Farrington, named after a Hawaiʻi governor
We are speaking of Farrington St.
Dillingham Blvd named after an industrialist
Wallace Rider Farrington was born in 1871 in Maine and became a newspaper reporter following his public education.
In 1894, he came to Hawaii and became an Editor for the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, which has evolved into today's Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
After two years, he went back to America only to return to the islands the year of Hawaiʻi's annexation.
Farrington continued his career with another newspaper company, becoming the VP and General Business Manager of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
He held these positions until his appointment as the sixth Governor of the Territory of Hawaiʻi, serving two terms.Walter Rider Farrington is given credit for a high degree of prosperity for the Territory of Hawaiʻi.
From helping to form the Republican party to leading the Honolulu Chamber of Commerce to being a key figure in establishing higher education, Farrington's legacies continue.
Since the mid-1800s, the establishment of a college in the Hawaiian Islands was discussed but failed to materialize.
Farrington, with his enthusiasm and efforts, made way for the 1907 Legislature to pass and Governor to sign Act 24.
This created the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, which originally began near in Honolulu near Thomas Square.
In 1912, it was renamed College of Hawaiʻi, then in 1920, the University of Hawaiʻi, and in 1972, finally became the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, which continues today.
Check out more news from around Hawaii
Farrington High School is the home of the Governors, named in honor of Governor Wallace Farrington who passed away in 1933, the same year it opened.
Did you know? Now you do!
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Harvard and the Trump administration are nearing a settlement including a $500 million payment
WASHINGTON — Harvard University and the Trump administration are getting close to an agreement that would require the Ivy League university to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end investigations, according to a person familiar with the matter. The framework is still being sorted out with significant gaps to close, but both sides have agreed on the financial figure and a settlement could be finalized in coming weeks, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard declined to comment. The agreement would end a monthslong battle that has tested the boundaries of the government's authority over America's universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students. The university responded with a pair of lawsuits alleging illegal retaliation by the administration after Harvard rejected a set of demands that campus leaders viewed as a threat to academic freedom. Details of the proposed framework were first reported by The New York Times. A $500 million payment would be the largest sum yet as the administration pushes for financial penalties in its settlements with elite universities. Columbia University agreed to pay the government $200 million as part of an agreement restoring access to federal funding, while Brown University separately agreed to pay $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development organizations. Details have not been finalized on where Harvard's potential payment would go, the person said. The Republican president has been pushing to reform prestigious universities that he decries as bastions of liberal ideology. His administration has cut funding to several Ivy League schools while pressing demands in line with his political campaign. None has been targeted as frequently or as heavily as Harvard, the richest U.S. university with an endowment valued at $53 billion. More than a dozen Democrats in Congress who attended Harvard cautioned against a settlement on Aug. 1, warning the university it may warrant 'rigorous Congressional oversight and inquiry.' Capitulating to political demands, they said, would set a dangerous precedent across all of higher education.
Atlantic
27 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Will Trump Get His Potemkin Statistics?
In 2013, ahead of a scheduled visit from President Vladimir Putin to the small Russian town of Suzdal, local officials worried that he would be disappointed by the dilapidated buildings. In a modern revival of Grigory Potemkin's possibly apocryphal deception of Catherine the Great, they slapped exterior wallpaper onto buildings, hoping to hide the decaying concrete behind illustrations of charming village homes. It was intended as a comforting myth to keep Putin happy. (In the end, Putin never showed up.) On August 1, President Donald Trump demanded a comforting myth of his own, one that could have far greater consequences for the world economy. He began by firing a skilled economist, Erika McEntarfer, from her job running the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for a cardinal sin that ordinarily exists only in dictatorships: producing 'bad numbers.' In authoritarian regimes, good numbers are always right, and if anyone says otherwise—if they are foolish enough to produce statistics that suggest the economy is souring or that Dear Leader isn't producing historic growth and blockbuster jobs numbers—then it's curtains on their career (if not their life). As is so often the case with Trump, reality itself seems to be ' rigged.' Time to fix reality with Potemkin statistics. This week, Trump named E. J. Antoni, the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, as McEntarfer's replacement, subject to the charade of Senate Republican rubber-stamping that has become so common in Trump's second term. As with despots throughout the world, Trump selected Antoni on the two criteria that consistently warm a dictator's heart: loyalty and ideology. Antoni, who contributed to Project 2025, has a résumé that's thin on qualifications. Five years ago, according to his LinkedIn profile, he completed his doctorate in economics at Northern Illinois University, after a short stint teaching at Sauk Valley Community College. His only scholarly publication—ever—appears to be his doctoral thesis, which has been cited by other economists a grand total of one time. That sole citation came from a policy briefing written by Antoni's then-colleague at the archconservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Tim Naftali: Trump just did what not even Nixon dared to do Antoni has shown ignorance of basic economic data, including in a recent social-media post supporting Trump's tariffs, in which he appeared to not grasp that a major index of import prices did not include tariffs in its published data. (Several established economists helpfully pointed this out to him.) Menzie Chinn, a renowned economics professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has chronicled a wide array of Antoni's basic misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes. In other words, Antoni would probably not get hired as a junior economist at the agency he's now slated to run. By contrast, McEntarfer received her doctorate from Virginia Tech in 2002, then worked as an economist in a variety of roles at the Census Bureau—under both Republican and Democratic presidents—as well as in top jobs at the Treasury Department and the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Last year, she was confirmed by the Senate to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics on a bipartisan 86–8 vote. Then-Senators J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio both voted to confirm her. During her time in public service—not in academia—she produced at least 44 publications, which have been cited by other scholars 1,327 times. But what Antoni lacks in credentials and expertise he makes up for in his MAGA worldview. On X, he follows a who's who of Trump acolytes, including Carpe Donktum, a prolific meme creator who once shared an AI-generated video depicting Trump killing journalists and critics, and Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, who both promoted the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory. International investors can see this, too—and they understand that nonpartisan government officials devoted to statistical accuracy do not behave like this. Even conservative economists can see what's going on. Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has noted that economists had hoped that Trump would appoint a competent, fair expert who could ensure confidence in the government's data. 'EJ Antoni is really the opposite of that,' Veuger lamented. 'Even the people who may be somewhat sympathetic to his economic policy views don't think he's qualified.' Yet again, the United States is lurching toward dynamics previously seen only in authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Autocrats and wannabe despots consistently cook the books, manipulating statistics to make their nation's economy appear better than it is. This comes at a cost: Once the statistical facade peels away, providing a glimpse of the crumbling structure below, investors stop believing the data. Eventually they flee, taking their money with them. The economist Luis Martinez has used satellite images to test whether dictators were overstating their country's growth rate. (Because real, sustained GDP growth inevitably produces increased light pollution in developing countries as cities expand and economic activity increases, nighttime images from space have proved to be a good proxy for economic growth.) Martinez's data showed that the answer was yes—and by a lot. The leaders he studied were overstating GDP numbers by up to 35 percent. And they weren't just fudging the numbers; they were almost certainly making them up. Similarly, after Rwanda—which has long promoted itself as an African success story under the economic management of its dictator, Paul Kagame—boasted that it had reduced poverty by 6 percent over a five-year period, independent researchers concluded that poverty had actually increased by 5 to 7 percent. Other studies have confirmed that authoritarians frequently manipulate statistics strategically, ensuring that bad news never coincides with election cycles. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved A dictator's ability to snap their fingers and transform economic malaise into a perceived miracle is an exercise of unconstrained personal power. But it is also a sign of weakness—one that inflicts significant damage to a country's economy. That's because economic investments involve putting capital at calculated risk, and those risks become unattractive when the underlying calculations are not based on trustworthy information. By contrast, leaders in functioning democracies tie themselves to the economic masts of independent institutions that are designed to speak truth to power—and investors trust them accordingly with their money. Effective decision making is impossible without reliable, accurate information. And many crucial decisions in economic governance and investment rely on the BLS jobs numbers. The monthly reports sway Federal Reserve decisions, affect pension-payout calculations, and are factored into virtually every determination involving major global investment. Economists have expressed their worries that if the jobs data are even perceived as being subject to political pressure, international lending to the United States will decline. When Fox News highlighted this week that Antoni had previously expressed his desire to get rid of the monthly jobs reports, the value of the dollar fell shortly thereafter. Antoni might not be able to manipulate the statistics themselves. Many economists are involved in compiling the data, and cooking the books without drawing notice would be difficult. But in the current American information environment, Antoni could do enormous damage simply by giving misleading political ammunition to the MAGA movement, dressed up in the official guise of a previously nonpartisan office. Antoni presumably has few qualms about the political pressure he's inevitably going to face from Trump; after all, he has accepted a nomination for a job that now clearly comes with a risk of being fired if the official statistics aren't to the president's liking. And that means the clock is ticking for Antoni even if he is confirmed, because Potemkin villages all eventually crumble.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Trump's GOP backing declines amid inflation and redistricting push
President Trump's approval rating among Republicans has slipped steadily since the start of his second term, dropping 9 points this week, according to a new poll by The Economist and YouGov. Why it matters: The poll, conducted August 9-11, found that some of Trump's most high-profile current priorities, such as pushing for Republicans to draw more favorable congressional maps and his plans to calm inflation, aren't sitting well with Americans by and large. By the numbers: Trump's support among Republicans and Republican-leaning Americans fell from 92% in January, to 83% this week. Trump's overall net approval rating, or "the percent who approve minus the percent who disapprove", is -12, per the poll. A -12 approval rating, while negative, is higher than the -15 rating he received at this point in his first term. Zoom in: The poll comes as Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to take the unusual move of trying to redraw congressional maps to craft five more GOP seats. Texas Democrats are avoiding their state in an attempt to deny Republicans a quorum, and several blue states are getting behind the idea of starting redistricting battles at home to fight back. Only 16% of Republicans think states should be allowed to redraw more favorable congressional districts, while 57% say they should not. Comparatively, 6% of Democrats think states should be able to redraw districts, 80% say they should not. Zoom out: Americans have been particularly stubborn about one issue: 48% expect inflation to increase in the next six months. The fine print: The opt-in poll surveyed 1,635 U.S. adult citizens, and utilized their party identification as of November 8, 2024. The margin of error for the overall sample is approximately 3.5%.
