Misc. Ramblings

When is a clean water resolution not a clean water resolution? Way back around June of last year (see my post here), SWMBO and I attended the Hawai'i Democratic Party convention.

The business of the convention is deciding, among other things, what resolutions and rule changes will be in the party's "platform." To a great extent, the platform is ceremonial but many of the resolutions are eventually translated into bills that are introduced into the legislature.

One of the proposed resolutions was referred to as "pure water". It essentially provided that nothing could be added to the water that was not for the specific reason of making the water safe to drink.

On the face of it, this sounds like one of the those no brainers. I mean, who would be for adding anything else? That is, until you think about why something else would be added. It is at that point that the real reason for the resolution became apparent. It was specifically written in this manner to stop the fluoridation of water.

Regardless of whether you are for floridation or not, to try to get your way by hiding behind nice sounding words, while intending something entirely different is wholly despicable. I don't know of a more underhanded way of trying to slip something by people. Nowhere in the entire resolution does it refer to fluoridation of water. But when I questioned the supporters of the resolution, they admitted that in fact that is what they were against.

One specific person even made unsubstantiated medical claims about how she was debilitated by fluoride in the water while on the mainland. This, even though there is zero credible medical evidence of this occurring. The supporters of this resolution must have known they didn't have the scientific evidence to back their claims so, as far as I could see, they simply make things up. I tried to get the resolution voted down, using hard, scientific evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control (see the information here) to refute their misrepresentations but the sub-committee voted for the resolution by a vote of about 14 to 10.

While the resolution made it to the convention floor for a final vote by the general assembly, the sub-committee chair wisely used a procedural rule to separate out the resolution from the other approved measures and had a separate discussion and vote. Fortunately, when the spotlight of openness was shone on this bill, the supporters scattered like roaches when you turn the kitchen light on at night. Every person who spoke on this resolution was against it.

The resolution was soundly defeated and the world was made safe for democracy. Or was it?

Come forward to the present day and the legislature is in session. And what should be snuck through, using a procedural "fast tracking" mechanism that bypasses committee hearings and public review? You got it. The very same "pure water" resolution, but now in the form of a bill that would make it the law of this state.

I can think of no better word to describe these people other than political cowards.