search is going well.

Aloha - Dan

---

From: Bo Leuf [bo@leuf.com]
To: Dan Seto
Subject: PS/2 port
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:47:30 +0100

Good morning,

Windows handling of a PS/2 port has its quirks. Both yours truly and Jerry Pournelle have had "fun" with this one.

You can read about my trials with a dead PS/2 pad/port in http://www.leuf.org/articles/199802w.htm -- it's a ways down the page under the heading "Mousetrap". The issue was that Win9x PnP actually writes settings into the BIOS NVRAM, and on occasion corrupt info which can royally lock up some device or other. Only restoring the factory BIOS settings got it unstuck.

Hmm, forgot that I wrote so much about Win95 at the time -- that was one long page...

/ Bo

--
Bo Leuf
Leuf fc3 Consultancy
http://www.leuf.com/

From: Dan Seto
To: Bo Leuf
Subject: Re: PS/2 port
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:22:14 -1000

And a good morning to you also (or whatever time it is there!).

Thanks for the link. I've read it, and at this point, I will just about try anything. So I will first note down the BIOS settings as they currently are, then re-set them to the factory defaults. If you see a smoke cloud rising from the general direction of the Hawai'ian Islands, not to worry, that's just me blowing off some steam.

Aloha - Dan

---

From: "salem s" [salem@leuf.com]
Organization: world domination in 5
To: Dan Seto
Subject: furbles
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:59:27 +0100

dan

> Browser Stats. It's nice to see that the, acclaimed in Europe, cat
> powered browser from Bo-Finger Industries known as SalemScrape ver.
> 3.61 is moving up the charts. IE needs the competition. The only
> problem I have with it is that it leaves fur balls all over the place.

i'll have you know that salemscrape is my own development -- salemcorps incaterated, and if you didn't use ms software there won't be any wrinkles, folds or black holes for fur to collect in. you might be in the market for my new os, felix... the kernel for that is pure catnip, i assure you, and for your security i retain full personal control of all my backdoors and bitlitter bins.

power to the hawai'ians by the way -- if you scratch my ears i'll scratch your back, or whatever -- world domination is all i ask, i can live with a few sovereign island states as long as they deify cats. i'm sure we can find some common ground here...

-- salem
a cat with attitude
72 years to go

From: Dan Seto
To: salem
Subject: Re: furbles
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:32:15 -1000

Salem,

My humble apologies for getting the corporate name wrong! It's those darned editors. They never check anything first. Of course, I, on the other hand, am always purrrrfect [he said as he tripped on all of the dust bunnies laying around and hit his head on the filing cabinet].

As far as deifying cats. I can't say when cats first made it to our shores as there is no record I know of. But I do know Hawai'ians have always had great respect for animal life and in fact, did deify sharks, owls, and turtles. However, if you want your ears scratched you'll have to pay your own plane fare here. Sorry.

Aloha - Dan

© 2000 Daniel K. Seto. All rights reserved.