E-mail from a Chinese colleague: Hawaii = Tibet?

I got the following question from one of my Chinese colleagues via e-mail today (congrats on getting past “Golden Shield“!): How would Americans react if there was support for a Hawaiian independence movement on par with Western support for Tibetan independence?

Hmmmm… That’s actually a good question, political equivalency aside.  I assume that the average American’s response would be similar to that of the average Chinese: bewilderment, anger, resentment, and increased feelings of nationalism.  The question got me to thinking — not about yelling out “Free Hawaii!!” at UST’s Commencement — but about the issue of secessionism in a comparative sense, an issue that I will just happen to discuss during the Summer II Term in my “Secession and the Constitution” course.

In the American experience, we view the issue of secession as settled law, specifically because of: 1.) the outcome of the Civil War and 2.) Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).  Warning: Comfort Zone about to be violated here.  Like it or not, the Chinese view the issue of secession the same way that we do…

So why am I bringing up Tibet and a hypothetical Hawaiian independence movement?  Because it ain’t all that hypothetical.  On Wednesday, 60 or so people took part in what they called a protest of the “U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Islands” in Honolulu, likely inspired by the fevered discussions found in a recent edition of The Nation here, here, and here.  My Chinese colleagues would likely call these people “splittists.”  I’d just call ‘em deluded.

If the little protest in Honolulu got the attention of one of my fellow Political Scientists in the PRC, then I’m damn sure that it was noticed among certain high-ranking Chinese Foreign Ministry officials — and likely the subject of some rather humorous conversations over a couple of shots of maotai in Zhongnanhai.

Just some thoughts to start the conversation going over beers with our graduating students at the PoliSci House this afternoon…

Houston Cool: Lillian Warren Paintings

A favorite of the PoliSci Department: Lillian Warren Paintings…

OK… full disclosure: LIllian is Bob’s wife.  That aside, she’s still our favorite artist!

Of Catholic guilt and union organizing campaigns at UST…

An SEIU campaign flier found on campus yesterday…

Burka: Is Texas Turning Blue?

Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka in an article entitled “Almost Blue” found in the May edition of Texas Monthly:

“Is Texas about to be a Democratic state again? The fact that we’re even asking the question is a sign of how weird and unpredictable this election year has been.”

You can read his article on the changing landscape of Texas politics here and listen to his “Behind the Lines” podcast on the article here.

Discuss among yourselves as we chat up our students on the subject…

Humor aside

U.S. Senate says McCain is qualified for President

Glad that they cleared that up…

The New York Times reports that the U.S. Senate yesterday delivered its judgment on a Constitutional question involving Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be President.

Weighing in on an arcane question that has arisen because of McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, the Senate without opposition approved a nonbinding resolution recognizing that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen.  Note two of the co-sponsors of the resolution…

Calendar No. 715
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

And why did this even become an issue?  Because back in late February, the New York Times decided that it was “not a frivolous issue.”  Yes, it was.  Sigh…