NBC is here filming a special about the Marianas Trench Marine Monument for the news.
We said that creating a Monument would bring us press, visitors, attention. And it's started! I've posted a few photos on the Monument blog from our welcome picnic at the beach for our guests. It was very low key. Anna Rose brought her camera and took most of the photos, except for the ones she's in. She wanted pictures with the NBC team, so that's what we've got.
While NBC is here for a news story, National Science Foundation is sponsoring a trip of scientists to the underwater volcano near Rota. You can read more about that trip, going on this month, also, here. Of interest to students and teachers (and some of the rest of us who enjoy the learning process) is a blog that details their daily forays into the ocean to chart the underwater volcanic activity.
It's a very exciting time in the CNMI!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
345. Screnzy--Are You In?
It came as something of a shock this weekend to realize that Script Frenzy starts this week--April 1 is Wednesday. Just 2 days away!
A month-long adventure of writing a script. The goal-100 pages. Script types include screenplays, stageplays, radio theatre, graphic novels (manga), comic books, and even collections of shorts for film or stage.
I've been planning since last November to adapt my NaNoWriMo novel from 2008 into a stage play (musical style). That inspiration came during November as I was writing the novel and kept thinking it would work better on stage.
The only problem, as I realized this weekend, is that I never finished the novel! I have more than a dozen scenes of varying lengths to write on the novel. I estimate that I have about 12,000 to 18,000 words more to go. And I'll never get that finished before April 1.
So do I "adapt" the unfinished novel, and come up with the ending during Frenzy? Or do I latch on to some other idea now and wing it (which is truly the style that works best during these write-it-all-in-a-month on-line events)? I could bail this year--I have enough unfinished projects already, don't need another...
Is there any one else out there who wants to write a script in a month with me? It's fun! And it's easier with someone to share the experience.
A month-long adventure of writing a script. The goal-100 pages. Script types include screenplays, stageplays, radio theatre, graphic novels (manga), comic books, and even collections of shorts for film or stage.
I've been planning since last November to adapt my NaNoWriMo novel from 2008 into a stage play (musical style). That inspiration came during November as I was writing the novel and kept thinking it would work better on stage.
The only problem, as I realized this weekend, is that I never finished the novel! I have more than a dozen scenes of varying lengths to write on the novel. I estimate that I have about 12,000 to 18,000 words more to go. And I'll never get that finished before April 1.
So do I "adapt" the unfinished novel, and come up with the ending during Frenzy? Or do I latch on to some other idea now and wing it (which is truly the style that works best during these write-it-all-in-a-month on-line events)? I could bail this year--I have enough unfinished projects already, don't need another...
Is there any one else out there who wants to write a script in a month with me? It's fun! And it's easier with someone to share the experience.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
343. More News
The Senate Commerce Committee approved Gary Locke as Secretary of Commerce.
The reports on him are decidely mixed. The full Senate vote is expected to be pro forma--approval on the basis of the Committee report.
No doubt one of his first --and probably least troublesome, at least to him-- duties will be to join the Secretary of Interior in creating an Advisory Council for the Marianas Marine Monument.
Deadline looming (first week of April, I think.) We can hope for the best.
But here's what bothers me:
That smile... even the eyes...
Photo of Benigno Fitial taken from Wikipedia; Photo of Gary Locke from AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta.
The reports on him are decidely mixed. The full Senate vote is expected to be pro forma--approval on the basis of the Committee report.
No doubt one of his first --and probably least troublesome, at least to him-- duties will be to join the Secretary of Interior in creating an Advisory Council for the Marianas Marine Monument.
Deadline looming (first week of April, I think.) We can hope for the best.
But here's what bothers me:
That smile... even the eyes...
Photo of Benigno Fitial taken from Wikipedia; Photo of Gary Locke from AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta.
342. BREAKING NEWS
I got a phone call this morning from Wendy Chavez of the Environmental Protection Agency.
FRIENDS OF THE MONUMENT has been selected as a winner for the region 9 awards this year! YAY! She said it was a "tight" competitive process, and that more than 200 nominations (in all categories) were received and 40 winners selected. Awards ceremony will be April 16, 2009.
I received the notice because I nominated the organization for the award. You can see my earlier post about the EPA award here.
Congrats to Friends of the Monument!
And follow up on Angelo's breaking news: a link re Jane Lubchenco confirmed as new NOAA chief.
FRIENDS OF THE MONUMENT has been selected as a winner for the region 9 awards this year! YAY! She said it was a "tight" competitive process, and that more than 200 nominations (in all categories) were received and 40 winners selected. Awards ceremony will be April 16, 2009.
I received the notice because I nominated the organization for the award. You can see my earlier post about the EPA award here.
Congrats to Friends of the Monument!
And follow up on Angelo's breaking news: a link re Jane Lubchenco confirmed as new NOAA chief.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
341. Some Refreshing Perspectives
Senator Frica Pangelinan has a good commentary in today's papers. She discusses the incongruity of the Governor's statements (first blaming fiscal problems on the lack of a budget and now on the passage of a budget), his willingness to use deficit spending, and her view of the importance of looking to the future and embracing needed changes.
My favorite part of her opinion:
There's also another good letter in the Tribune, from Jim Rayphand (and at present no link available to it). He makes the point that age is not the yardstick for measuring who has beneficial attitudes for government service, that the young as well as the old can be wedded to a system of perks and privilege, and that other people of all ages can embrace transparency in government.
He votes for transparency and shares a bit about the recent problems of the CNMI Council on Developmental Disabilities.
And so, kudos to both Frica and Jim. Although there is much work to be done, there is also some progress, some bits of sanity and good governance cropping up in our CNMI local government terrain.
My favorite part of her opinion:
So, do we continue to desperately scramble to preserve the two-tiered system that crowds our government offices with personnel, and our private sector with guest workers? Do we keep fighting minimum wage increases? Do we continue to resist a “federalization” that can open up jobs for locals in the private sector?
I say no.
There's also another good letter in the Tribune, from Jim Rayphand (and at present no link available to it). He makes the point that age is not the yardstick for measuring who has beneficial attitudes for government service, that the young as well as the old can be wedded to a system of perks and privilege, and that other people of all ages can embrace transparency in government.
There is growing talk about the younger generation of upstarts causing the tremor that is to be a cleaner, more open government. The fact is, age has nothing to do with the movement in that direction--there are just as many, if not more, young knuckleheads as there are old ones. Since ever since, numerous people in the government have been beating their heads against the same guarded walls of territorialiasm and other hollow-blocks of self-inflated egos. The endeavor is not new, but if the younger generations are to make any significant headway in the quest for better governance, they will need to connect with and build on existing foundations from the inside out...
He votes for transparency and shares a bit about the recent problems of the CNMI Council on Developmental Disabilities.
And so, kudos to both Frica and Jim. Although there is much work to be done, there is also some progress, some bits of sanity and good governance cropping up in our CNMI local government terrain.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
340. On the Amicus Brief in the Federalization Lawsuit
I've read the amicus brief filed by Bob O'Connor on behalf of the NMI Descent organization in the lawsuit challenging federalization of immigration. You can find a link to it here at Wendy's blog.
This blog post is my initial reaction, brief analysis, and random thoughts about it--in no particular order.
1. It's written very well. Bob covers a lot of ground and hacks through a lot of underbrush and misconceptions about the Covenant and the CNMI-US relationship with clarity and perception. Although I disagree with the bottom-line conclusions, I am in awe of his writing talent and the depth of his thinking on the issues.
2. He takes some basic positions that are clearer, neater, and more cogent than either the CNMI or the US in their briefs: a) the Covenant's guarantee of a right for self-government over internal affairs is mandated by international law and the UN Mandate to the US for the trusteeship; b) the Covenant is not just a public law of the US but a bilateral agreement; c) it doesn't matter whether you call the CNMI a US territory that is different than other territories, or not a territory because of the differences--the real significance of the Covenant is that it alone governs the relationship between the US and the CNMI; d) because self-government over internal affairs is an essential part of the relationship between the CNMI and US, the Covenant and the limits it puts on US power must be construed to promote that essential, fundamental aspect of the Covenant; e) reading the provision to provide a purely institutional guarantee without a substantive provision could result in an empty, meaningless promise of self-government. The example Bob gives on this is the hypothetical if the US Congress were to immediately pass a law after each and every law enacted by the CNMI local government declaring such CNMI local law a nullity--not changing the Covenant, not effecting the existence of the local governing institutions, but clearly gutting the meaning of self-government.
3. These positions were so well-articulated I am persuaded as to each of them. I would have already agreed with a, b, and c before reading his brief and could even have articulated these ideas. d was a natural corollary. e was a stretch for me, but I was persuaded as to the issue of a substantive component to the self-governing provision of the Covenant despite my earlier discussion (argument?) with cactus on this matter, by the clarity of the example. The writing is brilliant and helpful to getting through the thicket of the Covenant and self-government of internal affairs at least this far.
4. Bob also disagrees with both the CNMI and the US on the next step of the analysis. He embraces the balancing test of Richards. He says because there is a substantive element to the guarantee of self-government, it must be weighed in the balance each time the US enacts a law applicable in the CNMI.
He dispatches of the US argument that the balance has already been struck in the covenant itself because at section 503, the Covenant acknowledges that US immigration laws can be later made applicable to the CNMI. Bob's argument is simple--that section 503 only relates to what federal laws do not apply at the start of the CNMI. That they may later apply does not negate the US's need to comply with the balancing test because the source of Congress's power to enact any law is section 105.
While I like that analysis of the Covenant's framework, this is also where I think his analysis begins to falter. The substantive element of self-government only applies to self-government over "internal affairs."
5. Bob glosses over the "internal affairs" issue. He assumes that anything that effects our economy to a great extent is automatically an internal affair. He argues that because we have handled immigration, it is a matter of self-government that we continue to handle immigration. He claims that because the CNMI has already wedded itself to cheap foreign labor, our use of cheap foreign labor is an internal affair.
If you use the same kind of hypothetical analysis on this argument that Bob uses on the institutional vs. substantive aspect of the right of self-government, you can see the flaw of this type of reasoning.
If we decided to build our economy on the production of heroin, it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to become a banking center for money-launderers, it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to embark on a new industry of cloning individuals or selling babies or whatever... it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to make our economy based on selling jihadi movements information or goods or services, or have schools here for training, it would become an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
You get the idea.
In a small place like the CNMI, everything can be said to have a big effect here. With Bob's analysis of what is "internal"--everything is internal, nothing is external, unless it doesn't effect the CNMI at all.
6. In Bob's analysis, the fundamental right to self-govern is so strong that few laws would overbalance it. In this case, he fails to credit any of the interests that the US has in passing the CNRA.
He goes so far as to say the US has NO interest in how the CNMI conducts its labor matters, how we structure our economy, how we treat workers here; the CNMI's decision to not extend rights to alien workers is an internal affair because those rights would be exercised here.
This argument ignores the reach of the US Constitution to the CNMI and its protections of equal treatment, due process, and fundamental fairness. The argument ignores the reality that the face we present to the rest of the world as being part of the US means that what we do in the CNMI can tarnish the US' reputation abroad. The argument ignores the case law cited by the US government that the US, not local governments, is "parens patria" and thus the US has an obvious federal interest in treating all people with dignity and fairness.
7. Bob also fails to acknowledge that US citizenship and the path of alien workers to US citizenship is not internal at all, but strictly within the province of the US federal government. He mentions that the CNMI has controlled the reins of access to rights, and claims that US control will flood the CNMI with aliens who gain rights at the expense of the indigenous.
In other words, he argues that as a matter of local self-government, the CNMI has a RIGHT to continue to have a two-tiered economy with a class of workers who are permanently excluded from every avenue to political rights.
8. He makes a few good points in his arguments, even for these offensive positions--for example, that the US has not had a coherent immigration policy.
No doubt that the US has vacillated on how best to have immigrant labor and protect US labor at the same time.
9. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the US has not embraced an immigration policy that promotes eventual citizenship for immigrants. It isn't uniform, it isn't all encompassing, but there are certainly SOME doors open for immigrants to use as a means for gaining citizenship--besides a familial relationship of marriage or parenting an adult US citizen child (which IR door is open here only because of the Covenant provision). In the US, some workers can gain US citizenship; some foreigners can get in through the quotas; etc.
In the CNMI, all doors are closed, except to those IRs who come through the applicable portals of Immigration and Nationality Act.
So the US Congress can express an interest legitimately in wanting an immigration system that does not rely on cheap foreign labor that is permanently excluded from the political process, permanently kept as an underclass.
And Bob's refusal to acknowledge that federal interest is the biggest weakness of his brief.
10. He also argues that the CNMI is not part of the US, arguing that the US's interest in control of its borders does not mean the US has any interest in control of the borders of the CNMI.
This is a very big leap and very significant. Bob doesn't give enough analysis to support his assumption.
It's also a very dangerous argument. Imagine if a foreign power came knocking at our door with its guns ablaze. We could 't defend ourselves. We're counting on the Covenant and the U.S.'s promise to protect and defend us. But what if "we" aren't part of the US. What interest would the US have in spending its money to defend our borders? Would we be claiming "self-government" then? Or would we be demanding that the US live up to its commitments?
Since the US has a covenant commitment to defend us, it obviously has an interest in securing even our border.
All in all, Bob's argument, although very well written and persuasive on some aspects, depends on very flawed assumptions:
1. that "internal affairs" to which local self-government applies includes everything that has an effect here and applies to immigration of aliens into the CNMI, applies to employment of foreign workers in the CNMI, and applies to control of the CNMI's borders.
2. that this is not the US and not within the US's border, so the US has no security interest.
3. that citizenship and rights of foreign workers are a matter of local concern only and not a federal interest.
This blog post is my initial reaction, brief analysis, and random thoughts about it--in no particular order.
1. It's written very well. Bob covers a lot of ground and hacks through a lot of underbrush and misconceptions about the Covenant and the CNMI-US relationship with clarity and perception. Although I disagree with the bottom-line conclusions, I am in awe of his writing talent and the depth of his thinking on the issues.
2. He takes some basic positions that are clearer, neater, and more cogent than either the CNMI or the US in their briefs: a) the Covenant's guarantee of a right for self-government over internal affairs is mandated by international law and the UN Mandate to the US for the trusteeship; b) the Covenant is not just a public law of the US but a bilateral agreement; c) it doesn't matter whether you call the CNMI a US territory that is different than other territories, or not a territory because of the differences--the real significance of the Covenant is that it alone governs the relationship between the US and the CNMI; d) because self-government over internal affairs is an essential part of the relationship between the CNMI and US, the Covenant and the limits it puts on US power must be construed to promote that essential, fundamental aspect of the Covenant; e) reading the provision to provide a purely institutional guarantee without a substantive provision could result in an empty, meaningless promise of self-government. The example Bob gives on this is the hypothetical if the US Congress were to immediately pass a law after each and every law enacted by the CNMI local government declaring such CNMI local law a nullity--not changing the Covenant, not effecting the existence of the local governing institutions, but clearly gutting the meaning of self-government.
3. These positions were so well-articulated I am persuaded as to each of them. I would have already agreed with a, b, and c before reading his brief and could even have articulated these ideas. d was a natural corollary. e was a stretch for me, but I was persuaded as to the issue of a substantive component to the self-governing provision of the Covenant despite my earlier discussion (argument?) with cactus on this matter, by the clarity of the example. The writing is brilliant and helpful to getting through the thicket of the Covenant and self-government of internal affairs at least this far.
4. Bob also disagrees with both the CNMI and the US on the next step of the analysis. He embraces the balancing test of Richards. He says because there is a substantive element to the guarantee of self-government, it must be weighed in the balance each time the US enacts a law applicable in the CNMI.
He dispatches of the US argument that the balance has already been struck in the covenant itself because at section 503, the Covenant acknowledges that US immigration laws can be later made applicable to the CNMI. Bob's argument is simple--that section 503 only relates to what federal laws do not apply at the start of the CNMI. That they may later apply does not negate the US's need to comply with the balancing test because the source of Congress's power to enact any law is section 105.
While I like that analysis of the Covenant's framework, this is also where I think his analysis begins to falter. The substantive element of self-government only applies to self-government over "internal affairs."
5. Bob glosses over the "internal affairs" issue. He assumes that anything that effects our economy to a great extent is automatically an internal affair. He argues that because we have handled immigration, it is a matter of self-government that we continue to handle immigration. He claims that because the CNMI has already wedded itself to cheap foreign labor, our use of cheap foreign labor is an internal affair.
If you use the same kind of hypothetical analysis on this argument that Bob uses on the institutional vs. substantive aspect of the right of self-government, you can see the flaw of this type of reasoning.
If we decided to build our economy on the production of heroin, it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to become a banking center for money-launderers, it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to embark on a new industry of cloning individuals or selling babies or whatever... it would be an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
If we decided to make our economy based on selling jihadi movements information or goods or services, or have schools here for training, it would become an "internal" affair and protected by the right to self-govern.
You get the idea.
In a small place like the CNMI, everything can be said to have a big effect here. With Bob's analysis of what is "internal"--everything is internal, nothing is external, unless it doesn't effect the CNMI at all.
6. In Bob's analysis, the fundamental right to self-govern is so strong that few laws would overbalance it. In this case, he fails to credit any of the interests that the US has in passing the CNRA.
He goes so far as to say the US has NO interest in how the CNMI conducts its labor matters, how we structure our economy, how we treat workers here; the CNMI's decision to not extend rights to alien workers is an internal affair because those rights would be exercised here.
This argument ignores the reach of the US Constitution to the CNMI and its protections of equal treatment, due process, and fundamental fairness. The argument ignores the reality that the face we present to the rest of the world as being part of the US means that what we do in the CNMI can tarnish the US' reputation abroad. The argument ignores the case law cited by the US government that the US, not local governments, is "parens patria" and thus the US has an obvious federal interest in treating all people with dignity and fairness.
7. Bob also fails to acknowledge that US citizenship and the path of alien workers to US citizenship is not internal at all, but strictly within the province of the US federal government. He mentions that the CNMI has controlled the reins of access to rights, and claims that US control will flood the CNMI with aliens who gain rights at the expense of the indigenous.
In other words, he argues that as a matter of local self-government, the CNMI has a RIGHT to continue to have a two-tiered economy with a class of workers who are permanently excluded from every avenue to political rights.
8. He makes a few good points in his arguments, even for these offensive positions--for example, that the US has not had a coherent immigration policy.
No doubt that the US has vacillated on how best to have immigrant labor and protect US labor at the same time.
9. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the US has not embraced an immigration policy that promotes eventual citizenship for immigrants. It isn't uniform, it isn't all encompassing, but there are certainly SOME doors open for immigrants to use as a means for gaining citizenship--besides a familial relationship of marriage or parenting an adult US citizen child (which IR door is open here only because of the Covenant provision). In the US, some workers can gain US citizenship; some foreigners can get in through the quotas; etc.
In the CNMI, all doors are closed, except to those IRs who come through the applicable portals of Immigration and Nationality Act.
So the US Congress can express an interest legitimately in wanting an immigration system that does not rely on cheap foreign labor that is permanently excluded from the political process, permanently kept as an underclass.
And Bob's refusal to acknowledge that federal interest is the biggest weakness of his brief.
10. He also argues that the CNMI is not part of the US, arguing that the US's interest in control of its borders does not mean the US has any interest in control of the borders of the CNMI.
This is a very big leap and very significant. Bob doesn't give enough analysis to support his assumption.
It's also a very dangerous argument. Imagine if a foreign power came knocking at our door with its guns ablaze. We could 't defend ourselves. We're counting on the Covenant and the U.S.'s promise to protect and defend us. But what if "we" aren't part of the US. What interest would the US have in spending its money to defend our borders? Would we be claiming "self-government" then? Or would we be demanding that the US live up to its commitments?
Since the US has a covenant commitment to defend us, it obviously has an interest in securing even our border.
All in all, Bob's argument, although very well written and persuasive on some aspects, depends on very flawed assumptions:
1. that "internal affairs" to which local self-government applies includes everything that has an effect here and applies to immigration of aliens into the CNMI, applies to employment of foreign workers in the CNMI, and applies to control of the CNMI's borders.
2. that this is not the US and not within the US's border, so the US has no security interest.
3. that citizenship and rights of foreign workers are a matter of local concern only and not a federal interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
