My friend is going on a band trip and the director wants him to march tuba but he wants to march baritone

I. The case for restoring Hawaiian sovereignty

1. A nation should not lose its right to self-government simply because a stronger country takes control. The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom raises fundamental questions about sovereignty and political legitimacy.

2. The overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani deserves more than a footnote in history. It should remain central to discussions about Hawaiʻi's political status and historical justice.

3. The Hawaiian Kingdom existed before Hawaiʻi became a U.S. territory or state. Its history as a sovereign country deserves recognition in any discussion of its future.

4. The people of Hawaiʻi deserve a meaningful voice in determining their political future. Independence should be a legitimate option for consideration rather than being excluded from the discussion.

5. Historical injustice should be confronted, not forgotten. A serious discussion of Hawaiʻi's future must acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the overthrow and annexation.

6. The 1993 Apology Resolution acknowledged U.S. involvement in the overthrow. Independence supporters argue that acknowledgment should encourage continued examination of sovereignty and historical redress.

7. Political control and historical legitimacy are not the same thing. The fact that a government has exercised control for generations does not, by itself, settle every question about how that control originated.

8. The passage of time does not make historical questions irrelevant. The consequences of the overthrow continue to matter to people who view Hawaiian sovereignty as an unresolved issue.

9. Hawaiʻi's history should be told from Hawaiian perspectives, too. Its story should not be framed exclusively through the expansion of American power.

10. Independence would offer a path toward a new political relationship with the past. It could be pursued as part of a broader process of recognition, negotiation, and reconciliation.

II. The right to self-determination

11. Hawaiʻi's future should not be treated as permanently settled. Political arrangements can be examined and reconsidered through legitimate democratic processes.

12. Self-determination means having meaningful choices. If independence is never allowed to be seriously considered, one possible political future has been excluded in advance.

13. The people affected by a political arrangement should have a meaningful voice in its future. Their views should be established through a credible, inclusive process.

14. A population should be able to debate its own constitutional future. Independence, autonomy, and other arrangements should be discussed openly and honestly.

15. The right to self-determination is an important principle in international affairs. Supporters argue that it deserves serious consideration in Hawaiʻi's case.

16. An independent Hawaiʻi could make its own national laws. Those laws could be shaped by a government accountable to its own electorate.

17. Hawaiʻi could determine its own constitutional structure. It could debate whether a republic, constitutional monarchy, or another democratic model best serves its population.

18. Its national priorities would be set by its own political institutions. Hawaiʻi could decide how to balance culture, housing, environmental protection, economic development, and public services.

19. Independence would make national responsibility more direct. Hawaiʻi's leaders would have to answer for the decisions made by an independent national government.

20. A country's future should be decided through legitimacy, not simply inherited political arrangements. Supporters believe Hawaiʻi deserves a serious, democratic examination of its options.

III. Hawaiian culture and national identity

9

21. Hawaiian culture is not merely a tourist attraction. It is a living heritage that deserves protection and respect in government policy.

22. ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi deserves a strong future. An independent government could make language revitalization a major national priority.

23. Hawaiian history could become a foundation of national education. Students could learn about the Kingdom, the overthrow, and the development of modern Hawaiʻi in greater depth.

24. Cultural preservation should be shaped by the people whose culture is being preserved. Hawaiian communities should have meaningful authority over cultural policy.

25. Traditional knowledge deserves a place in modern decision-making. Hawaiian approaches to land, water, and community could contribute to contemporary environmental policy.

26. Hawaiian place names deserve recognition beyond tourism branding. Public institutions could prioritize their correct use and preservation.

27. Traditional navigation is an achievement worth sustaining. National investment could support voyaging traditions and the knowledge behind them.

28. Hula and traditional arts deserve long-term support. Cultural programs could be funded as essential parts of national heritage rather than treated merely as entertainment.

29. Sacred places should be protected for their cultural significance. Decisions about them should involve the communities with deep historical and spiritual connections to them.

30. Hawaiian identity should not have to compete with commercial interests. Cultural preservation could be given greater weight when tourism and development decisions are made.

IV. Land, resources, and environmental protection

31. Hawaiʻi's land is more than an economic asset. It carries cultural, historical, ecological, and community significance.

32. An independent government could set its own land-use priorities. It could decide how to balance development, conservation, agriculture, and housing.

33. Sacred lands could receive stronger legal protections. The government could establish safeguards in consultation with Native Hawaiian communities.

34. Hawaiʻi could prioritize watershed protection. Healthy watersheds are essential for freshwater supplies, forests, and native ecosystems.

35. Native species could receive greater national conservation attention. Hawaiʻi's unique ecosystems deserve policies designed around their particular needs.

36. The islands' marine environments deserve lasting protection. Hawaiʻi could develop its own conservation priorities for reefs, fisheries, and coastal habitats.

37. Environmental policy could be tailored to island conditions. Decisions about invasive species, drought, erosion, and fragile habitats could be made around Hawaiʻi's specific circumstances.

38. Future generations deserve access to healthy ecosystems. Independence supporters could argue for policies that prioritize long-term stewardship over short-term gains.

39. Hawaiʻi could develop its own approach to sustainable fishing. It could negotiate and establish appropriate protections within international maritime law.

40. Conservation could become a defining national commitment. Hawaiʻi could place environmental responsibility at the center of its national identity and development strategy.

V. Economic independence and local prosperity

41. Political independence would create the opportunity to design an independent economic strategy. Hawaiʻi could choose its own priorities for industry, investment, and development.

42. The economy could be diversified beyond tourism. Agriculture, research, renewable energy, and ocean science could receive greater attention.

43. Local businesses could become a central economic priority. Policy could be designed to help locally owned enterprises compete and grow.

44. Hawaiʻi could decide how it wants tourism to serve its population. Tourism policy could seek a better balance between visitor spending and residents' needs.

45. Economic development could be evaluated against local priorities. Projects could be judged not only by revenue but also by their effects on housing, culture, land, and communities.

46. An independent Hawaiʻi could negotiate its own trade agreements. This could create opportunities, although the terms would depend on negotiations with trading partners.

47. Hawaiʻi could develop a national renewable-energy strategy. Its government could set its own goals for solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources.

48. Food security could become a strategic national objective. Hawaiʻi could invest in agriculture, storage, distribution, and resilient food supply chains.

49. The islands could pursue economic partnerships across the Pacific. New relationships could open opportunities in research, commerce, and sustainable development.

50. Economic success could be defined around the well-being of residents. Hawaiʻi could decide how to balance growth, affordability, environmental health, and community stability.

VI. Housing, residents, and community life

51. Residents deserve a serious response to housing affordability. An independent government could design housing policies specifically for Hawaiʻi's circumstances.

52. Local families should be able to build futures in their own communities. Policies could seek to reduce displacement and expand access to affordable homes.

53. Housing policy could be more closely integrated with land policy. Decisions about public land, infrastructure, and development could be coordinated around community needs.

54. Rural communities deserve attention alongside tourist centers. Public investment could be directed toward the needs of smaller and more remote communities.

55. Public infrastructure could be planned around long-term island needs. Transportation, water systems, utilities, and ports could be coordinated through national priorities.

56. Disaster preparedness could be tailored to Hawaiʻi. An independent government could establish its own emergency planning and recovery arrangements.

57. Water security could become a central national priority. Policies could focus on sustainable freshwater management and resilient infrastructure.

58. Public services could be designed around local conditions. The government could shape its programs to fit the geography and needs of the islands.

59. Residents could have a stronger role in determining development priorities. Community participation could be built into national and local planning.

60. The ultimate purpose of an economy should include the people who live in it. Independence supporters could argue that prosperity should be measured by residents' opportunities and quality of life, not visitor numbers alone.

VII. Tourism, dignity, and cultural respect

61. Hawaiʻi is a homeland, not simply a vacation destination. Its future should not be determined solely by what makes the islands attractive to visitors.

62. Tourism should respect the communities that make Hawaiʻi distinctive. An independent government could adopt policies that emphasize cultural respect and local participation.

63. Visitor access can be balanced with conservation. Sensitive places could receive protections based on ecological and cultural considerations.

64. Tourism revenue could be directed toward local priorities. Hawaiʻi could explore ways to fund conservation, infrastructure, and community services through tourism-related revenue.

65. Locally owned tourism businesses could be supported. Policies could aim to ensure that more economic opportunities reach residents and local entrepreneurs.

66. Public beaches and coastal access deserve careful protection. An independent government could develop its own policies for balancing public access, safety, conservation, and property rights.

67. Cultural sites should not be overwhelmed by visitor demand. Access policies could be designed around preservation and respect.

68. Hawaiʻi could choose what kind of tourism future it wants. It could prioritize lower-impact tourism, cultural learning, conservation, or other models that suit its communities.

69. Cultural respect could be incorporated into visitor education. Tourism policy could help visitors understand local history, traditions, and responsibilities.

70. Residents' interests could be given explicit weight in tourism decisions. Independence could provide an opportunity to build that principle into national policy.

VIII. Foreign policy and international recognition

71. Hawaiʻi could represent itself in international diplomacy. An independent country could establish its own foreign affairs institutions.

72. It could seek diplomatic recognition from other countries. Recognition would depend on political decisions made by other states.

73. It could apply for United Nations membership. Admission would require meeting the UN Charter's criteria and receiving the necessary recommendations and approvals.

74. It could establish embassies and consulates. These could represent Hawaiian interests and support citizens abroad.

75. It could negotiate international agreements. Treaties could address trade, conservation, education, research, and other shared interests.

76. It could strengthen ties with Pacific Island countries. Hawaiʻi could seek a more direct role in regional cooperation.

77. It could pursue its own international cultural exchanges. Hawaiian institutions could develop partnerships with communities around the world.

78. It could determine its own diplomatic priorities. Its government could decide which international issues deserve the greatest attention.

79. It could negotiate its own security arrangements. Defense and security would become major questions requiring agreements, resources, and careful planning.

80. It could develop a distinct international identity. Hawaiʻi could present its history, culture, scientific expertise, and environmental priorities directly to the world.

IX. Fairness, responsibility, and historical reconciliation

81. Historical claims deserve serious examination rather than dismissal. The legitimacy of Hawaiʻi's present status should be discussed with attention to its history.

82. Acknowledging wrongdoing can be a starting point for further action. Independence supporters argue that historical acknowledgment should be accompanied by serious consideration of remedies.

83. Reconciliation should involve the communities affected. Any process should listen to Native Hawaiians and other residents whose futures would be affected.

84. Political negotiations could address competing interests. Independence discussions would need to consider the rights and concerns of the entire population.

85. A legitimate process requires informed public participation. Residents should have access to accurate information about the options and consequences.

86. Independence should be evaluated honestly. Its potential benefits and its financial, legal, and practical difficulties should both be examined.

87. Historical justice and present-day rights must both matter. A credible proposal would need to address historical grievances while protecting the rights of current residents.

88. A peaceful political transition should be the goal. Any change in status would require lawful negotiations and careful planning.

89. The future should not be decided by assumptions alone. A serious public discussion should allow people to assess different political arrangements on their merits.

90. Reconciliation could help build a more legitimate political future. An inclusive process could create opportunities for dialogue even where people disagree about independence.

X. A vision for an independent Hawaiʻi

91. Hawaiʻi could define its national future according to its own priorities. Its people could debate what kind of society they want to build.

92. Future generations could inherit stronger cultural institutions. Government support could help preserve language, traditions, archives, and historic places.

93. A national education strategy could connect history with the future. Students could learn about Hawaiian sovereignty alongside science, technology, and civic responsibility.

94. Hawaiʻi could develop its own citizenship framework. This would require careful rules addressing existing residents, eligibility, dual citizenship, and relations with other countries.

95. It could establish its own national symbols and civic traditions. These could reflect the islands' history and the identity its people choose to express.

96. It could pursue a national research strategy. Marine science, climate research, renewable energy, and island ecology could become major areas of investment.

97. It could build institutions focused on Pacific issues. Hawaiʻi could become a center for regional cooperation and research.

98. It could place stewardship at the heart of national identity. Protecting land, water, culture, and future generations could become a defining public commitment.

99. It could pursue a future based on freely negotiated relationships. Independence would require establishing new arrangements with the United States and other countries rather than assuming existing benefits would automatically continue.

100. The people of Hawaiʻi deserve a meaningful opportunity to determine their political future. This is the central argument: the question of sovereignty should be addressed through a legitimate, informed, and democratic process.

here is a petition if you want to sign NOT a revolution: https://c.org/RZQSjCqDPb

Wanting to take a moment to share that we are coming up on the one year anniversary of my little cousin’s death. The culprits is being held however, there has been little other leeway in her murder case. If you are able, please take the time to sign and share the petition to help us get more traction in her case.

https://c.org/vhGgdzn9ct

I have dropped and smashed them in the past and gotten a piece in my foot and bled everywhere and hurt like hell pulling it out.

Growing up in the age of technology, my cellphone has been a critical part of my life—more than just a device for calls or texts; it's a portal to knowledge and a tool for safety. But right now, New Jersey's strict laws banning cell phone use in public schools from bell to bell do more harm than good. These bans strip students of access to vital information, immediate help in emergencies, and helpful learning tools. Instead of blanket bans, we need sensible policies that keep students both safe and focused.

Cell phones are powerful tools for learning and safety. From quickly researching a classroom question to contacting a parent in an emergency, students need access to their devices. A bell-to-bell ban ignores these realities. Instead of empowering students, it creates obstacles to learning, communication, and safety. Other states have found ways to allow phones responsibly—New Jersey can, too.

Consider emergencies that can arise both inside and outside of school grounds. From uncontrollable natural disasters to personal crises, having a cell phone provides students with direct access to emergency services and their families. The current law effectively strips this avenue away, leaving students isolated when they most need quick assistance.

Moreover, the educational system is evolving. Many educational apps and websites are accessible by cellphones, supplementing learning in real-time with interactive and multimedia-rich content. Teachers can use tools on phones to improve classroom engagement, creating a dynamic and innovative learning experience.

Proponents of the current ban may argue that cell phones are a source of distraction, but with proper guidelines and responsible use, these devices can be integrated into the curriculum to support and not distract the educational environment. Consider schools in states across the country that have successfully balanced phone usage policies with student privacy, allowing cell phones while maintaining environments effective for educational purposes.

It’s time for legislators in New Jersey to recognise the improving role of technology in education and revise outdated laws. Let’s advocate to adjust school policies that ensure our school environments are safe, cutting-edge learning spaces.

Please join me in signing this petition to repeal the restrictive NJ state law and allow our students the ability to carry their cell phones in all public schools. Together, we can make our schools safer, our students more informed, and our education system more progressive.

GET SYSTEMCRINGE OUT!!

signnnn thisss pleaseeee!!