 Okay, we're back for a live at five o'clock on a given Friday, and we're talking about research to Minoa because, you know, tech is our middle name, and science and tech are together, and we are always interested in following tech and science in Hawaii. Research to Minoa refers to science and tech. It refers, in this case, to the Institute for Astronomy, which would very much like to see the TMT, you know, get built calling the show, why don't we just forget about the rule of law? I'm tongue-in-cheek because we do have a rule of law, and Sam King, the second, is here to discuss that with us. We want to ask the question, who is representing the state on TMT under the rule of law? Welcome back to the show, Sam. Thanks, Sam. We'll be back. You are the coordinator of Imua TMT, the rally. You've been here a couple of times, and we've talked about the rallies that have happened, or the rallies pro-TMT. Can you tell me what's happened since our last discussion two weeks ago? Well, so we've been trying to, you know, fundraise and get more support behind our group so we can start doing more social media push and getting the word out and, you know, buying swag and getting the website and all this stuff. So we're getting more organized and we're trying to get out there and tell our story more effectively, the story of Native Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii living together in harmony, embracing the future and respecting our culture and moving forward and being able to honor the sacred, but also advance human knowledge. And that's where we're coming from. What's happened on the other side? There has been other rallies, right, since we spoke. I think recently there was a rally on Maui, a pro-TMT rally. I think there's going to be another one on Hilo coming up, and then Wahoo were going to be working on another one coming up, too, so we'll be keeping in touch with everybody about that. We are... It's not really all about rallies at some point. At some point you've got to talk to the people in charge and the governor and figure out and, you know, write letters to the TMT and the funders of the TMT and make sure that they know that there's still the majority of people in Hawaii supported and, you know, a large group of Native Hawaiians. You know, the civil beat came out with a poll that said something like 44% of Native Hawaiians now supported versus previously 72%. And I haven't figured out what the margin of error on that is. It's probably like 10%. So it could be over 50 or under 30 right now or 34% supporting and opposing right now. But, you know, just like the protesters didn't care what the poll said back when they were trying to change the narrative is the same way that I don't care what the poll say. I want to tell my story about what, you know, there's a Native Hawaiian story out there that is a perfectly legitimate story despite what the protesters do kind of tell me that we can embrace Mauna Kea and the sacred and Mauna Kea can embrace the telescopes and Native Hawaiian culture can embrace that kind of science, that kind of use of land. I saw that article in Civil Beat and I had the impression from it that from a time what a year ago and the support for the telescope was something in the order of 77%, the actual identifiable support has declined. I guess all this protest has had an effect on the average Joe and how he feels about it and some people are gravitating toward the opposition rather than to support the PMT. Am I right? I think that's absolutely right. And I think, you know, that's democracy. That's how it works. That's why we don't run our democracy based on polls. And just like you go out and you make your argument. You say your position and you see if you can persuade people. The pro-TMT side, you know, the grassroots efforts that I'm contributing to. We didn't think we had to be going out there. Everybody was supporting the rule of law was on our side. We voted for these politicians who were supporting it. So it was pretty clear which way we wanted to go in a democracy law abiding society. And then, meanwhile, the protesters knew that for two years they I guess I'm assuming they knew they were going to lose or thought they were going to lose in the contested case hearing because this project is so good and has done so much to accommodate so many things and has done so many things right that there would be no reason for somebody who's actually looking at the evidence to rule against it. I want to talk about that in some detail. That's really the core point of our show today. Right. But just to say, the approach has been doing this for two years. They've been organizing for two years to persuade public opinion. And it worked. The governor, instead of just arresting everybody and getting moving, he let them have their space. And now they've been using it as a platform and bringing the rock. You know, they got all the people there doing hula dances and they can play the cultural car and the rock will come down to get pictures and Jason Momoa will come down to get pictures. He's there. Instagram gets the word out about whatever movies they're doing and that kind of stuff. So people showed up and that gets you attention. That makes everybody think, oh my gosh, every single Hawaiian in the whole state is against everyone. Every native Hawaiian that hates it in the whole world, that seems bad. And I would agree that would be bad, except it's not true. Not true, yeah. So since we met last, can you update me on what's happened? Because this is all against the backdrop of a decision in the Supreme Court, which I want to cover with you, which allows the TMT to proceed. But in fact, they haven't been able to proceed because they protested it stood in the way of TMT and all the other telescopes up there. And what has happened? I recall hearing that the governor has what extended the period for construction. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. And you have various people, including the lieutenant governor, who weighed in against the project. So what's happened? What's the action? I hadn't heard that the lieutenant governor come in against the project. I know he had come out against the declaration of emergency at the time. I'm not sure he never came out against the project as far as I know. I don't agree with his stance against the declaration of emergency. I think it's clear there's an emergency there. The rule of law is completely imploded. So it seems like an emergency to me. And the governor's stance is that there's a threat to life if the project is coming and the rhetoric coming out of the protesters. And I think that's completely legitimate also. I think when it's time to move forward, he should definitely declare a state of emergency. I have not studied the Supreme Court opinion in depth. But fundamentally, you are correct. The Supreme Court once ruled against a permit that they got from the board of law. I want to go into that in detail. But the question is in the last couple of weeks. Oh, what's going on? So what has happened? So fundamentally, the rallies have changed the narrative that was going very much in the sense of all native wines hated. So we brought out the rallies. And we brought out the people. And we started getting people to say, oh, wait a second. Wait a second. This is just a really loud social media campaign. So now everyone's been writing op-eds. And they've been getting involved. They realize this is really important. So we're kind of at a stasis point. There were the hurricanes. So everyone was kind of backing off. And I think now people are starting to have more meetings and get together. I'm not privy to all this information because I'm just some guy doing social media. But I think there are people now having meetings. And I'm sure the protesters are doing the same thing. They're doing some jam this weekend even. And so we're looking at that and looking at getting advertisements out there. I'm trying to collect more supporters to be more public and convince people to come out. I mean, frankly, what's been going on a lot is certainly on the internet. And it's harder to prove in person because you've got to have people admit, testify to this. But there's been a campaign of intimidation going on online for months now. Like what? People, what are they saying? People threaten. I mean, it's like somebody threatened me on the governor's Facebook page that they'll come after me later. There's somebody that's made a joke about kidnapping my co-organizer a couple of years ago. Somebody was made news threats that were covered by the news about slitting my Lonnie Neill's throat. And this is constantly, especially if you're a native Hawaiian, they need to discredit your claim to your native Hawaiian identity if you support the P&P. So they say you're a fake Hawaiian. They say you're a traitor. Somebody posted on Aleppo Babayan, who is a Polynesian Hokulea navigator, said, oh, he's a fake Hawaiian. And he'll go down in history books as a traitor. People are writing this out. And so that's just constant. And undoubtedly it's happening in the schools. I mean, they're having, you know, wear your Mauna Kea at Mauna Gear Day. It's like anybody who hears it is like, what is this? Kill Howley Day. We're bringing it back every Wednesday. It's ridiculous. And I saw a story. Somebody was posting on one of the Facebook groups about protein tea. And she was like, she didn't want the story to be shared because she's trying to keep the community together, which I appreciate. But she's like, my kid was at school and some kid was yelling Mauna Kea at him. And then the kid's mom was trying to keep him quiet. And the kid was like, oh, what difference does it make? He's just a Howley. It's like, this is what we got. We got the next generation being indoctrinated with the story of victimization and how everyone's after the native Hawaiians. And native Hawaiians all hate this telescope. And they want to go back to being hero farmers working with their hands and have no houses that, oh, it's just not the reality. And they don't, not the reality that everyone believes this narrative. There's certainly a reality that people do believe it and that there has been heard and that there has have been wronged. And we can address those things. And the state of Hawaiians has addressed them. They've always been paying reparations for years. I haven't had any meetings with them. Have they been actual sit-downs anywhere along the way? I have no idea if there's been people sitting down. I flew to Mauna Kea. I went up there, I think it was last week Friday now, and met with people that I saw up there. And so I met the governor with the former gubernatorial candidate to pull us up there. I was talking to him. Aside from the meetings on the mountain with the governor and the lieutenant governor, have there been actual meetings, like in his office, meetings where people were able to exchange ideas and possible solutions? I don't know if the governor has been meeting with the prototype. I think he's been meeting with his own people. Now, what about in court? You have this decision of Supreme Court. And it's not happening. It's not being implemented. Is the governor taking steps to implement it? I know there were arrests. I doubt anybody's in jail at the moment as we speak. An arrest usually means you have to cope with the law enforcement and stuff. But I don't think that went very far. And I don't think anybody's actually been charged with anything. They just got arrested. Not sure how that works legally. But the question is, has the state, or for that matter, the county, taken any steps to enforce the decision? As far as I know, the county hasn't done anything. So I've also been hearing that OHA is providing port-a-potties, or maybe the Department of Health is providing port-a-potties, and maybe the Department of Transportation is providing dumpsters. I'm not really sure what's going on up there. But I think to some degree, the politicians have, I mean, like Mayor Kim went in and met with them, and I think what they're saying, I think they're taking the situation seriously. They're looking at the situation and being looked. We want you guys to have your voice. We want you guys to discuss. We understand that there is the rule of law, but the rule of law is all about enforcement. And there's an extent to which that we give our prosecutors, police, executive branch leeway to enforce law. And I think there's a reason courts do that. And the legal system allows for that, because they admit that there's a political dimension to life, because that's reality. And so the legal system can handle that kind of thing. They can say, look, OK, we understand there's this political dimension, so we want to play for a balance. But at some point, the governor and the mayor have to move forward. And I think it's complicated because of the land ownership up there. I think it's all a lot of Department of Homeland homelands land. So the Department of Homeland homelands needs to issue a statement of some kind saying, you know, you're trespassing on the land, please move. If they don't move, then they can be arrested for trespassing. They can be arrested for blocking the road, or maybe obstruction, maybe zoning laws, permitting laws, that kind of thing. So you pick your law that they're viling, which is a couple, and then you move forward and you have to enforce it. And so far as I know, no one has done any of that. Well, from a legal point of view, well, let's go to the beginning. So these guys, the TMT consortium, came to town 10 maybe 15 years ago. I remember we had them speak at the Hawaii Venture Capital Association, because it was a big deal involved billions of dollars. And they said they were going to dot every i, cross every t, whatever it took. And of course, they met objection, and they met bureaucracy. They met a lot of bureaucracy. And they went on, and litigation maybe the wrong word, regulatory process that went on for years. They wound up in the Supreme Court once or twice, maybe, I don't think it's twice. Twice. OK, can you fill me in on what happened there? So I don't know every single step. But fundamentally, what they needed to get was a conservation district use permit. So they filed a conservation district use application. I believe it went to the Board of Land and Natural Resources, which had to approve it. The first time around, what happened is the board voted on the application first and then had a contested case hearing in the Supreme Court and said that has the appearance of unfairness. Not that it was unfair. It just has the appearance of unfairness. And therefore, you have to go do it again. And what the Supreme Court was objecting to, and what they were objecting to was you making a decision and then having a contested case hearing to talk about it. But the reason the BLNR does that, and there are lawyers, we're saying this is a perfectly acceptable process, is because they were saying, we haven't done anything yet. If we don't make a decision, then there's no hearing to contest. There's no reason for us to have a contested case hearing because no rights have been violated. Nothing has happened, which is actually a pretty reasonable position to take. But the Supreme Court disagreed. So now the Supreme Court says, now you must have basically a trial with absolutely no rules of evidence. And you just have everybody come and give their opinion to this board, which is now a mini legislature that will approve the project. And so the second time around, that's what they had to do. They brought in a tricky maimano, and they had this entire judge. And she heard all the evidence. And she brought in all these motions. And everybody, all the protesters got to bring in all these people. I think there were like 27 parties participating. O'Ail was one. Very long testimony. I think it's three months. A month's worth of testimony, but took three months total. And then at the end, each side submits their proposed finding to fact and conclusion of law. The hearing officer, the maimano, took them, changed it up to what her conclusion was. And during that process, also, they went on a site visit. They went to Mauna Kea to look at the site, actually, where it was. So it's a very informative document. And I've said it before. Everyone should just Google finding to fact and conclusions of law 30-meter telescope. I think it was 2017, the decision came down. Just read it. They covered it. It took a long time. The first two pages, an excellent summary of the whole situation. They lay it out. And the judge was fundamentally saying there is no pollution. It's a zero-waste facility. They're paying a ton of money. There's no cultural impact to identified historic sites. There are people that consider the entire mountain sacred. But in the end, you do not have a religious veto over property that is public. And so therefore, we're moving forward with the project. It is a good project. It is mitigated and accommodated all interests as more than anyone ever has done on Mauna Kea, except did not do anything. And then she issued her opinion. It took years. It took years. Borderland and natural resources then voted on whether or not to accept the findings of that concluded law. I think there were maybe two dissenters, seven or something. And then that was appealed. It went straight to the Supreme Court, I believe. And then the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the TMT. And so that's why now they can move forward. The last time the protesters were holding out for the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gave them. What was the second appeal about? What was the second appeal? Same thing. It's the same fundamental issue that it's a violation of a conservation district use permit and this shouldn't be. So these things were actually raised three times. They were raised in the original application for the permit. Then they were raised in Ricky Mount four times. So original permit, original Supreme Court decision, second permit, second Supreme Court decision. OK. And finally, the Supreme Court ruled, I guess it was final of all these issues. There was the Supreme Court ruled that, yes, the permit had been or could be validly granted. And it's a valid use of the space. Valid use. And the TMT consortium was entitled to go forward. That is how the, that is my understanding of how it worked. And the respondents in all of this were what? The consortium had to be involved. The University of Hawaii had to be involved. Who else, anybody else? I think the other side that was pro-TMT was WHOAO, so Preserving Unique Educational Opportunities is a group of Native Hawaiians that they're interested in education primarily, but they put themselves into the contested case hearing and the Supreme Court to provide a Native Hawaiian story that says, no, actually, this is acceptable. This is a good thing. So everybody had a voice. So everybody had a voice in that process. And there were far more individual protesters that joined in. People like me didn't go, I could have done that, but I was working hard at the time and decided to give up everything to go and put myself into the contested case hearing. So who knows, the people that did put their time in on both sides, it's important, it's important to have that discussion. But as we've said, the discussion was had. It was actually evaluated. And that's one of the reasons I'm so upset by people like The Rock who just show up, right? It's like, I email The Rock's agents, his people, and I'm like, come down here and talk to the Native Hawaiians to support this project because you didn't do that. It just looks like you're just showboating. And no response, per case. I'm not surprised. I mean, you know, in social media, you got to get on social media to shock him. He's got stuff to do. But you'd think if you want to be the moral authority, you got 150 million followers, all these guys, you'd think you would want to come and hear both sides before you come down with the, the Hawaiians are hurting and this like the Hawaiians, right? The this, the that. It's always, this is the absolute, but it's not true. And you, I think these social media people in general have a duty to really be more responsible for what they have. I mean, there's, and we've crossed the threshold with social media where you can't, people just kind of treated it like a game for a long time and now it's having real consequences for the body policy. Well, for the lack of, you know, government action to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court, this has become a sort of an open media opportunity. And day after day, week after week, and I guess until something else really, you know, dramatic happens, this will continue to be an open media activity. And so instead of this being resolved in the way controversies are resolved in this state and the country, this is being resolved in the media and on the streets, so to speak. Yeah, I think that's true. Yeah, well, you know, what does this mean though? Because it's got all kinds of implications when you have a final, it must have cost a party's millions to spend 10, maybe 15 years of time applying and litigating and applying and litigating and arbitrating and litigating. So after all of that, we really don't have a result that people respect. This troubles them because it has implications beyond TMT, don't you think? I absolutely think so. I think, but there's a couple ways to look at it, right? So for starters, there's the position that it's really just a telescope at some level, right? Like at the bottom level, at one level it's like if it doesn't happen, it's not the end of the universe because, you know, okay, it's bad for astronomy. It's bad for Hawaii's economy. It's bad for any attempt to bring tech to Hawaii and create new jobs for the kids and like bring a third leg to our economy that's not tourism and the military. But, you know, we'll still, life will go on in that sense. And it's hard for these particular style of protest to protest every single activity because this is a unique situation where really slow, heavy vehicles need to drive up one row that you can sit on top of, right? And get social media. So it's like a perfect storm, which is why they're using it. So on that side, I'm not like, this is not pitchforks, oh my God, it's the end of the world. But there's definitely a case, but there's also my point of view, which is it's bigger than a telescope. And I think even the protesters agree. It's about what the story of Hawaii is gonna be and the native Hawaiian and what we're gonna tell our kids and what they're telling their kids and what I'm gonna tell my kids. And it's about, you know, do you wanna just be about, oh, you wanna do research day after day about how everyone's taken everything from you and from your family and everything is bad all the time. Which may well be the case for some small set of people, but do you want it to be extrapolated to absolutely everybody that shares your race? Or do you want to say, look, the past is the past. We can address the wrongs that did happen. We're paying reparations through OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Homeland. And we can embrace the future and technology, especially projects that are actually paying money that will go to OHA and, you know, management of Mauna Kea. And do you want to look at our culture as embracing the future and not having to return us to like Aleppo points out like the Stone Ages where it's like, oh, we don't want any stars. We don't need that. We can do everything with naked eye as if that's the story from Eddie. I think, I don't know if I said this before, but it's fundamentally this problem, right? If you want to, I think some of the protesters, maybe not all of them, I don't know, but I think some of them have said this and they believe that we don't, and you can see it on social media, they want to go back to a time where you can just, you know, farm anything with your hand. You don't need to have telescopes, all this technology where you can have STEM, like they make a joke about, oh, we don't need STEM. We have tarot STEM, right? As if that's the point. But it's like the moment one of the kids you have who's farming in a low-eat or doing any sort of manual labor, the moment that person wants to use a machine to do the work faster, you're gonna get right back here. You might push us back for a hundred years of research, but you're gonna end up right back in this position because that's how humanity works. That's how life works. We advance forward. I think it's bigger than just this single group. I think there's a movement across the whole world of saying, no, we don't want any advancement anymore. We don't want property rights. We want the government to own things and then control everything and not move forward at all. We want to be an agricultural society and live in beautiful, bucolic settings. But it's all fantasy world because at some point, if you just have farms and no industry, you can't protect yourself against the people that couldn't care less about your utopian vision. One day you're gonna get a cavity in your tooth and you're gonna need a dentist. That is why it's important. That's why I'm spending my free time. That's why I came down here and I'm gonna have to go back home and explain to my wife, thanks for letting me come down here where you spent 30 minutes with the kids. I'm putting my time into this because I think it's important. I think it matters. I think you're right that this is gonna have ramifications and I want to tell a story that's positive and meet the people that want to tell that story. In a matter of money, you alluded to money a couple of times and I wonder if reparations or some payments through OHA or other native wine organizations, is it a matter of money, do you think? Is this ultimately leading to some kind of payment? I don't know, I don't think so. I think some of the protesters, the leadership, I actually have no idea what their secret motives are. It seems to me, if they're public statements, it's absolutely not about the money. It's about the sacredness of the mountain and it's about, you know, it's violating the culture. I think I've heard and I think it's a perfectly reasonable analysis that there's a power to say no that's at stake here. People want to be able to say no to something and they feel like they can never say no. I mean, I think that's incorrect analysis of the situation. I think you can say no and I think you can have a discussion. It's just, you don't get to just say no and then everyone has to listen to you just because you said no, right? That's the whole point of the legal system. You know, the state of Hawaii has been trying to develop a tech industry since John Burns. It's statehood. One governor after the other. I mean, even the kingdom of Hawaii was trying to do it. Yeah, that's true. Kala Kala wanted that. He was very advanced and enlightened about science and technology. But we just never seemed to get there. We don't have a tech industry to speak of now and we don't have any real political will to develop the tech industry. This is a bad blow to that, I think. It's also a bad blow to resilience of the economy because if tourism stopped for some reason and we had no other leg of the stool like tech, you know, what happens then? You know, everybody's gotta eat and I'm afraid we'd be jeopardized. Well, I'm not sure that a lot of the protesters care what happens to be honest. I think there's a subset of people and I keep saying subset because I don't know if they all think this. I haven't run a poll of all the protesters but there's definitely a core group that's out there saying my hypothesis would be and from what I've read and seen from the protesters and people pushing the idea that we don't need development or we don't need other tech, they just don't care. They don't care if people build houses here. They don't care if people move here. They don't really care if the kids are here. You know, they want their amenities that they have and then everything else can leave. If there's no money, it's like the Brexit syndrome, right? People are in Britain now. They voted to leave the European Union. They don't even care about the economic damage. It's about the philosophical point and so in that sense, they can accuse me of being greedy and it's all about the money but I mean, I have two kids and I'm trying to put them through good school and get them good jobs and have them be productive members of society and just for myself, I want to have a nice house and live a nice life and I want my neighbors to have the same opportunity so money's super important. Having growth, having those opportunities allows for everyone to achieve their dream. That's the idea. It's kind of a one-way street because you go down the street and you stop this project. It's not like you can turn it on again. Hawaii is getting a black eye among the capital interests on the mainland and Wall Street elsewhere. All these consortiums involved countries and global companies and universities everywhere and if they get turned off and don't come back, that's permanent or at least for a lifetime and that's a great concern. And I don't know if you've heard anything about this but there's discussion about whether the members of this consortium will continue to weather the storm. They may decide to drop out. If they drop out, TMT is over and not only TMT is over but anything like TMT is over for a long time, radioactive for a long time. I agree. I mean, I think that's one of the reasons I've been working to meet people that agree with me, like-minded people that want to tell a positive story of Hawaii and the native Hawaiian people and native Hawaiian culture and see it as an embrace of science and technology and honoring the past and the sacred. And so the next time this happens, this group of people will be able to say, oh yeah, we've heard this story before and we've been here before so we want to be prepared for this kind of thing so we can tell the story we want to tell the way we want to tell it and really keep it moving forward so we're all together and sharing this kind of thing. I think- We're not together now. So let me ask you the last part I'd like to inquire about. If the governor really meant to do something about this, if the governor meant to enforce the law, the rule of law, I mean, we can't just have it out in the street. We have to follow what we decided a long time ago. That is the courts resolve controversies. How do you do that? How do you advance, implement and enforce the decision that took 10 years to make? I mean, the implementation is pretty straightforward. I think the governor just needs to close down the road and slowly cut off the blind and be like, okay, look, we're done here, we're gonna move everybody in, start pulling the cars out slowly but surely and just go down the road and just ignore the pressure and the social media pressure, just ignore it because it's- And all you need to say is, look, we're enforcing the law. We've talked about this, we've gone over it and this is how it, this is the correct thing to do is the right thing to do. So he doesn't need another court decision. He does not need anything. He doesn't need any single thing. He just needs to go do it. Him and the county need to go do it. Okay, all that we know, you and I have talked about this a lot three times and as well as in the context of the rally I attended a few weeks ago, what do you think is gonna happen here? What's the reality? I have no idea. I'm working to get my story out and to get support telling my story and the people that agree with me's story and the native Hawaiians that believe in science on Mauna Kea in astronomy in a second away. I think the more people that come out, the more people that speak in favor of TMT in this future, the easier it'll be for the governor to move forward and enforce the law because he's a politician, he's gonna look like a bad guy. It's easier for the social media personalities to back down which is what they wanna be able to do. They wanna be able to say look, we stood up and we said this but it's obvious that there's another side to the story and we could balance and look, we've got you protection and they need a way out diplomacy. So I think the governor can move forward and enforce the law in that way but the community's gonna have to, I think it's one of the things. It's like you're gonna have to accept that this will be how it is and enforce the law and you have to watch, you have to witness them, the people that are arrested. You know, I wanna see, I wanna make sure that their rights are respected, they're treated fairly and appropriately when the law is enforced but it needs to be enforced because this is the bottom line. The system of government that has been impliately proposed by the protest is unworkable, right? They fundamentally want to create a state-backed host culture religion and they want that religion to be able to trump all other religions and it violates fundamental tenants of what makes society's high function which is the separation of church and state and the rule of law. The moment you have a situation where you can say, oh no, no, I can sit on this road and therefore your two Supreme Court decisions and all this process you've done doesn't mean anything and by the way, the reason I get to do this is because I have a special religion that's better than your religion, the society breaks down and that's why I live in this country, that's why I like this country, the state, the constitution that we have that also has the same principles, is Constitution of the United States of America and not even that it's America or that it's white. It's how societies work. That's the best society in my study of history is our society and the way we run things. There's always room for improvement and that's one of the things I think is good about this. It's good to have that competition. It's important that people get energized because this is the time when minds are molded when the iron is hot and we should be talking about it. We should be addressing it and my response is the system of government yours proposing is unworkable. It is not a good idea. I don't want it. I want the rule of law enforced. I want this project to go forward not because of this project itself although that is also a factor but because that's how the rule of law works. All that considered further discussion, negotiation, comparing ideological positions on this. You think that the consortium and its members who have spent a ton of money getting as far as they have are going to stick around because this is going to take a little while at the very least and they have been patiently, I must say patiently waiting. Are they going to stick around or bail? Let me look at it this way. They've been doing this for 10 years. It'd be pretty strange for them to give up when they have all the permits just because there's been a social media flare up. There's social media flare ups all the time. Everybody calmed down. On top of that, where are they going to go? They said they could go to the Canary Islands. Everybody's like, oh yeah, you just go to the Canary Islands except now we've got environmentalists in the Canary Islands being like, oh no, we don't want you here either. So there's nowhere to go and there's no reason to try and go there because everyone's going to fight too. I don't know why it just seems to be the thing to do. It's a great way to get attention but there's nowhere to go and like, now that's the one thing about it, Jay. Like you said, right? What we lose is time. I don't think Mauna Kea will ever stop. The Mauna Kea is never going to stop being the best place to do science on earth. Maybe if you get a space elevator or something ridiculous, you can put all your telescopes in space but that's so expensive and so hard and it's not necessarily better. It's not better. That's why we're doing it on a Mauna Kea. So there's no reason for the Corsairium to leave. There's only the social media pressure and that story but if they leave then they're going to have to deal with it somewhere else and you still want to do the science on Mauna Kea because it's still the best place. And the technology is not, you can upgrade the technology and put better technology on the telescope but eventually it's like, if you leave now, you got to wait. Another, you got to do it all over again. So what's the point? You might as well just stay and hold out because they have every right to stay and hold out and the community is now realizing that the Chamber of Commerce came out with an op-ed. The business community came out and said, look, we have to enforce the rule of law. Everyone's waking up and being like, hold on, hold on, hold on, you got it. All the millennials are on social media and that's one of the things the polls show, right? And Civil Beat actually had an interesting point about this. It was like older people are in favor of the telescope and younger people are against it or kind of on balance in some way. And that's probably, I think it's only even Native Hawaiians. In particular, I'm not sure even everyone under like 30 or whatever are against it but the point is that social media is big and it's anti but then if you read like op-eds and people where they have to like sit down and really think and it's not just image and flash and they got to put their thoughts out. Everyone reading the newspaper and doing that is like, oh, this is clearly a good idea, I got it. So it's a generational divide there. There's a news media divide there. There's a way you get it. I think the more we push, I'm working on getting more message out on social media talking to people. I think you just patiently, you have the confidence. And it's not, it's not. We should come back. We should come back here and have a further discussion on it, Sam. Absolutely. Thank you for coming down today. Thank you. Sam King, Sam King, Wilder King II. Thank you. Co-coordinator, co-organizer of the Imua TMT. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir.