Sunday, May 18, 2003

Good luck to all you graduates. I just found this link to this

New York Times article
about blogging and its social impact among young people.

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

Okay, regarding today's KaLeo article "It's Time for the Naked Truth on Breasts". As a woman, I was surprised, and slightly disturbed by what "Arrora Borealis" found in her survey. I suppose it could be interpreted that men aren't as superficial as previously thought, since they rated her higher without the cleavage! However, what about women who are naturally endowed with large breasts? Are they forever doomed to be seen as sluts? Will men always make obnoxious sexual comments about them and ignore all other aspects of their bodies and personalities? This really bothers me... it's wrong for people (especially men, I must say) to be this superficial. Are people so uneducated that they always rush to such hasty judgements? I can't get over the difference between what men said about her with and without the cleavage. Women's bodies weren't created just so men could look at them and say, "I'd do her". I find the whole thing discouraging. What do you guys think about this? And honesty would be appreciated. I know that most guys, when hanging out with their friends, have made comments like this about girls, so I won't believe guys who respond by saying "I never think that way about girls!" Or, "I'm totally different. I don't care about a girl's body." Let's hear some realism. Is there any way around this type of thinking? It's like, girls have it bad either way. They feel inadequate if they have small breasts, and self-conscious if they have large ones. Is there any way to win?

Monday, May 05, 2003

I read part of Fast Food Nation when it was excerpted in Rolling Stone in 1998. Our Starbucks has a drive-through, greatly increasing its convenience, thus popularity. In today's Tribune-Herald publisher Jim Wilson writes, "University of Hawaii President Evan Doebelle [sic] still hasn't figured out Hawaii. That was in full evidence last week with his remarks about the university logo flap and the rancor of using a mainland company. His statement 'You know, the local thing is kind of interesting to me, we don't have these conversations in California or Massachusetts or in Florida.' Doebelle [sic] is still not aware of island sensitivities after two years on the job."

Saturday, May 03, 2003

I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments about previous submissions. While I definitely dislike the leftist belief that corporations are automatically evil, exploitative organizations, etc.-I do think that there are a lot of corrupt corporations out there. Then again, there are a lot of good ones as well... In regards to McDonalds, I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". I was a huge fast food eater before I read that... now I won't touch the stuff. In general, I do think local, smaller businesses are better for our economy, and better for society in general, since they represents the efforts of individual entrepreneurs. Starbucks though, I might add, is well-known to be a responsible corporation that treats its employees extremely well! So Ms. Klungness is obviously jumping to fallacious conclusions.. surprise surprise.
The other comment I wanted to make was about Casey Ishitani. I actually know him from one of my classes, and I've found all this controversy interesting. To me, he's like the Eminem of UH. He's just mouthing off, and everyone reacts just the way he expects them to. I don't take any of it seriously... He's actually a really nice guy, and really intelligent. I wish everyone would stop getting so excited about everything he writes... most of it is just talk, he doesn't really believe it. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but I ignore it. Just like Eminem... would I listen to him if I really believed he hated women and homosexuals? No, but I understand it's just hype. I think a lot of people at UH need to loosen up! The PC police are rampant.

Friday, May 02, 2003

Happy belated May Day, everyone. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald has a nitwitted letter by one Gretchen H. Klungness entitled "We don't need another Starbucks." In part it says, "While I realize that any company has a right to expand all over the world, I don't think it merits front-page coverage. Starbucks is a perfect example of corporate greed run amok, and your double coverage [the April 17 paper had a front-page article as well as a business-section feature] on the same day simply amounts to free advertising for a company that has put small shops out of business all over the country.

We need a Starbucks here in Hilo about as badly as we need another tsunami--and that would at least merit front-page coverage."

I'd refer Ms. Klungness to the April 29th New York Times, which has an article about the expansion of fast-food chains Subway and McDonald's into India. Corporate greed run amok? Think again. Both are "tailoring their menus to local tastes. Their offerings here, liberally flavored with Indian spices, bear little resemblance to the American originals..." Actually, I'd recommend this article to everyone: "McDonald's says that Indians are voting for the Golden Arches with their feet. More than two million are served in its 16 outlets in Bombay every month, the company says. "'Most new shopping malls clamor to have us,' Mr. Jatia said. Much of McDonald's effort has been devoted to building a local supply chain to support its stores here, including measures to keep produce fresh given India's tropical heat and sometimes-iffy electric power supply. Some 95 percent of its ingredients are now bought locally. With new stores to come in high-traffic locations like train stations and highway rest areas, McDonald's hopes its Indian operations will reach breakeven in 2004."

I don't have to tell you that chains aren't merely huge vacuums sucking money out of local economies. By hiring and buying locally, they in fact put much money back into the economy.

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Opinions on Bob Hope and the war. Also, about Casey Ishitani's comic strip calling Ann Coulter a "stupid bitch." Rather simple-minded and not really worth getting exercised about.

Saturday, April 26, 2003

Is Pomposity an Art Form?

This is my parody of Lance Collins's columns on psychology in the U.H. student newspaper Ka Leo O Hawai'i. --Stuart K. Hayashi

"Unless You Are a Colonial Imperialist, My Greatness Cannot Be Denied

"By Vance D. Stalins, Head of State for the Prinipalia of Manoa, Province of the Haunani-Kay Republic of Hawai'i

"As the fantastic prodigy that I am, I ascertain that the constructivist element of the psychological Electra complex necessitates vacillation between penal and vaginal forces. They collide to produce an unholy melding of spirit and flesh that soars into the core of the earth as a metaphysical guide through the intellectualization of the Freudian hypothesis. However, the powers of Jupiter and Saturn interfere with the catalyzation of production for the benefit of global labor environment. Capitalism thereby inhibits the joys of postEnlightenment neurobiological feats.

"I thus postulate that an unhealhty intake of calories from french fries induces a chain reaction which heats the operant conditioning to the extent where chimpanzees learn to love one another in a harmony that Euro-Americans cannot yet fully comprehend.

" Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love.

" [Imagine an obscene cartoon of famous/notorious people embracing here.]

"Those who say that they favor war but love freedom see no need to distinguish between frogs and toads, for that would mean admiting to themselves that they are haters of human offspring and are the rendezvous of wistful postgovernmental legal theory.

"Therefore, everyone is a closet homosexual."

Is that an accurate parody of Lance Collins's editorials? Click here to see what a real piece of his writing looks like. And here is another one. The University of Hawaii's student dues pay for all of that.

Friday, April 25, 2003

Say what you will about Lance Collins's "Oedipal machines" column in today's Ka Leo, but he errs when he writes "We must metamorphosis not merely to a new limit but follow, feel lines of flight." He means "metamorphose."

Thursday, April 24, 2003

This is my first post to The 50th Star. Kudos to Stuart for setting this up, and for everyone else for supporting this blog.

Monday, April 21, 2003

Bored of Ian Custino's Publications

Hannah Sentenac

The Ka Leo O Hawai'i says I have reached my limit as to published Letters to the Editor. Well... here's a letter I just had to write. That gentleman, Mr. Ian Custino, of Ka Leo's Board of Publications, is another wannabe pacifist who's voice doesn't fit with his supposed beliefs. What else is new?
--Hannah Sentenac

Dear Mr. Custino,

There are so many contradictions in your letter, I'm not sure where to start. How do you presume to speak for all the people of Hawaii? I agree that if the people of Hawaii want to be a sovereign nation, they should have that right. However, obviously not everyong here feels that way, or Hawaii would have seceded from the U.S. a long time ago! And then you sing that tired old tune...all the people are "marginalized and oppressed", etc., etc. as though the people of Hawaii have no control over their lives, which is ridiculous! Not everyone is a "victim" of social determinism, and it's offensive to assume that people are so powerless that they are entirely controlled by outside forces.

Next you state: "Further, those "freedoms" you say America provides us are inalienable, universal rights to which all of humanity has the right."...That's a nice theory that you have. Unfortunately, the reality isn't quite so simple. These freedoms should be universal rights, but as the history of the world shows, you certainly can't make that assumption. That's why we need to appreciate that America gives us those freedoms, while the vast majority of other places don't.

Also, I am offended by your isinuation that Mr. Phil Aldridge, as a haole [Hawaiian for "white person" --S.H.], is automatically disrespectful of the people and culture of Hawaii. What did he say that disrespected Hawaii? He was speaking to Lance Collins! Hawaii contains a lot of different kinds of people and cultures, so don't speak as though your perspective is the only one.

You then go on to talk about the need to "abandon our SELVES (ego)". Oh please! When people say things like that, I can't help but laugh. We are human beings, ego-driven individuals. To talk about abandoning that part of ourselves would be to destroy what makes us human. We should stop being individuals, and then what? Give ourselves over to the collective? Sounds like 1984 to me. And that image doesn't strike me as particularly peaceful or harmonious. Consider other implications of the statements you are making, and please remember that Hawaii is a diverse and multicultural place -- and one opinion doesn't represent the myriad of viewpoints that exist here.

Hannah Sentenac
Political Science

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Bush Won the Election Years Ago -- Get Over It!

Michael S. Meli

One of the real issues fronting this world of common sense and logic, is the fact that the Leftist Marxists who "teach" in the UH classrooms, are still hoping that the recount of the 2000 presidential elections will somehow have Al Gore winning by some astronomical figure--when in reality, despite the number of recounts, Al Gore won exactly "ZERO" times.

That said, I place the professors of higher learning in the same category with Michael Moore--you know the one, "fictitious." Well, if there is anything fictitious in the Iraq War, it is the Minister of...uhh, I forget already, telling al-Jazeera that the Americans are nowhere near Baghdad, in fact, they are nowhere near the Iraqi border. Well, Michael Moore, if the war was fictitious, then, obviously the celebrating Iraqis were not really there, riding Saddam's head in the street. How is it that in the world of real-time footage, someone like Michael Moore--who is now an Academy Award Director--can have the gall and the audacity to blast the President of the United States, while at the same time, not mention anything of the atrocities of the President of Iraq, or, rather, the former president of Iraq?Personally, I think that he lives too much in the world of cameras and microphones, and not not enough time in the world outside mirrors and lights.

Personally, I believe that many of the UH professors, especially the ones in the Social Sciences as well as those in the Humanities departments, walk the same line as Michael Moore. They still refer to the presidential election as the "selection over election" episode, which, I suppose, for them, validates any anti-Bush sentiment they may happen to spew from their denture-filled mouthes as they "teach" objectively.

The problem is, nothing they teach is objective, in fact, as a prominent English professor told our class on the first day of instruction, as we were about to embark on the writings of William Shakespeare, "There is no way to teach or view Shakespeare objectively; therefore, I will teach how I see him, from my eyes." Well, this is a stark contrast from the very essence of expanding the mind. Is it not? You see, by telling the class that she will teach the class from her perspective, she instantly created borders and parameters with regard to essays, homework assignments, and exams. She instantly locked the class in a mental chamber, of which no one would be able to escape without selling out on individual principles and individual thought. The class would then be seeing one of the greatest writers in the world's history through the eyes of one individual! The terrible thing is, we pay her salary, yet we are the ones left feeling as if these teachers are worth a hell of alot more than they are getting paid.

Let me say, I am a strong advocate for expanding our horizons, so when someone that I pay tells me that it's their way, or the highway, they reveal alot more about their character than they realize. They actually live in some fictitious world, and the reality that there are opposing views just does not seem to resonate in their mental sanctuaries.

Monday, April 14, 2003


Pablo Wegesend

Finally a website that concentrates on the Radical Left's monopoly of thought at U.H. Manoa!

To those just reading the site, I am sociology major and I write editorials for the school's newspaper Ka Leo O Hawaii! My editorials currently concentrate on campus issues and on the non-logical rants of left wing anti-American extremists!
Psychotic Psychologizing

Stuart K. Hayashi

Lance Collins, the Opinions editor of the University of Hawaii's student newspaper Ka Leo O Hawai'i, recently psychologized about people who say they "opposed the war but support the troops" -- in the most highfalutin terms, of course:

"For those that support war, there is the closet. People who engage in the most basic (and debased) forms of nationalism cannot bare [sic] the responsibilities that go with this fanatical form of nationalism. So, instead of saying, 'I support the war my country is aggressing,' these nationalists go to the closet and say, 'I support the troops, I am neutral on the war.' . . .

"But, there is a type of social schizophrenia that is exposed by the way that these metaphors are reinscribed. 'I'm not pro-war, I support the troops ... ' like 'I'm not sexually attracted to men, I'm married with children.' . . .

"Similarly, pro-war advocates who choose the closet, feel a way to escape the stigma open society assigns to such speakers. Stigma operates from visibility and the closet functions as both an apparatus of oppression and an apparatus of production.

"In the pro-war stance, the productive aspects of the closet become evident. It is in this direction that some of the most outspoken homosexual activists have argued that those in power should be ousted — because of the closet's axis of production.

"There is a bit of fantastic pleasure I get out of some of the most hardline 'pro-troop' advocates — warmongers as closet queens."

I find the use of the word production a tad curious. Production of what?

Saying one supports the troops is an act of "closet warmongering"? Maybe people who say they "oppose the war but support the troops" mean that they disagree with the Iraqi invasion and would prefer the troops to not die. It can mean that if the soldiers were in trouble and they were brought home, that would be putting an end to the war (in a way) and it would not be intended as punishment for the military. Some may consider that support for the troops.

Whoa. Dude. That didn't even require a lot of big words or fancy psychologizing to say.

And, no, my "nationalism" is not repressed. I'm very open about it and I therefore do "bare" it.

Friday, April 11, 2003

The Left's Two Cents Is Worth Less Than the Said Amount

Stuart K. Hayashi

In the Wednesday, April 9, 2003 edition of Hawaii's second-favorite left-biased periodical, the Honolulu Weekly (which many young people probably only read for its excellent coverage of the dance club scene, especially by the wonderful Jason Paz), ran a silly editorial by one Philip Mattera, which covers what the Left may consider to be one of the most heinous atrocities the U.S. could possibly inflict on Iraq.

Do you know what that awful thing is?

Gassing Kurds like Saddam did?

Oppressing Shiite Muslims, again, like Saddam did?

Urging Saddam's son, Uday Hussein, to serial-rape more women?

Naw. "Privatization."

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkk!!!!! :-O

The hu-man-i-teeeeeeeeee.

Says Mr. Mattera, "A number of conservative think tank denizens and other analysts have been arguing for months that the post-Saddam Hussein economy shoudl be restructured according the principles of [Nobel Prize-winning economist] Milton Friedman."

Milton Friedman is spectacular!!! (He's also the only free-market economist other than Adam Smith whom leftist UH professor Peter Manicas seems to mention a lot on his website.) Here's a link to a speech that George W. Bush gave in honor of M. Friedman.

But Mattera goes on: "Since the war began, the Bush Administration has avoided talking about the business boon being created in Iraq for U.S. and other foreign corporations."

He concludes: "Toe the victor go the spoils, it is said. In the case of this war, the spoils will be going to the victor's business allies as they bring a distinctly corporate form of liberation to the people of Iraq." You can read that same editorial online at: .

I have a question: Now that Saddam is gone and the Iraqis have to get on with their lives, from what source are Iraqis supposed to procure the goods and services they need to survive (such as food)? Would Honolulu Weekly prefer that the U.S. just put the Iraqis on a massive food stamps program, at the expense of American taxpayers for the next consecutive thirty years? (Probably.)

What Honolulu Weekly likes to evade is that greedy corporations exist only insofar as they are able provide people with the stuff they want (at least, if they're not highly subsidized, and corporate subsidies are an outgrowth of the welfare state and not individualist free-market capitalism) and at affordable prices ('cause if your target customers don't have enough money to buy what you're selling, they don't buy it and you end up with zippo).

And Iraqis have to consume earthian matter to survive, just as all humans do. If corporations can provide such goods and services, they are of benefit to Iraq. That's not a "corporate" thing; it's a human thing.

Earlier, a valued acquaintance of mine asked how the Left would react when they would finally see Iraq discover democratic republicanism and free markets. In the weeks to come, we can expect more kvetching about "America imposing its crass material commercialism on the indigenous Iraqis."

But it's not McDonald's that needs to stay out of the Middle East. It's the leftists who've interfered too much with the Iraqi conflict already, and it's about time they leave the indigenous Arabs alone. In other words: "Laissez faire, lefties!!"

Thursday, April 10, 2003

A First Entry for The Fiftieth Star

Stuart K. Hayashi

The University of Hawaii at Manoa is in chaos. What is supposed to be an institution of higher learning has instead become one of the last "respectable" enclaves for academic Marxists who, now shunned by the very American establishment that took them so seriously in the 1930s, use their classes as indoctrination mills so that they can convert a whole new generation of youths like us to their odious ideology.

In that tradition, one Marxian editorialist for the University of Hawaii's official student newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawai'i -- a Christopher Johns -- refers to his own America-bashing proselytizing as Revolutionary Prose. That is the title of his column, and it is the very antithesis of "truth in advertising," for it is anything but revolutionary. Johns's pro-socialist columns are not signs of independent thought; rather, they are the parrotings of the endless tirades against corporations and the bourgeoisie carried out every day by an appalling number of professors in the social sciences and humanities departments. As a columnist, Johns comes off as a mere puppet of the academic social sciences establishment.

Instead of actually teaching students like us -- which they were hired to do -- all too many of these false wisemen waste our time and money by telling us how we should feel guilty for living in a country that uses fossil fuels, fights wars against the likes of Saddam Hussein, and even encourages people to buy houses in the suburbs with a two-car garage. That is nothing to feel guilty for, but that is understood by far fewer bright students than we would expect -- particularly if we mean students who have been in the social sciences programs for years and who trust their professors to divulge information as objectively as they can. We see deliberate attempts by professors to manipulate the moral paradigms of us students and disguise this as "education." That is the state of "higher learning" today.

And it needs to be changed.

Christopher Johns's fallacious editorials are correct on only one point: the University of Hawaii does need a revolution -- not one as trite and insipid as an assault on factories or billionaires, but a peaceful one to enlighten people about the nature of what's really happening in academia today. To overthrow the despotism of the doctrinaire leftist oligarchy that reigns over the University of Hawaii, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Berkeley, and many, many other places, we do not need any bombs or violence -- all we need is to show people the truth, and to particularly expose them to a superior worldview that encourages rationality and industriousness and particularly the spirit of free enterprise so embedded in American culture.

That's our revolution -- a moral-intellectual awakening by means of common sense, logic, and some fun along the way.

The academic Marxists are not the true campus revolutionaries. We, the pro-Americans, are.

The battle over government control of Iraq is winding down. But our battle to show our fellow students how the world really works is far from over. May the best philosophy prevail.