memfree

me too

For generations, Native Hawaiians have been displaced from ancestral lands, and on the island of Molokai, where one-third of the island is owned by Hong Kong-headquartered billionaire investment firm Guoco Group...

Same basic problem is on all the islands. Read the fictionalized story The Descendants (or see movie of same name).

... Land mismanagement causes other problems as well. Red dirt sediment from West Molokai’s eroded slopes runs into the ocean after a heavy rain, turning the water red with pollution that can kill coral reefs and clog fishponds.

“If our reef dies, we lose that as a source of food,” Kalipi said.

It sounds like Hawaii should institute a land use law where squatters on lands of absent landlords could claim ownership by working said land. I know they have something like that already because there was another lawsuit where developers purposely built on someone else's land, then sued the property owner for trying to 'steal' the luxury building they built by 'mistake' such that all she could argue was that they tear the whole thing down.

If successful, it would be one of the largest land purchases in Hawaii, behind Larry Ellison’s nearly 90,000-acre acquisition on the island of Lanai. Only this time, the land would be returning to its people.

The Molokai Heritage Trust is moving forward thoughtfully in its endeavor, dedicating years for discussion and research and obtaining its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status last year.

I am heartened by the last line, which is labeled as "Pakui’s Prophecy" (emphasis mine):

The heavens will fall, the high-born will fall, and the dark earth — the common people — will rise like a wave.

Comrade, please. I am asking the public to organize and make this demand. We tried cancelling when it came to Paramount, and look at triviality of that 'boycott'. Look at the data. The only way people are going to see a reason to complain is if, "We're gonna miss our favorite show!" So put that reason in their face.

Based on how little Paramount suffered after the 60 minutes/Colbert cave-ins, it is doubtful many people will see any reason to cancel subscriptions. If you only get the faithful to cancel, you are only hurting those you love and not the billionaires.

If the talent and the customers for various networks band together to demand a day-long media blackout, the billionaires might be persuaded to all do it at the same time as a power move to show the Government how independent the media can be. Billionaires might very much like to show that they are the ones in control and they can put whomever they want on TV, in memes, or wherever.

I don't think that's the answer because this is coming from Sinclair and the FCC's threat that ABC can do it the easy or hard way, and if hard, then the FCC is going to have some more work to do (paraphrasing).

We need to petition ALL the networks AND Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple and get them ALL to put up a message on all stations and networks for a day that basically says:

The First Amendment protects Free Speech. It is one of the things that makes the America great. The FCC has threatened to find issues with broadcasters who allow free speech on their platforms. We must stand together to keep America great and stand up for the First Amendment. Contact your members of Congress to make your voice heard.

Hopefully someone can improve my first draft of a message.

More importantly, IF people think this is a good idea, please pass it on to anyone who can get the message out of this enclave and into wider distribution.

Look at it like this: motors are a recent invention. It used to be if some group was big enough to have a city, they had slaves or slave-like laborers that were looked down on and generally abused. Everywhere. Including European serfs. Even Vikings made slaves out of Englishmen. Everything from reaping wheat to making nails was the result of physical labor so an underclass was necessary once you were bigger than a village/town.

For a bunch of reasons, Europeans developed better ships sooner and so had the opportunity to exploit the labor of other peoples as well as their own countrymen. That set up a cascade of development. The French revolution happened early enough that it served as a warning to other governments to spend some resources pacifying the masses at home. The masses were never in a position to know what was going on beyond their own borders, so the people in control -- the people gaining all the rewards -- had a psychological reason to mentally frame the people of their conquered colonies as inferiors. To be fair, almost every country has considered themself to be a better people than all others. Everyone thinks they do things the best way.

I feel pretty sure that if the Chinese of Japanese had come to Europe in, say, 1200 A.D. with ships and guns, Europe would have been colonized. The same goes for any other power. Sigh I sometimes wish Carthage had defeated Rome.

Per https://piefed.social/post/1262797 which links to Axios source:

• The latest: Utah Gov. Spencer Cox ( R ) confirmed Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that Robinson lived with a romantic partner who was undergoing a gender transition.

People should always question their sources just as a general rule.

I'm annoyed that this post doesn't include a link to the SOURCE. Grrr. Here it is.

There. Now it isn't just a questionable possbly faked pic, but a verifiable retraction with the misleading 'leftist' bits still at the top of the page and in the sub-headline.

The point about a 4 year old is a rhetorical device. No answer is expected. I constructed it to illustrate on the biological reality that you are not grown at 4, just as you are not grown at 16.

We agree that helicopter parents are bad, and we agree that parents should prepare their offspring for life, then let them fly free. Our only disagreement is on how much freedom should occur at what age. I ask you to do some research and cite some sources before opining as if your random thoughts should get the same weight as documentation from people who devoted years of study to the subject.

Would you let a 4 year old live alone or would you call that abuse? At 16 we might survive, but are more likely to flourish and less likely to die when under the care of a guardian. At 16, we want independence, but make bad choices. We can not help it. A guardian can structure increasing independence by first assigning life-tasks under supervision: check the adolescent's study habits and school work, allow the teen to cook, clean, shop, and budget -- but be there to help and advise if/when needed.

There are cases where the parent or guardian is so selfish, awful, or abusive that a teen is better off without the damage caused by their home situation, but in general, these are dangerous years to be unsupervised and countless studies prove it.

Do not do this. His brain is not fully developed and does not process risk/reward as it will. This is a dangerous age that highly benefits from immediate adult feedback to help mitigate... let's just say 'bad ideas' before they fester or are acted upon.

The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions. source

Risk-taking declines between adolescence and adulthood because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system – changes which improve individuals’ capacity for self-regulation. These changes occur across adolescence and young adulthood and are seen in structural and functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. The differing timetables of these changes make mid-adolescence a time of heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behavior. source | more | more