Prince Philip's wedding becomes a stage for the tense relationship between Alex and Henry to unfold. The root cause of their discord, as Alex reveals to Nora, lies in his aversion to the media's habit of drawing parallels between him and Henry. Alex is frequently dubbed the American Henry, a comparison that irks him deeply due to his belief that he possesses superior amiability and charm. At the wedding reception, Henry takes the opportunity to offer Alex an etiquette lesson leading to an inadvertent cake mishap. This trivial annoyance escalates into a physical exchange, causing a lavish cake worth £75,000 in terms of cost, not weight, to cascade onto both of them. This incident swiftly transforms into an international media sensation with the narrative spun to depict Alex and Henry as vehemently despising each other. The altercation is portrayed as a culmination of their animosity, amplified by the lavish wedding setting. To rectify their relationship, Alex and Henry find themselves compelled to spend an entire weekend in each other's company. During this time, they are required to pose as close friends, showcasing a level of affection that's difficult to put into words. As the weekend progresses and they share more experiences, Alex becomes increasingly taken aback by Henry's actions and demeanor, discovering that Henry is nothing like what he initially anticipated. One particular instance that deeply affects Alex is when he witnesses Henry engaging in a heartfelt and candid conversation with a young girl who is battling cancer. This interaction leaves a significant impression on Alex, highlighting the compassionate and kind-hearted nature of Henry. Before Alex can address this newfound understanding with Henry, a sudden loud noise akin to gunshots disrupts the scene, prompting security personnel to swiftly usher them into a nearby storage closet for safety. From their initial encounter, Alex had harbored a negative opinion of Henry due to a somewhat impolite interaction. This incident occurred on a day that was pivotal for Alex as it marked his first public appearance. Consequently, he has been particularly sensitive about the memory ever since. In a candid moment, Henry apologizes to Alex for his behavior and opens up about the reasons behind his actions. Henry reveals that during the period when he had been distant and abrasive, he was grappling with the recent loss of his father. This revelation adds a layer of understanding to Henry's actions, helping Alex see the context behind his behavior. With this newfound clarity and insight, Alex and Henry manage to resolve their differences and bury their grievances. Their weekend together not only bridges the gap between them but also paves the way for a genuine and authentic friendship to blossom. Subsequent to that point, several months are characterized by extensive text communication between Alex and Henry. During this period, Henry opts for more vibrant emojis rather than humorous remarks. The narrative shifts to the annual New Year's Eve gathering hosted by Alex, June, and their close friend Nora, whose grandfather holds the position of vice president. In attendance is Henry, accompanied by his best friend Pez, who harbors affection for June. The event is marked by a collective sense of enjoyment and camaraderie. However, a notable shift occurs when, at the stroke of midnight, Henry observes Alex and Nora sharing a kiss. This sight sparks feelings of jealousy within him, prompting his abrupt departure from the festivities. Alex locates Henry in the garden where an unexpected moment unfolds as Henry leans in and kisses him, marking their first intimate interaction. This encounter triggers a profound internal struggle within Alex, specifically concerning his sexual identity. The impact of the kiss lingers in his thoughts, leading him to grapple with a growing crisis of understanding and accepting his own identity. Although Alex has engaged in a sexual relationship with his former high school companion Liam and experienced attraction towards men, he has never acknowledged or identified himself as being bisexual. He confides in Nora about his inner turmoil, discussing his state of confusion. In response, Nora offers her perspective by revealing that Henry identifies as gay. Furthermore, Nora astutely observes that Alex's emotions appear to be directed toward Henry in a way that suggests he has developed feelings for him. During one of Henry's visits, Alex seizes the opportunity to share an intimate kiss with him all the while being mindful of a watchful security guard nearby. This initial expression of affection paves the way for a more intense connection as they engage in sexual intimacy for the first time that night. In the aftermath, Alex designates their interaction as a friends with benefits arrangement, characterizing the nature of their involvement. Subsequently, Henry and Alex persist in arranging rendezvous for physical encounters whenever circumstances allow. Their interactions extend beyond the physical realm as they commence a playful exchange of flirtatious emails and engage in heartfelt conversations over the phone. However, the dynamic between them evolves as Alex's feelings begin to transform. This marks the beginning of Alex's journey towards developing stronger and more complex feelings for Henry. Given that Alex's mother is up for reelection and Henry is a member of the royal family, maintaining the secrecy of their relationship is of paramount importance. Alex frequently seeks counsel from his mentor and family friend, Senator Rafael Luna, to assist his mother's campaign efforts. However, things take a dramatic turn when Luna reveals he's running as the opposing candidate Jeffrey Richards running mate. This revelation deeply affects Alex and his family. Henry arrives at the Democratic National Convention to offer support and comfort to Alex in the wake of this news. The following day, Zahra, Ellen's chief of staff and a trusted family friend, stumbles upon Henry and Alex together. She agrees to keep their secret until after the convention. In a significant step, Alex comes out to his mother, who responds by creating a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the potential challenges of his relationship with Henry. While expressing her support, she also emphasizes the need for Alex to be absolutely certain about the longevity of their relationship. A retreat to the family's lake house becomes a pivotal moment. Alex, accompanied by Henry, June, Nora, and his father Oscar, comes out to his father as well. During an attempt to express his feelings for Henry, Henry's demeanor abruptly changes and he distances himself from the conversation. The next morning, Henry departs the lake house without a farewell, leaving only a note. As Henry's communication dwindles, Alex experiences distress and ultimately flies to London to confront him. In London, Henry articulates his inability to continue the relationship due to his royal obligations. Despite this, their emotions lead them to be intimate. Uncertainty shrouds whether this encounter marks the end or the beginning of their relationship. Henry bestows his signet ring upon Alex and conveys his desire to be with him. Their connection remains strong and they exchange passionate emails during their times apart. Appoignant dance at the V&A Museum reaffirms their commitment to repairing and sustaining their relationship. Yet, the sense of security is short-lived as challenges persist between the two of them. The private emails exchanged between Alex and Henry are exposed to the media, likely leaked by Miguel. Despite their strong desire to communicate, the two are prevented from doing so by their respective teams, especially since Alex is now back in the United States. A twist occurs during a televised interview where Miguel is questioned about his remarkable speed in reading 72 emails and promptly writing an article shortly after the leak. This line of inquiry strongly implies Miguel's involvement in the leak. In response to the situation, Alex takes the step of issuing a public statement addressing his relationship with Henry. Meanwhile, Henry's path leads him to Buckingham Palace, where he faces criticism from his brother Prince Philip and engages with advisors seeking to guide him through this crisis. Fortunately, the separation between Alex and Henry doesn't endure for too long. Undenounced to many, Zara and Henry's age Sean have been involved romantically, leading them to keep phones for emergency communication purposes. This unforeseen connection allows Alex and Henry to reconnect and bridge the gap caused by the leak of their private correspondence. Alex and Henry finally engage in a conversation during which Alex discloses his upcoming visit to London. Following a heartwarming day spent playing the piano together, the two of them, accompanied by B, make their way to Buckingham Palace for a meeting with King James III. In this meeting, King James openly acknowledges having read the emails exchanged between Henry and Alex. He expresses unwavering certainty that the two are in love. However, he emphasizes that Henry's foremost obligation is to the monarchy and his subjects necessitating the maintenance of a conventional royal image. In response to Henry and Alex's inquiry about the rationale behind this requirement, King James contends that the British public may not readily accept a prince who identifies as homosexual. Interestingly, the situation takes a turn as a sizable crowd gathers outside Buckingham Palace. B informs the group that similar gatherings have formed in multiple cities including Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Liverpool. These gatherings are all in support of Prince Henry and Alex's relationship. This turn of events serves as a clear contradiction to King James' earlier assertion undermining his argument. Henry challenges his grandfather's authority by refusing to hide in shame. King James urges Henry to seriously contemplate his decision, emphasizing that it's irreversible. In response, Henry expresses his hope that there won't be regrets. Accompanied by Alex, they venture out to acknowledge the cheering crowds. A week later, Henry and Alex find themselves in Washington DC, anxiously waiting for the results of the electoral vote. The outcome will determine whether Alex's mother, Ellen Claremont, will be re-elected as president. As the tension mounts, Henry and Alex share a private moment during which Alex's nerves are apparent. However, their worries dissipate as news arrives that Ellen has secured victory in Texas, securing her presidency. Following the jubilant celebration, Alex inquires whether Henry still possesses the key to Alex's family residence in Texas. The closing scene of the film captures the duo's journey back to Texas and their arrival at Alex's home, symbolizing their shared future. Thank you for watching.


Today is International Women's Day and this is our message. Equal pay for equal work. Better support in the childcare sector for both women in the home and women in the workplace. More women at the centre of innovation. We want gender balance in politics. Let's make a commitment to work for a fair and justice society that equally respects women and men.


Hi, I'm Mark Grugowski, Director of the Lunaro Digital Home Group. In this demo here at Connect in Budapest, we are featuring some of the automated video testing work that we're doing. We have recognized that in our labs we have to now address the use of more video and be able to test in an automated fashion the fact that with delivery of video that we're able to decrypt, decode and render video properly. So in order to achieve that goal, we have to start looking at automated video test equipment and software. So we have one of my assignees, Arthur from SocioNext and Nuresh from the Lunaro QA team. So I'll hand it over to them and let them describe what they've got here for you. As a part of our daily activity, we have to do automation and the validation. So one of the challenges we have got is we have been doing our CI loops and violations. So the current challenge what we have is video playback. In general, the video playback verification goes like human high testing, basically the man has to sit on the machine to validate the verification of video, like play the video and ensure that it's playing as expected. So it consumes a lot of human resources as well as, you know, it's not scalable. You cannot do it multiple devices at the same time. So we found, I mean, this is the main problem we have been facing. Then we come up with the solution. The solution is let's have a framework and the automation thing of way. So you need not have to sit on the machine to validate the video. So the solution is we found a robot framework. Robot framework is a test framework which allows us to run the test by using the framework internally, which uses a selenium framework. So it's a way to run the test on your host and the target. So currently we have a setup here. So if you look at, we have a host running and it's running with the robot framework scripts. And we have connected with Hikey on the development board and we have a screen here which showing the what is there on Hikey board. Let's start a demo and we can go ahead with the more details of it. And who are you? I'm Arthur, I'm an engineer from Socialnext. Go ahead, capture the video please. So it started a robot framework script and it's playing a video. And it captures that video and it validates. So the validation part comes to OpenCV. So by using the OpenCV you can look at here like a face detection. So we have a face detection algorithm which detects a face and it's a way of doing a video verification. So this is scalable and it's efficient. You can have a one server and multiple devices connected. In a one single click you launch your test script and that going to test on multiple devices and get back to your results. So it's pretty scalable and efficient we have doing it and we have been doing it currently as a demo we connected one board but we can connect multiple boards and whatever the framework we have developed it's all about independent hardware. It runs on all the boards, all development boards, all production boards. So that's what we have and it's amazing tool and amazing work to validate the things. Thank you.


As you know, ThinkTech has spent the last six weeks or more interviewing candidates for all of the various offices in Hawaii. Gubernatorial, Lieutenant Governor, Senators, Representatives, and OHOP. From all the parties, the Democrats, the Greens, the Independents, and today we have someone from the Republican Party. And he is just the most delightful person I have met. And everybody knows, I only talk to my best friends. So here is my new best friend, Lynn Barry Mariano. Welcome, sir. Aloha, Marshall. Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to come on ThinkTech today. Well, we want to do across the board. We want everybody to see as many candidates as we could present. As I told you, we only did the candidates that had challengers. We didn't do any of those people that were running on a pose. There was really no reason to do that. So you have a challenger. We had interviewed her. So now we want to talk to you. Now, let me. Lynn is a retired U.S. Army major with combat experience. And he's spent several fast-paced, special operation forces, foreign relations, customs, protocol, domestic, international, politics, economic, and finance. Wow. Following retirement, he successfully owned and operated a small financial planning business. Wonderful. Let's follow the money. Yes, yes. So now tell me, what are you doing? Oh, you worked at the Pentagon. Yes, ma'am. Pentagon Force Protection Agency to upgrade and integrate 21st technology physical security at the Pentagon. Wow. Yes, ma'am. I was given that opportunity to, and it was hand-picked, to upgrade the Pentagon infrastructure interior and exterior for physical security. That required access control points for vehicles and also pedestrian access control points to include the new, but really not new, but biometrics. So that was after 9-11 when they rebuilt the Pentagon. That's correct, yes. Well, that's quite a job. That's quite, my goodness, just finding your way around that building is a job. How long were you at the Pentagon? Approximately 10 years. And again, I was given the opportunity to upgrade that right after 9-11. So prior to 9-11, you know, I was working as a consultant in Virginia. And then a friend of mine called me, used to be my former boss, and asked me, would I come to Washington DC and look at one of the programs that they had as part of the counterterrorist program? So I had that opportunity. After 9-11, I was one of several individuals that went into Washington DC to help with the interagency response. Following that, I went around the country designing, conducting, and training first responders, particularly law enforcement SWAT teams on counterterrorist responses after 9-11. My goodness. And so then the Pentagon, I was at a golf tournament, and the director of the Pentagon knew who I was, and asked if I would consider coming on to work for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, and to help him bring the Pentagon to the 21st century technology while keeping the Pentagon open simultaneously 24 hours, 365 days a year. And so we did that. I was allowed to pick the right teams, coordinate with various agencies, departments, the various armed services, and worked that out so that we could upgrade the Pentagon while keeping it operational and open. That's an incredible building, my goodness. And all the things that they do there, and they're all top secret? No, no. Not all top secret. There is some top secret, but yeah, it's kind of open. Yeah. So now you were born here? Yes, ma'am. I was born in Kali. I grew up in Kali Palama. Initially, I went to a Puhali elementary school, and then my family moved to other parts of Kali, and we ended up at Kali Palama. So I went to Likiliki, Alakaua. I went to Farrington High School. The governor's? Yes, class of 74. And then I had the opportunity to go to Shamanad University, where I majored in psychology with a minor in business. And in fact, after returning back home, I'm an adjunct professor at Shamanad, you know, teaching now, but I'm not teaching currently in the law and force criminal justice positions. And I thought leadership and management of police organizations. That's quite a mouthful. So when did you get into politics?  Well, I initially started to have my taste for public service, you know, back in high school, and really more in college. And so at that time, there was the first neighborhood board under Mayor Frank Fosse. And so I ran and was able to get elected to that position. And so I served on the Kali Palama Neighborhood Board for two years. While simultaneously doing that, I've had some mentors along the way, some senior senators from Hawaii. And they saw some of the potential that I had. And I was selected and appointed by Governor Oriyoshi to be the West Sub-Area Honolulu Health Commissioner back in 1978. While taking a full load at Shamanad University, I was a student body treasurer at that time. And also in several committees like the Kali Palama Finance Committee, mental health programs. What is a health commissioner? Well, at that time, you know, it was still kind of a, well, to me, it was kind of new to me. So I was kind of learning my way around the bureaucracy and to help out to see what kind of things that we could do to help Hawaii in a state of public health. So my job, again, was not a high-level position, but it was just a commissioner in there to help you know, facilitate the process. Was that in the 70s when we got the, 1974 was when? It was around 76, 77. Yeah, but that was when the legislature passed the health care bill. Correct. And HMSA was one of the insurances at that time. So that's, so you were a commissioner when all of that was developing? Correct. Yes. Oh, that's quite interesting. So you have a job now? Yes, ma'am. I'm doing a consulting over at the Pacific Command, working in the J3. Pacific Command, that's the army. No, it's a joint command. Joint command. Yes, that's a, it's now changed to US Indo Pekam. And I do consult. That means it's bigger? Yes. Indo Pekam. That's much bigger. Yes. And so the area of operation is one of the largest combatant commands, you know, in the Department of Defense. And so I do a continuity of operations, consulting and continuity of operations and continuity of government. Well, my goodness. And so you're going to run for the Senate. Yes, ma'am. I went ahead. What is all of this military that all the experiences you have, you are going to run for the Senate? How does all that translate into the way you see what you want to do? Should you win as a senator from District 12? Stop. Where's District 12? Oh, thank you. Senate District 12 is Kakaako, Alamoana, Waikiki, Makali, Mo'ili'ili and lower Makiki. Lower Makiki. Yes. From the, from the freeway down to Makai. Okay. So now that's a huge district and so diverse. Yes. All the interests are so different. It seems strange that that would all be lumped together. Well, that's one of the nice things. Senate District 12, when you look at it and the face value, it's, it's really the face of Hawaii. Yes. You know, you have Alamoana, Kakaako and Waikiki. And so with that diverse group, I bring with me a bunch of experience where I can work across aisle to make no win situations, to win-win solutions. And I've done that time and time and again. I've managed budgets anywhere from a million up to 250 million dollars and balance the budget every year to ensure that we have the programs going. The program that I instituted, not me personally, but the director of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, they instituted was the Pentagon Century Program. It's a five year program, 250 million dollars. And we built pretty much 26 projects, construction projects from inception, concept to design and development, to ending the construction to implementation where we turned it over to the end users. So the police officer currently, when you visit the Pentagon, they're using the pedestrian access control points with the biomechs to go in through the various term styles. And when you come in with a vehicle, there's a way to check the vehicles to ensure that it's authorized to be there at the Pentagon. So I bring that type of knowledge where I can integrate plans, policies, programs and fiscal responsibility, you know, into this district. Because again, sitting back on the outside, looking in since returning back home, you know, I see the same old status quo. It's a one party system. And with that one party system, there's really no healthy debate in which to move things forward. So I bring fresh ideas, new, innovative ways and have the ability to work across aisle, you know, to help work to one, make Hawaii affordable again. But at the same time, to be even prouder of Hawaii, because that's why I travel around the world and also, well, over at the Pentagon, you know, play Hawaiian music, you know, to promote the all of us here. Oh, that's what you do play, yes. Yes, ma'am, yes. Yeah, I remember that, yes. And so you decided you wanted to run for the Senate. Yes. And you have these, can you tell us in more specific ideas or just the district as a whole? OK, that's, thank you for that opportunity. You know, for example, when you look on the outside, the President Administration has a plan, you know, with the city to fix the homeless problem. But it's only a short-term solution. There's no realistic long-term fix, you know, to solve the homeless problems. All we're doing is moving human beings from one location to another location, only for them to be in a revolving door to come back to the same location.  And we need to take a break. Yes. And we'll be back in 60 seconds. So I want I want to hear your whole program. I don't want to interrupt your program. So let's take a break and we'll be right back. Hi, I'm Bill Sharp, host of Asian Review here on Think Tech Hawaii. Join me every Monday afternoon from 5 to 5 30, Hawaii Standard Time for an insightful discussion of Contemporary Asian Affairs. There's so much to discuss. And the guests that we have are very, very well informed. Just think we have the upcoming negotiation between President Trump and Kim Jong-un. The possibility of Xi Jinping, the leader of China, remaining in power forever. We'll see you then. I'm Jay Fidel, Think Tech. Think Tech loves energy. I'm the host of Mina, Marco and me, which is Mina Morita, former chair of the PUC, former legislator and Energy Dynamics, a consulting organization in energy. Marco Mangostorf is the CEO of Provision Solar in Hilo. Every two weeks, we talk about energy, everything about energy. Come around and watch us. We're on at noon on Mondays every two weeks on Think Tech. Aloha. I'm Marcia Joyner, and we are Community Matters. And we're back today with my new best friend, Len Barry Mariona. And he is running for the Senate, the State Senate from District 12. And you, that is the most diverse district in all of the state of Hawaii, I'm sure. You were just beginning to tell us about your plan for the homeless. And it seems to me that the city, nor the state, has a plan. They just keep moving people around. In fact, they don't even treat them like people. They heard them like cattle. Yeah, it's a statistics. Yes. It's a numbers game. It's a numbers game. Yeah, I heard the governor the other night say they reduced by so many percentage. That's that people. Yes. Okay, so tell us your plan. And just, if I could. Certainly. For every person, it affects four or more individuals. You know, that person may have, you know, have parents, and if they're, you know, and then those parents, you know, have spread, and if they're married, you know, now you have more. So by taking individuals as a number or statistics, that's not solving the issue. I would suggest that, and this is some of the things that I would have as far as passion, and that is to treat the homeless in a long term solution. I would split the homeless into two categories. Category A, which is individuals that need help and assistance, and category B, those that need treatment, either mental health or drug addiction. And so when we do, say, category B for those that need treatment, we need to not just provide treatment for them. We need to also provide training and even what you call aftercare so that they can bring themselves and mold themselves back into society. And so we need to provide that. Just recently, this past legislation, the governor signed 140 million dollars to upgrade the mental health facility on the windward side. It's upgrading the security and also 144 beds. Should I be fortunate enough to get elected? I would go back and relook at that and just say, well, security has been great for all those years, and maybe we need to upgrade the security just a tad, but increase the bed capacity from 144 to maybe up to 500 or whatever that can do. Because then we can take the homeless that's on the streets that have mental illness and provide them the treatment that they need. And that's that's not what we're doing. No. And the Supreme Court did make a ruling with the ADA. Yes. That certain people that have certain illnesses don't need to be institutionalized. They need homes, special homes to meet those needs that schizophrenia and some of the others, they don't need institution. They need home care. That's correct. And I agree. But that's again, those are the common sense things that we need to take a look at rather than just doing a statistic number. And then going back to category A, those that need help, I've gone out and I've talked to several of the homeless people that's on the street while I'm waving signs or walking through the neighborhood going door to door and meeting residents, I would come across one or two homeless individuals and I'll sit down and chat with them. Some of them, you know, they have a lot of pride that they don't want to hand out. What they want to do is they want to earn, you know, some of the living and they're working paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet. So we need to look at this as a long-term solution. So category A are individuals and families that we need to help and we need to provide them that type of assistance. Recently for affordable housing, all of this are all interconnected. Marsha and that is, you know, affordable housing, you know, recently they said they were going to set aside some money for affordable housing, but the governor approved only 10 years for affordable housing. So if you move someone into a condominium, for example, and you only give them a 10-year life cycle and after that, then the developer, you know, can be able to resell that. Well, that's not really a life cycle for a family, particularly a young family. So 10 years later, they may not be able to make ends meet to even buy that condo or then they may have to move out. Well, 10 years from now, if the same status quo is going, the housing is going to be unattainable for those individuals that we put in there and now we've increased the homeless population. Well, even today, when everything on the water, all the way around the island, is a million five, regardless of the condition it's in. But that's affordable according to the status quo. Yes, affordable for who? Yes. A million five? Yes. We have families all around the island. It doesn't matter what part of the island. Yes, statewide. When you look at that, we have family members that's leaving the islands to go to the mainland because it's more affordable for them to live. So it brings my next point and that is education.  So if you're a college graduate from Hawaii, whether you went to University of Hawaii, Shyamunat or any other local schools or in the mainland, USC, Princeton, Yale, if you come after graduation, come back to Hawaii and you work for the state or you work for the city government or any organization that invests in Hawaii, every year that you work and invest back in Hawaii, we should deduct your student loan. And while you're working for the state or the city and if they find some cost efficiencies and just say, I'll just throw this number out, a million dollars in savings. Well, a percentage of that should go towards that individual that found that savings and maybe put it in as a savings account for them to later on maybe purchase a house or you know, increase their pay. But those are the things that we could do and just think if we start now, five years from now, you know, we have a through a slew of new entrepreneurs, new business people, students coming in and we can look and find efficiencies that we have in this high cost we have in Hawaii and maybe bring some of the price down.  Well, what about those skills? Why are we just looking at a degree? What about those people? Because we have so many unskilled. And I know lots of people with a degree that don't make as much money as a plumber. Right. But then, you know, sending them, you know, some to trade schools and all that. The reason I just gave that example. No, I understand what you because of the student loan that they get when they graduate. I understand where you're going, but it's like we never address people that are talented with their hands that do all of these other things that are daily living requires. And your points well taken and I totally agree with that and that we need to provide them some type of trade that they don't have so that they can learn so that they can get higher paying jobs. Yeah, because you know that we tend to say, oh, you can't. The child says, I can't do math, but they go as a carpenter and all of a sudden they are dealing with math that yes, that's correct. Yeah. So they got rid of the word I can't do and then they're doing and get paid very well. Yes. The same thing. The other portion is doctors. Right. You know, we have doctors that's that's been working pretty hard. Yes, a lot of them are in the age where they're starting to retire. So we need to start to attract new doctors into the area, but we're having a challenge doing that. So I would look at maybe doing some and pushing for some type of incentives to keep doctors here. Also maybe some tax cuts so that we can keep doctors and attract doctors from outside to come in Hawaii should not be one of the lowest levels as far as medical care, you know, where we're an island state and we should be be able to have the best and the brightest. So we have, for example, if you're have an illness and you need special treatment on Maui, you have to fly to Honolulu to get treated. Okay, so family support if they want to come is out of their own pocket to come and stay with the patient. Say they're well, they have two weeks of rehabilitation. Now they go back to Maui. So for follow-up care, the patient will either have to come fly back to get that treatment or the doctor and staff will have to fly to Maui to get that. Well, we should have a virtual type medicine where the doctors here in Oahu can use the FaceTime to treat patients. Now the issue with that, yes, that's absolutely perfect. It should be with we need rural health, all islands, all islands. However, the fiber optic cable that delivers this is the problem. Yes, that's the problem. Well, and that's where we talk about investing back into Hawaii. So if this is the type of thing that we need to do, we need to go ahead and fix that. You know, starting at Senate District 12, you know, we have some of those infrastructures already in place that needs to be upgraded and then we need to broaden that. So as a state senator, you know, looking across the statewide, those are some of the things that we need to address and I'm ready to work across the aisle and with my colleagues to ensure that we can find a long-term solution to the temporary fixes that we're doing right now. Because even the health department admits that that is a big issue that they can't deliver services because of the fiber optic cable. They can't. Telemedicine is wonderful. If the fiber optic cable can deliver. Yeah. But if you if you have the same status quo, you'll keep having we can't do we can't do and over when I worked at the Pentagon or other jobs that I had in the past, you know, no was not the answer. It was how can I make things better? Yeah. And that is I'm loving this because I can see that exactly what you're saying about health care. You know, anybody that really tackles health care on the neighbor islands even rule Honolulu. Yes. Would be crowned a king or something because those issues are daily issues. Like you said, you have to fly to Honolulu to get certain issues. If we could look at those islands and really seriously and as a senator, you get to work with the senators from those islands. They will tell you the reason I know this is because we've had them on the show and that's been their complaint.  Yes. And see, that's where I do understand because what the past experience I had traveling worldwide and also in continental United States. Those are some of the things that we can bring here. If we think outside of the box, right, you know, and we need to work, you know, collectively as a team, you know, and bridge that gap rather than saying, no, we can't. We should say yes, yes, we can, yes, we can, but and then some, you know, what's the best thing because if Hawaii can be the number one medical industry, we not just only help fix and the citizens of the state of Hawaii, but we also have those international from the Pacific Rim, you know, that may be coming here for treatment. Well, they do to Tripler. As you know, that's the only hospital in the Pacific. That's correct. Well, Queens is a really great. No, I meant that all of the trust territory people come to all the military from Guam and all these other places, they all come to Tripler and we should have more. We should have more. Yes. And we should have good medical facilities on the other islands as well. Right. Yes. So and we have a really good school here that John Burns medical school, you know, and also Shamanad and also BYU where they have good quality teaching and so we can use those students as part of their training to help expand the medical care that we have here to include. I think Josh Green has a model his 4-H program and that is taking students to help with the homeless population as part of that pilot program. I'm not too well versed into that program. I know just from the outside looking in, but as if I'm fortunate to be elected, I can dive into those things and bring some common sense to some of the organized chaos that we currently have. Well, I want you to take a look at this camera and tell us why we should vote for you. Right. Well, again, Marcia, thank you for the opportunity. I began public service in Hawaii while still serving going to college and serving on a neighborhood board. You know, I had that I traveled the world all over and and each time that I traveled, I brought the aloha spirit to those countries and also to those states. I have lots of friends that's all over. One of the things that I have done is I have looked at federal state and local jurisdictions across when I went around as I said earlier, doing exercises for first responders and learning that how we can bridge the gap from shortfalls and gaps and making it things from a concept to a reality and while at the same time being conservative and saving money as a state senator, I bring fresh ideas. I bring expertise. I bring leadership conservative values where, you know, we need to balance the budget and also cut wasteful spending. And so with those things, selecting me as as your state senator would not only help Hawaii to improve on some of the gaps and shortfalls that we have here, but to take us to the next level. You know, Hawaii should not be a place where we have more outside investors. We should have locals investing in Hawaii as part of my education program that I would like to promote and that is investing back in Hawaii. Well, thank you so much and good luck with your election. And after the election, you will come back and visit us again. Well, thank you so much, Marcia, for the opportunity and also think tech for this opportunity to give me a chance to talk to you, the citizens of Hawaii. Aloha. Aloha. We'll see you next time. Yes.


Thank you very much for the introduction. Thanks to Peter Flugel for inviting me. I'm very happy to be here. Thanks to the donors, not to forget. As she said, I'm also director of a small center and I can tell you how difficult it became in the recent years to get money for events like this. So thanks to the donors in particular and of course all to the individuals who contributed to this event. So it is not an easy task to speak about how Buddhism is relating to the natural world, as you can imagine. We've already heard a little bit about it this morning in the talk by Ema. And I think there's quite an amount of literature on that topic, written by academic specialists. You mentioned my teacher, Professor Schmitthausen. He has written extensively about that. There's literature written by Buddhists themselves and there's literature written by authors who mostly from a perspective which is quite sympathetic to the Buddhist tradition has a lot of things to say about it. But opposite to what one would expect, the situation is not so straightforward, given the fact that first of all, and you all know that probably there is no single Buddhist tradition, there is no single Buddhist standpoint which indiscriminately can stand for all Buddhist traditions. This does of course not come as a surprise if you think of a 2,500 year long history Buddhism has had throughout nearly all of Asia. It's encounters with diverse indigenous cultures and traditions in Asia which are all very different in themselves and of course in regions which have been very differently affected by the impact of modernity and by its distinct encounters with what we can call Western culture. And second, it is not really clear how the Buddhist traditions relate to the natural world given that there is so question of how to evaluate certain doctrinal statements in the scriptures, to evaluate what their position within the religious tradition is, how they have been transmitted to the practitioners and interpreted and as a matter of fact, whether these doctrinal issues have ever had any impact on the actual behavior of the religious representatives and the followers or if they had not the impact we would assume. To me, this last point seems to be very crucial when it comes to the intriguing question of how doctrinal or philosophical reflections by the thinkers of a tradition, by a religious tradition play out in the daily lives of the followers. How much of an impact can theoretical reflections have on a living tradition? And to what degree are particular codes of conduct and morality firmly based on the continuum of social norms from times before Buddhism became a dominant factor in a particular regional setting? So it's not so easy that everything we see, let's say in Thailand, everything we see in Japanese must be Buddhist. Buddhist is just one factor of many factors which is somehow influencing a culture there. Questions like these draw our attention to a complex methodological background of our inquiry into religious and philosophical perspectives on the issue of animal rights and biodiversity conversation. Do we have to deal with some core elements which can be identified as particularly prominent and universal in the Buddhist traditions? Do the relevant teachings laid out in Buddhist text encourage followers to behave in a way we might wish them to behave when seen against the background of the problems we face today? And to what degree are those issues which seem important to us today discussed in the religious canonical writings of the past, issues which may only have come to our own attention not too long ago reflecting developments alien to the period when the foundations of those religious traditions actually came into existence? So judging alone from the doctrinal background, I think it can hardly be said that a position nature and animals hold in Buddhist worldview is very positive. At best it could be labeled as ambivalent. On the one hand, it is certainly true that the Buddhist tendency to include animals in the moral universe based on the sentence positions them, at least theoretically, on the same level with human beings. If animals are seen as they are in Buddhism, as feeling pain and joy in the same way human beings do, then we do not need to speculate about the cognitive abilities about what is called rational soul which seem to have been made the decisive criteria here in the Western hemisphere in regard to a question where they can have their own rights and dignity or not. According to the Golden Rule, which we find quite often provided in Buddhist scriptures, one should not treat other sentient beings in a way oneself would not like to be treated by others. The Pan-Indian Ahimsa doctrine, we had already heard about that quite often. So this Pan-Indian Ahimsa doctrine of non-injury plays an absolutely crucial role here. On the other hand, the Buddhist traditions are not scarce in descriptions of the deficiencies of life as an animal. Somebody is born as an animal because in a former life, a person has violated the moral code of behavior, becoming an animal as a kind of karmic punishment, so to say. Let me give you an example just to bring over to you the taste of these early Buddhist scriptures, of some of them, of a way in which animals are portrayed in these earliest writings as they have come down on us and this is a passage from the Pali Khanum, so one of the oldest transmissions of Buddhist scriptures we have and it is spoken by the Buddha. Won't read all, but I will give you a taste at least of that, Bhikkhus, so that's the name of the ordained monks in the Buddhist tradition, Bhikkhus. There are animals which feed on grass. They eat by cropping fresh or dried grass with their teeth. And what animals feed on grass? Elephants, horses, cattle, donkeys, goats and deer, and any other such animal. A fool who formerly delighted on tastes here and did evil actions here on the dissolution of a body after death reappears in the company of animals that feed on grass. So you realize, of course, immediately this is the rebirth doctrine about which it is spoken here. One more example. There are animals that feed on dung. They smell dung from distance and run to it, thinking, we can eat, we can eat, just as Brahmins. So here you have a punch to the Hindu or Vedic priests at that time. So just as Brahmins run to the smell of a sacrifice, thinking, we can eat, we can eat. So too, those animals that feed on dung smell dung from a distance and run to it, thinking, we can eat, we can eat. And what animals feed on dung? Fouls, pigs, dogs and jackals, and any such other animals. A fool who formerly delighted on tastes here and did evil actions here on the dissolution of a body after death reappears in the company of animals that feed on dung. The same you have done with the same ending sentence, covering animals that are born age and die in darkness, which are moths, maggots and earthworms. And yeah, they have two more, which I didn't give you here. Animals living in water and animals living in filth, which is always compared with those who have led a bad life and then are born among these animals. But now the important part comes, the Buddha continues to speak, namely, because I could tell you in many ways about the animal kingdom, so much that it is hard to find a simile for the suffering in the animal kingdom. Suppose a man threw into the sea a yoke with one hole in it, and the east wind carried it to the west, and the west wind carried it to the east, and the north wind carried it to the south, and the south wind carried it to the north. Suppose there were a blind turtle that came up once at the end of each century. What do you think, Bikus? Would that blind turtle put his neck into that yoke with one hole in it? He might, venerable sir, sometime or other at the end of a long period, Bikus. The blind turtle would take less time to put his neck into the yoke with a single hole in it than a fool once gone to perdition would take to regain the human state, I say. So regain the human state out of the animal world. Why is that? Because in the animal kingdom, there is no practicing of the dharma, so there is no practicing of Buddhist doctrines. There is no practicing of what is righteous, no doing of what is wholesome, no performance of merit. The mutual devouring prevails and the slaughter of the weak. So that's one perception of early Buddhism of the world of animal life. The last passage touches on an important issue. Animals are, doctrinally speaking, not granted the capacity to spiritual liberation. Once fallen into a rebirth in the animal world, it is hard to get out from there again, given that animals do not keep the standards of Buddhist morality. The stronger kills the weak to make use of him as food and animal sexuality appeared Buddhist to be equally un-Buddhist and thus unacceptable. The commonly used image to underline the degree of difficulty to get reborn as a human out of the animal world is that of a turtle as you have just seen. Rebirth as an animal clearly holds a very disparaged position and animal life is often portrayed mostly with didactical purposes in order to threaten human beings away from the violations of Buddhist principles of morality. Let me be following focus on one of the most important issues regarding the living together of humans and animals, namely the question of what Buddhist traditions have to say about eating meat. Please allow me to start with some personal recollections from some events in the years I have spent in Nepal, Thailand, and Japan. When as a young student, I was for the first time traveling in Buddhist countries, I was very much like other Western Buddhists too, shocked to learn that eating meat is from the religious Buddhist perspective considered to be an issue without any negative karmic consequences. In the earliest Buddhist texts, which have come down to us, so it's a similar strata of texts from which this text here comes, the Buddha's portrait is having taught his monks and nuns that meat can be eaten if it is only pure in three respects. The monk should not have seen, he should not have heard, and he should not have any suspicion that the animal whose meat he's offered has been killed specifically for him. That's very important specifically for him. Obviously, it is the act of killing the animal which appeared to be problematic to early Buddhists and not the act of enjoying the fruit, so to say, of the action. As long as the animal has died a natural death or had been killed by somebody else, always under the condition that it has not been killed specifically for oneself, then there's absolutely no problem to eat that meat. In Nepal, in one of the Himalayan valleys in which temples of both dominant religious groups, Hindu and Buddhist, can be found, I once entered a temple and pretended not to know with which religious group I would have to do there. The people who were preparing for some ritual told me that they were Buddhists, and on my question of what would make them different from Hindus, they told me the following. It is only us who do not kill animals. That is what makes us Buddhists different from the Hindus. I'm quite sure that what they had in mind were the bloody animal sacrifices which are still performed in Nepal on particular days in the Hindu ritual cycle. They most certainly do not oppose to consume meat, so I guess all the Buddhists there, they eat meat. However, the reaction documents to what degree the act of killing an animal or ordering to kill, as in the case of the sacrifices, is disparaged by Buddhists. Leading these Buddhist followers to choose the non-killing of animals as their primary identity providing religious characteristic. Thus, I think is quite surprising. If you go to that country, you would think that they would argue with some doctrinal issues, the Four Noble Truth, the Eightfold Path. No, no, no, it's really this criteria. It is a weird Buddhist because we don't kill animal in sacrifices. Except for the East Asian traditions of Buddhism, nowadays particularly Taiwan, which in the monastic setting keep strict vegetarian diet and I've seen inspire many of the followers to do so too. Vegetarianism has never been widespread among Buddhist followers. The ancient karma laws of direct responsibility are prevailing here. The unwholesome act of killing, more than anything else, is seen as a real threat to one's own karmic account. That's how it is often expected. You have a kind of karmic account, you do good deeds, you get plus points, you do bad things. When you violate Buddhist moral behavior codes, you get negative points. So the unwholesome act of killing, more than anything else, is seen as a real threat to this karmic account. Killing, so the early Buddhist commentators can never be karmically neutral or positive. As it is rooted in the negative emotional and cognitive forces, which keep us prisoners here in Sam Sahara. Already the planning and preparing of the killing, let alone the act itself, which depending on the size of the animal you kill can make a considerable degree of determination and implementation of physical strength necessary, accompanied by the suffering of the victim, and this all makes killing a highly negative charged karmic act. That the consumption of the victim's meat has nothing to do with that all seems hardly understandable for us today. At least that's what my students usually ask, how can that be? If killing is bad, why could you eat that meat without getting any kind of bad karmic influx? However, if karma is seen as a force with a strictly individually and directly operating agency, the eater of meat will indeed remain free from any evil consequences because he has not killed the animal. It's so easy. How deeply this view is still at home in the traditions of Buddhism is shown by modern developments in Thailand, and I'll give you just one example. There, we have indeed a Buddhist group which, among other regulations, introduced vegetarian diet as the daily standard. That was, I think, in the 1980s. The case is complicated, but the fact that the group made strict vegetarianism part of the rules contributed to the general impression in Thailand that that group did not go along the correct Buddhist path, Buddhist mainstream norms. And finally, it was forbidden to call themselves Buddhists. So this group was not allowed to call themselves Buddhists by the authorities. The monks of this group had to disrobe. We issue at heart is a very old one. The canonical writings of Buddhism already tell us of the Buddha's evil cousin and permanent opponent, by name Devadatta, who tried to compete with the Buddha and requested him to introduce stricter rules, among them also a vegetarian diet. All these attempts were interpreted as having the goal of splitting the unity of the Buddhist community, and therefore rejected by the Buddha. Vegetarianism, thus, came to be seen as a threat to the solid endurance of Buddhism's foundations with the potential to lose hold, also of a major part of its supporters, of its donors, who would feel alienated when confronted with a mangkut who would turn to a diet different from the diet of the common people. Also in Thailand, I made acquaintance with a highly ritualized act of liberation. So there's something called animal liberation, and this is just one example I want to show you here in which, in this case, fish, which were actually destined to be sold and slaughtered were bought from the local market and by lay representatives of a large monastic setting close to Bangkok, bought from the market and then transported to a lake where the lay followers, after reciting passages from the canonical writings of Buddhism together with the monks, set them free in the lake. An act by which the follower is believed to gain spiritual merit by way of saving the fish from their otherwise secure death. You see, I took this nice photo here.  Then each of the participants took one bucket and you put all these fish into, set them free in the lake. I don't know what kind of fish it is, but especially some money you will, of course, recognize, and the whole ceremony closes with a donation of money in order to compensate for the money which was needed in order to buy the fish from the market. However, little later, when we gathered again in order to serve food for the monks of a monastery, and this is quite a huge monastery with up to 1,000 monks, I was rather surprised to see that the food which had been bought and prepared by the same lay representatives of the monastery consisted of, guess what, meat and fish. A fact which I could only explain to myself in terms of the ritualistic character of the liberation ceremony. The ceremony for the spiritual benefit of the lay people and of course the spiritual benefit of the donors who participated in the liberation of the fish on the one hand and on the other hand, the daily routine, the daily eating routine on the ground which simply would not take into consideration that the buying of dead fish and meat at the market would somehow, though not particularly, so not directly, but it would somehow also fool the slaughtering of the animals needed to provide the monastery with the meat and fish to be processed as food for the monks. As I said, we're not talking about little amounts, but 1,000 monks, if you have to feed them, it's actually quite a lot here, you can see them eating. When I later had a chance to discuss this issue with the abbot of a monastery, the line of argument was basically two-fold, so his line of argument was two-fold. Namely, first, he made the point that the Buddha himself had no objection to meat eating as long as it was pure in three respects. You remember the three respects I mentioned before. And secondly, he argued that even when sticking to a vegetarian diet, in order to grow the plants, pests harming the plants would have to be killed and thus, there would be no way at all to live and get food without killing sentient beings. Whereas the first argument came as no surprise and indeed it is covered by the canonical writings, the second line at least hinted at the fact that killing, even when not done by the person benefiting from the act, appeared somehow to be problematic even to the abbot as otherwise pest control, when done by another person, would not have been brought in as an argument in order to legitimate the killing of the animals for meat. A similar argument I had come to here several years before when I started at a Buddhist university in Japan, so a Buddhist university in Japan, where to my surprise, among the three or four daily alternative menus offered in the canteen for the students, none of them would be vegetarian. Here, in the East Asian context, the point was made after I inquired with the head of the kitchen that everything on earth is connected with each other, the so-called interconnectedness, it's a key Buddhist Mahayana, Buddhist doctrine, and everything is suffused with the perfectness of Buddha nature, so that there would be no way to argue that the use of meat for food would be less destructive than the use of vegetables. Another interesting argument against the vegetarian diet I learned in Japan when I was invited to dinner by a leading Jodo Shinshu priest and scholar. Jodo Shinshu is one of the largest Buddhist groups in Japan, it's the so-called pure land school of Buddhism. To be a vegetarian, so I was told, would amount to an ascetic practice, and thus violate against the basic principle of their particular understanding of Buddhism, of the Jodo Shinshu Buddhist, namely that liberation from samsara can exclusively be gained through the boundless grace of the almighty Buddha, Amida, that's the main Buddha in that school, initiated by the unsparing realization of one's own degenerated character. Any act in presumptive behavior, including ascetic forms of practice, equals vegetarianism, based on the assumption that one's self could gain positive karmic results would only lead one deeper into the illusionary world of self-aggrandism, which, so the teaching, constitutes the most intricate obstacle for awakening, and of course, awakening is where usually Buddhists would like to go. So before I come to the last section, let me add two more views on the relation between animals and humans. Both come from important contemporary Buddhist leaders from Tibet, who live in exile outside Tibet. The first statement I want to read to you comes from Shama Rinpoche, born in 1952, who is considered an important representative of a quite old Tibetan incarnation lineage and head of a particular subgroup of the so-called Kama Kaguya, so that's one of the Tibetan Buddhist groups, with monasteries and centers in the east and the west. He's quite an influential figure, and on the question of the relation between animals and humans, he has the following to say, he has written a small booklet called Creating Transparent Democracy and New Model, and in two pages he's covering the topic of animals. So he says, animals have the same inherent right as human beings to use the earth. However, humans currently dominate the earth, and because of this dominance, humans must take primary responsibility for ensuring the right of animals. This translates to ensuring practices that are both humane and farsighted and balance the often conflicting interests of human and different species, so that benefit comes to the greatest number of beings possible. One of the most fundamental rights that humans must extend to animals is the right to exist, to the extent possible, without suffering. This means emphasizing humane animal treatment, particularly for those animals that serve humans as sources of food, fiber, work, entertainment, or as pets. For example, chickens, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and other animals sacrificed for their meat must be provided comfortable conditions and satisfying lives up to the point of their slaughter. End of the quote. As far as I can see, Shama Rinpoche Moussir long a not very convincing line of argument. If we only take a little bit serious what he says in the first paragraph, namely that animals have the same inherent right as human beings to use the earth, versus demand for comfortable conditions and satisfying lives up to the point of their slaughter, it will certainly be very welcome by activists of the animal right movement. I wonder how his obvious unresisting acceptance of animal slaughter can be made compatible with this statement that animals and human beings have the same inherent right to use the earth. Do we have to understand this statement in the sense of human beings acting as we have heard it before kind of stewards who by slaughtering animals help them gain access to better rebirths as it is not uncommon to argue in Buddhist groups in order to let appear the acts of consuming meat less drastic. It's a kind of beneficial act. You slaughter them and then they get access to a better rebirth out of the bad incarnation as an animal or does it simply reflect Shama Rinpoche's pragmatic yielding to the facts in this world, assuming that a position arguing against animal slaughter would be unacceptable for his followers and maybe in his few non-Buddhist, unorthodoxly, non-mainstream Buddhist. I'm not sure about that. I have to ask him when I meet him next time. Be that as it may. We also hear, I think, refreshing other voices coming from contemporary eminent figures of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, namely here, as you can see from the webpage, the 17th Karmapa, Argyan Trinly Dorje, born, and I think this is important, 1985. So he's one of the youngest Buddhist leaders at the moment and also one of the most respective religious leaders from Tibet coming close after the Dalai Lama. Himself being strict vegetarian in some rather remarkable speeches since 2007, I was really young at that time, he expressed his strong conviction of a vegetarian diet aiming as his followers and monks of his order. He intensely encouraged them to reduce the consumption of meat along the way to finally giving up meat, eating completely. In particular, and this you can see here, here, he made the claim for these four points here. Namely, no meat is to be prepared in the kitchens of any monastery of his lineage or center. No one is to be involved in the business of buying and selling meat. So for all his students, this practice must stop. There is no killing of animals on monastic premises. This is quite bewildering because it means that before there was killing of animals on the temple ground. And finally, he says that he's aware of monks and robes going to buy meat. That's mostly for the exile community in India and Nepal and he does not want to see that again. Now, we don't have enough time to go into detail, but his so to say theological argument he is trying to bring in is quite interesting. In so far as he puts meat eating on one level with the use of weapon, the dealing with weapon and the use of alcohol. He also brings in the argument that it's his duty to protect life. It's an argument which I don't think comes harmoniously out of the Buddhist tradition, but it's probably due to Western influences. And he makes, of course, the important point that even though you are not killing yourself an animal by buying flesh, the meat of an animal, of course you'll carry responsibility. So here, the direct principle of karma is extended to an indirect principle. I would judge with clear statements by the 17th Karma Paorgian Trinly Dorje as somehow revolutionary. It is, in my view, a breaking point within the mainstream Tibetan tradition, which is a very conservative tradition, given that the focus is laid on the adaptation of the dietary system to a new modern situation and to new global needs rather than on the orthodox, conservative and uncritical continuation of mainstream Buddhist positions. It is, I think, a true victory of compassion if you want to use this word, one of the key values in most, if not all, Buddhist traditions. But keep in mind he's a very young guy and that might be a crucial factor in this change of the dietary system among Buddhists nowadays. That brings me to the final point of my paper and I will be very short. I believe that the often formulated, all-encompassing compassion Buddhists are promoting in some way opens the door to radical anthropocentrism. No doubt, compassion is one of the most fundamental attitudes to be cultivated according to Buddhist scriptures. At the same time, the commitment to its universal application, as it is called for, also holds the potential danger of turning it into a shallow rhetorical device, a device which, if promoted without critical investigation of the de facto situation nowadays of our world, can easily serve as a lip service with the ugly face of adamant and unreflected anthropocentric positions lurking behind its beautiful facade. Maybe the faith that Buddhists display often in terms of holding that in their own Buddhist moral universe, animals and the whole natural world to get a better tree than in other religions has to be shaken. I've tried to illustrate some instances in regard to the question of vegetarian diet in which anthropocentric perspectives, in my eyes, hinder a real and, if you want, unbiased examination of the situation of the natural world as it really is, be that due to traditional rituals, as you have seen in the case of the liberation ceremony, due to overrating the unique sociological superiority of human beings, or due to the rejection of any new ethical standards which do not go along established mainstream Buddhist ideas. If Buddhist traditions want to start to take care of the natural world more seriously, there are, and I have no doubt that similar to the talk which was given by Professor Lindsay, the Buddhist tradition has plentiful potentials. For sure, the Buddhist clergy needs more worldly education and awareness for the problems we nowadays face. That's also we touched upon. They have to know what the issues in environmental ecology is, actually. Most of the leaders have no idea about that. Buddhist clergy all over the world remains still a very influential factor. Just as the 17th Kamma Parorgian Trinidadi has shown a high degree of courage in breaking with long-established dietary traditions, Buddhist leaders will have to face the challenges of today with greater readiness and creativity, and let go of some of the cherished theological positions if they turn out to be counterproductive. New times need new paths to begun. This, I hope, will not be seen as a violation of what the Buddha might once have taught, but I think this is only a creative adaptation of the spirit of true compassion promoted by the Buddha to nowadays times. And by the way, that's my end, but by the way, this photo here was given to me by a friend. It's from a vegetarian Buddhist restaurant in Dharamsala, India. Thank you.


Aloha, I'm Marsha Joyner and we are navigating the journey. Navigating the journey is dedicated to exploring the options and choices in life and to assist people to talk about their wishes. It's time to transform our culture so we ship from not talking about those parts which are sometimes buried in the shade or swept under the rug of history. After watching 14 episodes of Ken Burns The Vietnam War, I felt it important not only to talk about the war and the film and to have a totally different point of view. Our guest today is the son of the first Marine killed in action in Vietnam. He died February 16, 1964, a U.S. Marine in Vietnam. The advisory combat assistant era which ran from 1954 to 1964, and I know most of you say well were we in the war in 1954, yes. Nowhere in the film did we get to see the children of the American troops in Vietnam. The President of the United States of America takes pride in presenting the Navy Cross posthumously to Major then-Captain Donald Edward Kelper, United States Marine Corps, for the extraordinary heroism in connection with the bombing of the capital of Kendo Theater in Saigon. On the evening, February 16, 1964, while serving as an advisor attached to the 4th Vietnamese Marine Corps infantry battalion, upon becoming aware of the bomb being placed in the lobby of the theater, Major Kelper, who was standing nearby with a companion, unhesitatingly entered the main area of the theater, shouted to the occupants, United States servicemen and their dependents to take cover. This warning provided the time for numerous unsuspecting individuals to obtain cover by laying between the rows of the seats. Second later, the bomb exploded, fatally wounding Major Kelper and another person, and approximately fifty others. Though his prompt, encourages action in warning the theater patrons of the imminent explosion, Major Kelper undoubtedly saved many, many seriously injured and possible death. His self-sacrificing efforts were in keeping with the highest tradition of the United States Naval Service. Our guest today is Donald Edward Kelper. He's a consultant to nonprofits. He's a grant writer. He's region one, Democratic Party, Oahu County. And my dear, dear friend, Aloha, Donald. Aloha, thank you for having me. Donald, I want to talk about you and your father, but especially growing up as a child in that environment where Vietnam, the men serving in Vietnam were looked down and called all kinds of names, and it was not a really nice time to be a child, the son of a hero. It was a, well, I was young when my father was killed, and it, I think the best that I could say starting out here for people to kind of give you some perspective on how pervasive the effects of the Vietnam War, excuse me, on American society, is that if you look at the Vietnam Memorial and you look at the 58,000 plus names on that wall, all of which but eight are men, consider that for each one of those young men whose name is listed on that wall, they're left behind parents, siblings, in many instances, grandparents, a number of them, like my father, were married, had children. And when you consider that and then you see the magnitude of the ripple effect of what the Vietnam War did to this country in terms of collateral damage, my father's death altered our family's trajectory.  Our, you know, we, part of the reason why I ended up being out here in Hawaii, you know, was due to that, it affected, it had negative repercussions on a lot of my family. I don't want to get into it too personally on there because there were some things I just really don't even want to talk about. So where were you born? I was born in Pasadena, California. So then when your father was transferred out here, your family moved out? My father was actually, we were stationed in Quantico, Virginia at the time with the Marine Corps, you know, it's a base training area south of Washington, D.C. He, to give a little bit of a background, my father was one of the founding officers of what is known today as Force Recon. The Marine Corps' reconnaissance battalions. He was the founder of the Pathfinders.  He was, we were in, he was stationed at Camp Elminton, California when I was born. And then immediately after that, he was transferred with a number of people when they formed the Second Marine Reconnaissance Battalion on the East Coast in Camp Lejeune. So he was moved out there and he was, you know, and then after that we were moved up to Washington, D.C., where he was served, you know, in the Pentagon for a while. But he'd always wanted to be back out in the field. He was considered, you know, a counterinsurgency expert. You know, he was involved in a number of, I think, ultimately dubious enterprises on behalf of the United States. In 1960, he was sent to the Congo, the Belgian Congo on the, you know, which was then declaring its independence from Belgium. But, you know, what happened was in the Congo was that Belgium still desired to retain its influence and he was sent down there with Belgian troops and it was like a UN intervention in the area when, during the so-called Katanga Rebellion, and when Patrice Lumumba was, became prime minister and was considered a communist for whatever reason, even though he really wasn't. But we intervened. Lumumba was killed and was the guy Mobutu was put in power, who was basically a Belgian puppet and he stayed there till 1998. So I mean, the repercussions that we had from these things that were, you know, and this is kind of the precursor and kind of parallel to what our experience in Vietnam ultimately became because we looked at everything through the war prism of a Cold War perspective in which they were either communists or they weren't. And it never occurred to us to look at it through the lens of, or through, from the perspective of people who were trying to break away from colonialism. And in both instances in the Congo and then later in Vietnam, we intervened in, you know, we tried to impede a nationalist movement thinking that, oh, well the communists were there. And it's like, without ever considering that for some of these people, yeah, they may have been called themselves communists, but the Communist Party was a means to an end, which was independence for their country. Well, we see that because the Americans decided to divvy up North and South Vietnam, North and South Korea, and all of them wanted an independence for themselves. Yeah, and we did that at the end of World War II because we made decisions that we were going to, you know, we made decisions on the basis of occupation and in the aftermath of the vacuum of the Japanese withdrawal at the end of World War II without, again, considering the repercussions of what happened. So, yeah, first of all, Korea got divided and we got into a war over there, over that. And the second one with Vietnam, we, in the aftermath of the French petite at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and the French withdrawal, the country was to be temporarily divided pending national elections and reunification. And we prevented that because for whatever our reasons, we feared that Ho Chi Minh was going to be elected, which undoubtedly probably would have been elected had three elections been allowed to occur. But what happened was is we set up a puppet regime in South Vietnam. Initially, for a short period, it was under an emperor, a guy named Bao Dai, who was quickly deposed. Can we go to break and Donald, can we, when you come back, let's talk about what happened immediately after that. Okay. Okay. We'll be right back in a minute. Right here at the Prince of Investments, I'm your host, Prince Dai, each and every Tuesdays at 11 a.m. Hawaii time. I'm going to be right here. Stop by here from some of the best investment minds across the globe. And real estate, finances, stocks, head funds, managers, all that great stuff. Thank you. Hello. And we're back with Donald Kelper, who is the son of a Vietnam hero. And we're talking all about Vietnam, about Donald growing up without a father. But let's talk about the war itself, about, well, let me say what I know. I was in high school the day the Dnb and Fu fell. And in those days, we taught history and geography separately. So we had this great teacher that taught us all about the French being in Indochina for a hundred years and how the French, the people of Vietnam, wanted the French to go home. After World War II, the French came back and the Vietnamese said, no, no, no, you all go home. And the first item on the agenda for the new UN was the Vietnamese asking that the French go home. And apparently that message did not get anywhere. So it didn't go anywhere. So the French are there. Then the French fall at Dnb and Fu in 1954 and the Americans swoop in and the rest is history. What happened was in 1954 with the French withdrawal, they temporarily divided the country. South Vietnam was basically an artificial construct. We need to recognize that. It's important for us to, when we assess our own Vietnam experience, to understand that the war, the government in South Vietnam never enjoyed popular support. It was propped up primarily through U.S. dollars and U.S. material support and eventually U.S. military support as our own involvement in Vietnam escalated. My father was sent over there in 1963 at a time. This was right after there was a battle north of Saigon in which the South Vietnamese Army did not fare well in there. And the worry was that South Vietnam would fall to the communists. So we upped our own escalation in terms of putting in more advisors in through the military assistance group Vietnam known as MACV. My father was sent over there as part of that. It was a majority of it was Army advisors, but there were a handful of Marine advisors and my father was one of them because he was considered a counterinsurgency expert. Unfortunately, he was over there at a time of serious political instability in Vietnam because President Diem was a Catholic ruling over a country that was primarily Buddhist. Let's say that just as a period here, we have the Catholics came from the French. And the rest of the country were Buddhist. That's the Catholic legacy of that. And there were about 10 to 15 percent of the Vietnamese were and still are Catholic. But the majority are Buddhist. But the thing was is he discriminated against the Buddhists and the Buddhists naturally rebelled. And that was like where we see the famous scenes on film of like what Ken Burns showed in the movie of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire. And then there were a lot of street demonstrations. President Diem's regime was becoming increasingly unstable. The Viet Cong were becoming increasingly emboldened. And the decision was made in Washington in late October that Diem had to go. And President Kennedy at the time acquiesced, saying, okay, you know, Vietnam needs stable leadership, how they thought they were going to stabilize it by overthrowing the president. I don't know. But they acquiesced to what was a military coup. And when you mentioned about my father's being part of the, you know, being the chief advisor to the fourth Vietnamese Marine Battalion, it was a fourth Vietnamese Marine Battalion on November 2nd, which came into Saigon. And my father brought them into Saigon, positioned them around the presidential palace. And then he withdrew to the American Embassy as the battalion and other units assaulted the presidential palace and ultimately killed Diem. This was done. So yeah, Americans wouldn't have their hands on this. I think what we learned from the Burns film was that Kennedy himself and certainly Johnson, Johnson opposed the overthrow of Diem. Kennedy came to lament it. I think simply because the guy was killed. But so here you were, we had this vacuum. And at this time, my father was becoming, my father was appalled. My father, and this is early in the war, you know, realize my father, when you look at 58,000 people dead, you know, in the war, my father was the 215th man killed out of 58,000. So this is very early. My father was writing back and issuing reports saying, we really shouldn't be here. He was writing back home to my mother and to his parents at the time, expressing his foreboding about what was happening and, and, you know, you know, sharing his own views that we shouldn't be in Vietnam.  He continued to advise his unit. And then ironically, in February 1964, he came back in from the field, being out, they were basically operating the Mekong Delta area. So they came back into the field, from the field. And he came back into Saigon to meet with friends, including his commander, and they were going to go out to dinner. Then something came up in his commander, Joe Taylor, who said he said he wish he would have turned it down, but he felt that he had to go to this meeting. So he, he called up my father and said, well, I can't meet you for dinner tonight. You know, and he said, well, that's okay. I'll go to the movies. So he went to the Kendo Theater and unbeknownst to him and a lot of it at the same time, the Kendo Theater had been targeted that night for a Vietnam terrorist raid in downtown Saigon. And this is in the American compound. And when he got there, he had actually not been sexually standing in the lobby. He had been coming up and he was outside the theater when the Viet Cong unit arrived. And they were, you know, they looked like any other civilians. I think it would be important for me to note that two of the three members of this Viet Cong cell were teenage girls. One shot the American MP and killed him, who was guarding the theater. And then the another ran in while another was holding the car. And the other ran in and she had a 25 pound bomb, TNT. My father followed her into the theater. And at that point when he confronted her, she pulled the whatever, you know, and she dropped the bomb, which meant it was going to go off. And so he raced up stairs up into the theater itself and yelled to everybody to get down. And it was a bomb. Then it went off. He was he was killed instantly. I mean, I'm thankful for that. I think there were a lot of details that were left out that it was, you know, he was it was his commanding officer had to identify him. And I did talk with him before he died. And he said, yeah, he says it was, you know, it was it was pretty horrific. But afterward, we were notified as ironically for our family and for a number of our relatives, like my mother's relatives in California, because we were back in Pasadena at the time. Well, my father was there. They learned about my father's death through the media. Oh, dear. And it was. Oh, that's not that they were at all. My mother was my mother was notified. I mean, in the proper way, because we were at my grandparents. The manner of what happened because the Kindo Theater was a big event at the time. And so it was in the front pages of a lot of the papers because three Americans did die in that 51 were wounded. But everybody else was saved that the theater was full of almost 300 people. They're, you know, they my father was buried with honors in Arlington National Cemetery, his body was brought back home. And we all went back to the you know, the cemetery and everything. I think a really telling thing was like where you saw like the precursor to Vietnam. And I just, you know, this is these are anecdotal stuff, admittedly, from me from my family was my my paternal grandparents, my dad's parents from North Berkeley, Illinois, Rudy and Loretta Kelper were back, obviously, for the funeral and everything. And afterward, they and my mother met with, you know, a number of high-ranking people, the Commodon and the Marine Corps and Wallace Green and the vice president. Actually, there wasn't a vice president at the time, because it was the Speaker of the House. But met with the acting, you know, was I forget who it was that was back then. And then representatives of the president, but also two is they met with Senator Everett Dirksen, from Illinois, which is my father's home state. My father was also the first Marine from Illinois to be killed in the war. Or, you know, the first actually the first person from Illinois and the first person from the Chicago area to be killed in the war. And so they met with Senator Dirksen and Senator Dirksen from what I heard from my mother and a couple other relatives, like my uncles, was that that Senator Dirksen was saying, well, you know, your son, you know, we honor his service and stuff like that.  And I want to know why? Why are we over there? And this is in February 1964. So I mean, there were people that people were asking questions then and we're still asking that question. Yeah. And it was, you know, this was a precursor to where, you know, eventually things escalated. We ended up with the Gulf of Tonkin incident six months later. And the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which, which wasn't, you know, and I think what we need to recognize is that at each point in this thing on here, President Johnson did not, was not in favor of intervention in Vietnam, but he got handed, you know, because Kennedy had been assassinated. So he got handed a thing.  Yes, that showed. Yeah. And each and every point. And you know, for me, because of all the things he had done with the civil rights and the voting rights, and the, all this, the great society, he could have been one of the great presidents had he not been involved in that war. We are just about out of time. Yeah. But I want to know if you will come back because the war went on for a long time. There's a lot to talk about. I think there is, there's things that we should be talking about. And I think, you know, not just to talk about myself, but you know, that's not what I would like to address is like, where do we go from here? Okay. Where does the country, what kind of lessons should we withdraw from our Vietnam experience? So that's a date. We have a date. You will come back and we'll talk some more. Okay. Thank you. This has been a pleasure spending the time with my dear friend, Donald Kelper. And thank you. We will see you again next week. Aloha.