im a college student moving out to oahu to finish up school.

grew up surfing the east coast, was wondering what to expect in hawaii as far as size/localism/consistency ? respectful guy, not going there to cause problems, and know locals get the waves first. heard some bad stories of problems in and out of the water though

also wondering how big of a difference ill see in cost of living ? rent is taken care of, found a place. but as far as food prices, gas, beers, surfboard, etc. are the prices at walmart the same as mainland?

any help/info is greatly appreciated. thanks!

This is my standard answer that I give. There are good things about living in Hawaii and there are some not so good thing about living in in Hawaii.

Hawaii is expensive. Ninety percent of everything is shipped in this is the main reason it cost more. Gas prices are coming down it is in the nigh three dollar range.

Hawaii is just as safe as anywhere else maybe safer. We have everything the mainland has except for a few restaurants and stores. The water that surrounds us does not make much of a difference.

No Daylight Savings Time we never move out clock forward or back.

We have an excellent bus system on Oahu. If you are willing to take the time then it will cut down on gas costs. You can have car but you might want to take the bus most of the time and use a car only when really needed.

Hawaii is one of most culturally diverse place in America. We have several cultures here. Hawaiians being the most obvious. We also have a diverse Asian population; Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese (sp?). All these culture differ. And it is best if you learn the differences.

If you love food Hawaii is one of the best places to be. Due to our many cultures we have many different kinds of food. Try them all.
Since we have many different cultures in Hawaii there are many set of "rules" all of them slightly different. Make an effort to learn. When you make an effort to learn the the differences then you will be accepted.

There is racism in Hawaii, racism is everywhere. Some of the racism is aimed at Whites. Racism at White is not all that common so you will get Whites saying that all Locals and or Hawaiian are racist. That is not true. The Locals and Hawaiians who are racist toward Whites tend to be racist against other cultures. Racism is not right. But it does exist.

Not everybody who lives in Hawaii is Hawaiian. To be Hawaiian to must have Hawaiian blood. Or be of Hawaiian ancestry. If you are like me and have lived in Hawaii all their life but have no Hawaiian blood you are considered a Local.

We also have a dialect of Pidgin Creole English. Or it is called Pidgin for short. This language was created during the plantation days. We had workers from all over Asia and the Pacific they all spoke different languages and the needed a way to communicate. So a new language grew and was created.There a some who hear Pidgin an the equate it with lack of intelligence. Do not do this!

Then there is what can be called "Rock Fever" some people tend to feel trapped because they can’t drive anywhere else but Hawaii. There is no way you can drive into another state.

If you need to fly home to the Mainland then 1) take more time because you have to fly over an ocean first. 2) Will cost more because you have to fly

I know that 20 questions seems like a lot and you might think I’m trying to get others do do my work for me, but I’m not and I am really struggling with my AP history class, if you could please help me I would really apreciate it, my grade depends on this. Thank you so much!
*I didn’t spend forever typing this, its an online assignment.
Thank you again!

Question 1

What was the name of the proposal to create a single-chamber congress in which each state had an equal vote?

New Jersey Plan

Connecticut Plan

Three-Fifths Plan

Virginia Plan

Unity Plan.

Question 2

Who was the author of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom and bills abolishing entails and primogeniture?

George Washington

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Patrick Henry

Robert Morris

Question 3

Frederick von Steuben was the

commander of the Hessian forces employed by the British during the War for Independence.

representative of Prussia at the Paris peace conference.

man who turned the American army into a formidable fighting force.

leader of the Antifederalist forces in Pennsylvania.

Dutch merchant who was the first casualty in the American War for Independence.

Question 4

Which of the following areas was a loyalist stronghold during the Revolution?

New York and all of New England

New York

South Carolina low country

Pennsylvania

Tidewater Virginia.

Question 5

What conditions led to Daniel Shays’s Rebellion?

an economic recession

huge tax increases

farm foreclosures

balance of payments problems

All of the above

Question 6

All of the following statements are reasons why the Constitution was ratified in 1788 except

supporters of the Constitution had much more recognizable leaders.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made spirited arguments in favor of the Constitution.

the Bill of Rights was added in 1787 to persuade opponents of the Constitution to accept it.

supporters of the Constitution were much better organized.

most newspapers favored ratification of the Constitution.

Question 7

Of all the political innovations of the era of the American Revolution, which can be considered the most radical?

the theory that power within a government had to be restrained through a series of checks and balances.

the realization that both houses of a bicameral legislature represented all the people, not just narrowly defined classes.

the idea that political institutions should be judged by the standard of whether they served the public good rather than the interests of the powerful few.

the assertion that government was based on the consent of the governed and that revolution, therefore, was sometimes justifiable.

the introduction of government with powers divided among three branches.

Question 8

What is the name of the relationship that the Constitution established between the national and state governments?

functional separation of powers

bicameralism

virtual representation

federalism

localism

Question 9

All of the following were features or powers of government under the Articles of Confederation except

It created a national congress in which each state had only one vote.

It required the unanimous approval of the states before the congress could enact any tax measure.

It provided no congressional power to regulate interstate or foreign commerce.

It established a single-chamber congress, elected by state legislatures, in which each state had one vote.

It called for a president elected by the state legislatures.

Question 10

By 1784, all state constitutions included a provision for a

strong executive.

strong legislature.

strong judiciary.

bill of rights.

None of the above.

Question 11

On a timeline, which of the following events would be last?

Townshend Duties

Tea Act

Battle of Concord

Declaration of Independence

First Continental Congress

Question 12

Who was the attorney who defended the British soldiers accused of firing on the civilians in the Boston Massacre?

John Adams

Thomas Hutchinson

Thomas Paine

John Wilkes

John Dickinson

Question 13

The Coercive Acts
I. restructured the Massachusetts government.
II. closed Boston Harbor.
III. permitted certain murderers to be tried in England.
IV. became known as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies.

I

II

I and II

III and IV

I, II, III and IV

Question 14

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson attributes the problems between the colonies and Great Britain to
I. Parliament, because of the oppressive legislation that it had passed over ten years.
II. King George III, because of the crown’s apparent intention to establish despotism.
III. the king’s ministers, because they had refused to co

New Jersey Plan;
Thomas Jefferson (one of 3 things on his tombstone);
Prussian military officer who helped drill the American Army and make it formidable;
The British held New York City for most of the war; there were many loyalists in the Charleston area, but the rest of the state was in open civil war (104 battles in which no British blood was shed);
All of the above;
Bill of Rights was not added until 1791;
Although justifying overthrowing a government always is radical, that actually was an old idea, from John Locke in 1689; but, creating a government of checks and balances, after the recommendations of Baron Montesquieu, never really had been tried before;
Federalism;
The President of Congress was elected by the Congress, itself, not state legislatures;
None of the above;
Declaration of Independence;
John Adams;
All of the above;
Mostly George III, but Parliament is on his list.

Oay it is long… but I think you’ll like it. What I would like to know is if my essay is essentaily crap or worthy of college…?

FYI : First is an article I researched, and second is a response not only to the article but combined with 1984 (Orwell)

A popular illusion is that we use technology to serve our ends. In fact, we seem to follow it to ends inherent in the technology. It has a will of its own.
For example, the automobile once invented made a dense network of roads inevitable, which made suburbs inevitable, which made malls inevitable, which made community and localism impossible and utterly changed the nature of society. This wasn’t planned. Neither was the Internet, which grew as it chose while we watched in astonishment.
Today we hear much fuming about electronic surveillance and whether we should allow it. A better question might be whether we can not allow it. It is too easy, too convenient to be avoided.
The technical capacity exists for detailed watchfulness that Stalin would have envied. For practical purposes, the power of computers is now without limit. You can buy a commodity computer with a terabyte of storage. Global networking is a reality, the Web being the obvious example. Databases of virtually unlimited size can be searched almost instantly from around the globe. Google indexes billions of pages. How long after you hit the Enter key does it take for search results to appear?
This is new–not that governments will spy, but that they can do so easily, massively, and undetected. In 1950, police agencies could clandestinely open mail or tap phones, but it took time and manpower. Today enormous volumes of e-mail can be read automatically and copies sent to whoever wants them. The intended recipient has no way of detecting the interception. You can use encryption, yes. But unless you have the source code for your encryption program, and know enough cryptology and programming to read it, you can’t tell whether it has been backdoored.
An insidious quality of modern surveillance is its inconspicuousness. If jackbooted storm troopers kicked your door in and rifled through your papers, you might object. This seldom happens. Yet every use of your passport, every phone call, every purchase you make with a credit card or check, where and when and what, goes into a database. Cameras can (and in some places do) read the license numbers of all passing cars. This is not the place to go into the details of radio-frequency identification devices and cellphone tracking, but both exist.
My point here is not that any particular government is intentionally using the technology to impose totalitarian control. Some are (China, for example) and some aren’t. My question is whether, as every move we make becomes watchable and trackable, any government will be able to resist the temptation.
Local governments are not immune to the attractions of intrusion. I recently read that in York, England, the wearing of hats in pubs is illegal because it interferes with the surveillance cameras. These are supposed to spot "troublemakers." Thus quickly does the pretext go from the exalted cause of opposing terrorism to catching guys with a snootful. What can be done will be.
All of which raises a couple of questions. First, is freedom possible without privacy? Those in law enforcement will argue that surveillance doesn’t matter. If you do nothing illegal, their reasoning runs, what difference does it make what the government knows? A lot. For anyone who might butt heads with a government, whether in Beijing or Washington, being watched is intimidating. We all do things that can be used against us. A compromising e-mail about a tryst, sent to someone not a spouse, is embarrassing.
The second question is whether people really care about freedom. I think not, though we tell ourselves that we do. The majority care about prosperity and comfort–a nice house, tolerable job, consumerism’s trinkets, beer, sex, 500 channels on the cable, and a couple of weeks a year at Disneyland. They go to Joe’s Rib Pit, congregate with friends, swill Bud, and watch NASCAR. This is not contemptible. (I hope not: I do it.) It is enough freedom for most.
The abolition by disregard of the Constitution? An abstraction that doesn’t register. I’ll guess that 95 percent of the population have never heard of habeas corpus and don’t know what the Fourth Amendment is. Freedom of speech matters only to intellectuals. The cameras are everywhere, but you hardly notice them. Anyway, Kyle Busch is eating up NASCAR in that Toyota. Toyota–ain’t that something? In Georgia.
The comfortable do not revolt against what does not inconvenience them. Can the police always tell where your cellphone is? Know what books you have checked out? What websites you visit? Read your e-mail? Why, we hardly notice. Anyway, it is only to catch terrorists.

Source Citation:

Reed, Fred. "Modem operandi: I wonder whether a sort of totalitarianism, or
As previously stated from the article, Technology has a mind of its own, it is constantly growing without any boundaries. It seems as inevitable as the beginning of roads or strip malls, and the invention of the automobile. In other ways, the same might be possible with government. By means of a depression, people could look to totalitarian style governments for support and aid, giving them complete power. This would mean sacrificing liberty for security, giving authority the opportunity to thrive and develop. This was Orwell’s prediction, government dystopias. It seems today that government might not be as worrisome; technology could essentially have the same effect. What will the end be? As the growth of technology continues, there is hint that surveillance will be the future, and our privacy will become the past. It is a future that resembles Winston’s, in Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell).

With Winston’s contemplative views of the party, he would have felt that the article w
of the party, he would have felt that the article would have shown plausible ideas, in that technology could lead to a totalitarian type society. The lifestyle he abided by constricted his mind; the government surveyed and exposed it to an extent where he was unable to think freely. The technology that was used to survey Winston was archaic compared to the technology of today. It is still constantly growing and branching to make individual’s lives more accessible. E-mail, cell-phones, credit cards, internet websites like Facebook; are devices that have become invasive. Technology has not even reached full potential, and everyday innovationists are coming up with new devices to make our lives easier and more efficient, progressing in the inevitable invasion of privacy for society.

Freedom and society’s regards to it was another main idea of the article in question. “To die hating them, that’s freedom,” were Winston’s words. The speaker expresses h
The speaker expresses how as a society we don’t value our liberties: “The majority care about prosperity and comfort.” Winston however valued his freedom and defended it at all costs. Unfortunately when Winston was captured by the thought police and brought to the Ministry of Love, though fighting through the process, he ultimately lost his freedom in the end. If Winston were still in his previous state he would want society to fight for their freedom and not to live under the influence of technology. He would see that, although without intentional provocation, it is used to the corporation’s advantage because of the organic qualities that technology has enveloped. Being able to question the actions taken place are key for Winston.

I don’t know if it all showed up or not, but it seemed like one big essay/article. I can’t honestly say it was very good, even if the only readable excerpt was from the original article.

As a rule, college-level essays do not use any sort of personal opinions or allusions. There is no "I think," or even the use of "we." Facts are simply stated, and conclusions drawn from those facts and examples. And when such facts are used, they need references, or where you found such facts.

If you’re not in college yet, don’t worry about it. So long as you get in, they’ll teach you how to write the hard way. That’s what freshman English is for.

does anybody know how the localism and decentralized qualities of the American news media contribute to the promotion of democracy?

The strength of Democracy is that the experiences of the entire diverse population enter into government choices.
This contrasts a dictatorship, in which decision making is in one place.and oligarchy, in which decision are based on the interests of a small class of people. Democracy is supposed to grant more power to the majority, while protecting the interests of the minority.
In order for Democracy to represent the interests of all the citizens, it is essential that all the citizens be informed about matters that affect them. The needs of California, for instance, may be quite different from the needs of Iowa. One example is that California faces issues relating to illegal immigration across the Mexican border; Iowa is not near any border and is much less affected by this. Local news media report on these local and regional concerns. This puts the citizens in a position to think about these issues and vote accordingly.
BTW, this is one argument against changing the Electoral College system so that the e.c. would always decide the same as the popular vote. The Electoral College, as well as the Senate-and-House structure of Congress, was designed to give more power to the more populous states, at the same time preventing the interests of the small states from being completely overwhelmed by the majority.
In countries where the major media are centrally controlled, the people have less knowledge of their own local needs, and so are not able to act on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_%28politics%29

Something for everyone. Small, accountable government, regional self-determination and prosperous small business for conservatives. Sustainability, community accountability and additional public assets for liberals.

Your thoughts?
@Alan: Localism is meant to restore a sense of community where we support each other rather than submit everyone to federal big government and national big business bullies.

I have been advocating this for some time. It’s all about DECENTRALIZATION of power. Only good can come of it. But those who benefit from centralization and vertical integration will fight it tooth and nail, and invent all sorts of arguments, emotional and otherwise, to discredit its proponents.

I see the rise of localism as the logical solution to the problem of globalism. And whether it works or not, you WILL see it happening more and more as people will have no other choice.

Globalism sure hasn’t been working out too well for anyone. Except the globalists and their banks and international corporations of course.

And by the way, Alan Turing was a very smart man. You are not really living up to your screenname with bass-ackwards logic like that, dude!

A common way to sum up the beliefs of the right is to focus on a support for tradition. Traditionalism emphasizes the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition and custom, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and patriotism, localism, and regionalism. It has affinities with reactionary and counterrevolutionary thought, and some adherents of this movement perhaps embrace that label, defying the stigma that has attached to it in Western culture since the Enlightenment. Many traditionalist conservatives believe in monarchism.

Traditionalism has existed in various forms in the West since its beginning, however it was in the 18th century that modern traditionalist conservatism emerged and even then it was not until the mid-twentieth century in the United States that it was an organized intellectual force. Traditionalism was found in the writings of a group of U.S. university professors (labeled the "New Conservatives" by the popular press) who rejected the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress, promoted cultural and educational renewal,[36] and revived interest in what T. S. Eliot referred to as "the permanent things" (those perennial truths which endure from age to age and those basic institutions that ground society such as the church, the family, the state, and community life.)
The term "family values" has had different meanings in different cultures. In the late 20th- and early 21st Centuries, the term has been frequently used in political debate, especially by social and religious conservatives, who believe that the world has seen a decline in family values since the end of the Second World War. The term has been used as a buzzword by right-wing parties such as the Republican Party in the United States, the Family First Party in Australia, the Conservative party in the United Kingdom and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India. Right-wing supporters of "family values" generally oppose abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and adultery. Leftists and feminists often accuse the right of supporting patriarchy and traditional, hierarchical gender roles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

What is more traditional than a Seventh Century Religion?
SupaStar, you moronic idiot moron horses’s butt, UPDATE 8:13 p.m. ET: Norwegian television is reporting the identity of the suspect in the Norwegian attacks. TV2, the country’s largest broadcaster, identified him as Anders Behring Breivik, 32, describing him as a member of "right-wing extremist groups in eastern Norway." Shortly thereafter, The Telegraph newspaper of London reported the same information, quoting Norwegian Justice Minister Knut Storberget. http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/22/7143472-norwegian-tv-names-suspect

it turns out to be a local crazy person with a perceived grievance against the government

In their own words:

"The lowest strata of people are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation."

"No-one doubts the wisdom of managing the germ-plasm of agricultural stocks, so why not apply the same concept to human stocks?"

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

- Julian Huxley (evolutionary biologist, president of the British Eugenics Society, co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund)

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?"

- Maurice Strong (Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme)

"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling (e.g., mass murder) in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize that this
is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world."

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, so that I might contribute something to solving overpopulation"

- Prince Philip (World Wildlife Fund co-founder, Nazi sympathizer, radical Malthusian environmentalist psychopath)

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."

- Paul R. Ehrlich (author and discredited Malthusian environmentalist freak), "The Population Bomb"

"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations."

- Thomas Malthus (the granddaddy of environmentalism and global warmism), "Essay on the Principle of Population"

"Heil Hitler!"

- Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (World Wildlife Fund co-founder, founder of 1001 Club: A Nature Trust, Nazi SS officer, IG Farben board member), letter to Adolph Hitler announcing his resignation from the SS due to monarchical obligations.

"The biggest problem is the damn national sectors of these developing countries. These countries think that they have the right to develop their resources as they fit."

- Thomas Lovejoy (President of the American branch of the World Wildlife Fund)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last!

- Stewart Brand (founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalogue, CoEvolution Quarterly, and other environmentalist publications)

"We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight… Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

- David Foreman (founder of radical enviro-fascist group Earth First!)

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."

- Earth First! Newsletter

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."

- Lamont Cole (Professor of Ecology, Yale University)

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

- John Davis (editor of Earth First! Journal)

"The Pacific Yew [tree] can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical

environmentalists are just now starting to catch on that "going green" means "going six feet under"

I’m sure the illuminati had a good laugh over that one.

What SYSTEM divides the power of the federal and the state governments?

localism
democracy
checks and balances
federalism

Google your terms for definitions (or use your glossary) to do your homework!

that is often beset by inaction and localism. Supporters of the Congress maintain that the institution is a superior deliberative and representative institution. Which argument is the more persuasive and why?

Geez, I do not understand this. Can you help me?

Congress is bad because members argue all the time and get nothing done. They only want things that favor THEIR areas.

Congress is good because member debate issues and represent everyone.

Which do you think is the better argument and why do you think so?

Ola! =)

Are there any places in Hawaii with high populations of Portugese people?

Where?
Like, what cities or places?

Also – I hear that there is a lot of localism, is that true?

Thanks! =)

Well, there are some people who have a Portuguese background, but there is not really a location where they have any enclaves or forts. They are mixed in with the rest of the citizenry! There was a historical need for workers in the sugar and pineapple plantations, and so there was a larger number of (imported) workers, but that was so long ago now, that those old areas are no longer just singularly one group or another. If you mean local-ism as in on a specific island, or in a specific area, my memory of the Portuguese-Hawaiian’s I knew were from Maui and Lanai. But I also knew people on Oahu, Kauai, and The Big Island. Many of the people I knew who could trace their families back to some Portuguese ancestors, were primarily from the East, as in Macao, and the Dutch East Indies, and Indonesia.

Are you looking for a new home? If so, then I suggest you do some sort of search by typical last name that tends to be Portuguese, and see where that takes you.