says redsoxfan218 (comment #7 of “I already miss those Hawaiians“).

unknown29 wrote “research is a really important step in writing…if we want to write something purposeful we have to do good research and apply the rhetorical situation to it” (comment #5). pbandjelly noted, “Everything that was presented with evidence…The speakers knew their case very well and any question that was asked of them they had a quick comeback and good support for waht they had to say” (comment #2).

mrcapatiller, though, is bumming: “Laws and Lawyers and Legislation and stuff like that make me want to go live in the woods….because it [Hawaiian independence, legalization of marijuana) wont ever happen even though it is so obviously the right thing to do” (comment #6). 😦 Why is mrcapatiller’s response so different than mjolliner89, who claims: “It was a relief to see the success of their hard work and solid belief. This case gives me … the knowledge that with earnest and quality research, lives can be changed (comment #12).

ajch adds a voice of critique, “they assumed the audience knew more on the topic to begin with, then they actually did” (comment #8), which is a complimentary concern to assuming that the audience knows what’s in your own mind more than they can actually mindread. PinkPanther89 adds that not all issues are of equal significance, although I would nudge back and ask what is of consequence that debates about body piercing enable us to bring into focus? I’m not sure I can say as much for Wright5, who concurs with PinkPanther89: “The Lance Larson case is much more serious and intense” (comment #13).

treschoutte adds a new term, describing the arguments as “peaceful” (comment #11). Is it possible that people can learn and/or choose to argue peaceably?

redbeardthewriter expands on an argument raised by ntourloukis in the Junior writing course. You’ll have to read the detailed critique for yourself, I cannot pull out a paraphrase and do either the economics or identity politics any justice: “These people are nuts” (comment #14). I will say, though, that I think the argument about legal precedence having no bearing is a stretch, if not an outright admission that US national law is a scam. mjollnir89’s summary cuts through some of redbeard’s hyperbole: “The fact that Larsen’s team was able to dredge up documents from the 1800’s and use them effectively in a modern court hearing is amazing. It showed me the different ways in which a conflict can be approached.

winglsammi seems to agree with redbeardthewriter, stating “everybody in the world know that the United States will not give up Hawaii” (comment #15). There is a potentially confusing historical element about the US use of Hawai’i during WWII. I say this information is “confusing” because I do not know how relevant the US military’s use of Hawai’i is to the facts or ultimate outcome of the matter of national sovereignity. (Which reminds that there are, actually, international laws regarding “occupation” – the US is supposedly following these in Iraq in the here-and-now).

Finally, for clarification, the US was repeatedly invited to participate in these Proceedings and chose not to do so. (They may have submitted written documentation of some kind; I am not sure.)