Misc. Ramblings

For example, she wants to add staff to her office but realizes it would not be politically correct to do this in our fragile economy. So, she wants private industry to pay for them - either directly, as in giving her money or indirectly by providing some of their staff to work in her office.

This idea is fraught with conflict of interest problems. Say an oil company, decides to send one of their top administrators to work in the governor's office. One could say this person would bring a wealth of practical experience to the job. While this might be true, one has to wonder what kind of influence this person would have on policies such as regulating certain companies. Oil ones, for example. Especially since the last administration was in the midst of filing a law suit alleging evasion of billions in federal taxes and hundreds of millions in state taxes on the part of one oil company.

If you think she wouldn't hire someone like this, think about how she hired her then husband to represent her as mayor of Mau'i. Whether this was legal or not (it was not), it shows either a complete lack of understanding of the ethical issues this raises or a reckless disregard of said issues.

In these situations, there would always be at least the appearance of undue influence. That is, who does this person really work for? The oil company that pays his or her salary? The citizens of this state, over which this person has control of policy? The governor who is also his wife?

A second example is one of telling the truth. In her State of the State speech last week, the governor alleged that Hawai'i's workers compensation law was so unbalanced that someone fired for stealing could receive such compensation due to the stress caused by being fired. Only, it wasn't true. It did not happen and could not happen under the current law.

The spreading of an untrue urban myth is not trust inducing. It makes one wonder what else she believes to be true, but isn't. Does she believe the welfare system is the major cause of the high number of single-parent households among Blacks (see this study here that indicates this pattern existed a century before the welfare system was created). Does she believe the urban myths that are trotted out every time someone wants to institute tort "reform" (see a list here)?

We want and deserve better.

There are only so many ways to do a state government budget. If revenues are not meeting expenses, you have three choices: cut expenses, raise taxes, or a combination of both. It is an illusion to think otherwise. But some want to believe in illusions because the alternative would lead to hard decisions.

The University of Hawai'i (UH) faculty union supported the Republican candidate for governor in the last two elections because they felt they were getting a raw deal under the Democratic administration (who had the unenviable task of cutting spending due to lack of revenues). The union said higher education was not getting the emphasis it deserved and was "dying a death of a thousand cuts."

So they supported now Governor Lingle because they wanted to believe what has been described as voodoo economics. Specifically, the governor could cut revenues, by cutting taxes, while at the same time increasing spending on everything, including higher education. This, even as spending was already far out pacing revenues.

Comes the dawn and the Lingle administration is proposing cuts to the University. Shocking. UH officials are now complaining that any more cuts would "be destroying the future of this institution."

Unfortunately, the UH is not helping their case by refusing to indicate where those cuts would have to come from. Hence, they can not point to the concrete effects that a budget cut would have that would "destroy the future of this institution."

On the other hand, the Lingle administration, including her Budget Director, is shooting themselves in the foot by telling the UH, and other departments, that even though they were told to make cuts, without chance for appeal, the administration didn't really mean that. That if the cuts were in fact too much, then of course you would tell the administration and they would look at making some changes.

The lessons the departments will learn from this is the administration can not be trusted. That what they say and what they mean are two different things. That nothing is final and that you can continue to appeal and tie up the movement of government until the cows come home at night.

Before the election, I said that Governor Lingle did not have the experience to be an effective leader. Not only has this been confirmed, but it is now clear that neither do at least one of her appointed administrators. The fall out from this will be an administration constantly falling behind and unable to make quick, decisive decisions.

Have a great weekend everyone -Aloha!

From top to bottom, we live in unstable times.

The pillars of stability are dead or dying. The major religions are under attack for their misdeeds, real or imagined. NATO is impotent, guarding against a foe that is no longer. The UN, if it ever had any power, is deadlocked. Our national security has been breached. Our federal government sees enemies under every bed and passes laws more onerous than that could be forced on us by external governments. Our state government is preoccupied with style, while the substance is left wanting. Our county government is in caretaker mode while services go down the tubes.

Never before have there been so many breaches in the bulwarks against evil. During the US Depression of the 30s, government was there to help heal the economic wounds that stole the very soul of American optimism. During the world wars, the great armies of men were directed by leaders seeking to stop madmen bent on using power towards evil purposes. During the Reformation, light was brought to the darkness that was man's plight. These are no more.

We are at once in great danger and great opportunity. For 10 years, the US economy had bountiful harvests. The wise saved to provide for themselves during the lean years. Those lean years are now here. I wish I knew which situations were opportunities and which lead only to danger, but I don't. So good luck Mr. and Mrs. America, wherever you are.

A local lake is being smothered by the uncontrolled growth of a common fish tank plant called salvinia molesta. The plant, probably brought to Hawai'i to decorate someone's pond or aquarium eventually was released into the wild, including the 300-acre Lake Wilson sometime in 1999. When first seen there, it was a very small patch and was quickly identified by wildlife officials and fishermen.

Said fishermen called for an immediate attack on the weed, using herbicide, before it spread. Unfortunately, government by crisis indicated that nothing should be done because other things had higher priority. In either case, it was just a small infestation so why bother with it now?

Four years later and the lake now looks like a table top smooth golf course (see some pictures here). Only the "greens" are made of salvinia, not grass. The entire surface of the lake is literally covered in this weed. Fish are dying due to lack of air, the lake can not be used because boats can not navigate through this mess, and in fact the lake was closed to public use yesterday.

One estimate is it will take 50,000 dump truck loads to clear the lake. The problem is, salvina spreads through fragmentation. That is, bits of it break off and a new plant grows from each bit. It then doubles in size every two to eight days. Hence, to rid the lake of this pest, you must either get every single piece of it out, introduce an alien species of weevil that feeds on the plants, use herbicides, or a combination of all.

Had this been done when the weed was first identified in the lake, we could have saved the millions of dollars it will cost to get rid of it now. But then, that would have been too obvious.

Open for business. At least, that's how the new Republican governor wants to portray our state. But the governor is in the curious position of reducing a tax credit for high tech business development. First, I should say there is very little evidence that using the tax system is an efficient way of altering business behavior. That is, businesses usually will do whatever they do despite the tax code, not because of it.

Having said that, when government makes changes to the tax code, by giving away money to companies in the hope of attracting more activity here, you would think the law would be written such that the cost of the tax credit would be less than the benefits (i.e., income taxes) generated by the hoped for new business.

But then, that would have been too obvious.

Being old is bad enough, unfortunately, that's the not worst of it. In Hawai'i, over the last three years, 10 elderly people have died from neglect or abuse. In the last decade, 33 people 65 years or older died from pressure "bed" sores associated with neglect on the part of their caretakers.

So it is no wonder that there is a legislative bill to allow the Hawai'i Department of Health (DOH) to conduct unannounced inspections of adult residential care homes to detect this very type of neglect. Unannounced health inspections are already done for other types of businesses such as restaurants and bars, but not care homes.

But now comes the new Republican head of the DOH testifying that she supports unannounced inspections as long as the care home is given one week notice ahead of time. I don't know whether to be outraged at the stupidity of this statement or just sad that our elders are under the "care" of people like this.

Yes, I know, who would want to be a care home operator knowing that Big Government could come knocking at their door without your being able to clean things up a bit before they came. But that's the whole point folks. The unannounced inspection is there as an incentive to all operators to keep things clean and safe at all times. If they know ahead of time an inspection is coming, it is trivially easy to put up a façade of good care. But I guess this is too obvious.

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.

No one can predict, with 100 percent accuracy, when the war will begin, how the war will go, nor what will happen after it ends. But these things I do know.

We will go to war - only the time is yet to be revealed. And if anything, when the attack comes, after all the delays in the United Nations, it may be past the optimum date of readiness.

All organizations can hold the fine edge of optimum readiness for only a short time. Once they reach that state, things soon begin to cause a reduction in readiness.

Some are psychological. People can not stay 100 attentive to a task forever. They have to stop and do something else, otherwise, the mind wanders. Mistakes are made. The mind can become overloaded at a heightened sense of awareness.

Some are operational. Men and their machines need maintenance. Engines need to be torn down and serviced. Gun barrels have to be replaced.

People need rest. The adrenal system was not designed to stay on alert for long periods of time. It was built for three responses - fight, flight or stand down. If it's at the fight or flight mode for too long the body begins to break down.

I wish we weren't going to war but if it is to be war, I wish it to be done as quickly and safely as possible. To our troops, wherever they may be, God speed and may the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses bless America.

I'm in the middle of re-doing our intraweb page from the buttons on the left configuration to one that looks like your standard Yahoo portal. The reasoning behind the change is to reduce the number of mouse clicks required to get to the information the customer wants/needs. The goal is to find what they need in one or two clicks.

Of course, creating a page that literally has links to every document on the site soon becomes very messy and difficult to find what you want. So the Yahoo model of efficiency has to be balanced against the practical matter of having too much information to sift through.

Part one of the project was to create a page with all the links on it. Part two will be to organize the links in ways that people will find easy to get to where they want. As tedious and slow going as part one was, part two will be even more challenging because people deal with information in different ways.

Some people are visceral. They go through life as a mass of emotions, feelings, and impressions. They solve problems in a round about way that seemingly has no rational process to it and is characterized by leaps from start to conclusion.

On the other hand, some people are rational and logical. They analyze life by breaking down the whole into manageable problems, studying these problems, generating hypotheses, establishing objective criteria, deciding on a solution, and then evaluating the results of the solution. To these people, problem solving is a straight line process.

To create a web page that satisfies both is difficult, if not impossible. But as far as I see it, a web site with a logical system of folders and sub-folders would drive the visceral person to distraction. Conversely, a portal site where everything is everywhere will frustrate the logical person.

In the end, the best way may be a dual site and let the user pick which path to follow.

Aloha!

During the last gubernatorial campaign, the education unions abandoned the Democratic party because they believed the Republican voodoo economics plan could cut revenues while increasing spending (especially on them). The Republican candidate promised that she could do that without raising taxes or laying off employees. So it should come as no surprise that the morning paper indicates there will be no pay raises for educators and in fact, there may be pay cuts or lay-offs.

Shocked, I say. Shocked. I guess it just goes to show that even highly educated people can be fooled.

I understand the President will address the nation at 3:00 p.m. Hawai'i time today where CNN, among others, is saying there will be another 72-hour ultimatum announced. If it were me, the cruise missiles would be in the air at 2:55 and the bombs dropping at 2:59. But then, that wouldn't be playing nice now would it?

I am no great supporter of President George W. Bush. I campaigned against him in the election and felt then, as I do now, that he is not the best person for the responsibilities of the President of the United State of America. But whether you or I agree with the march to war, know these things:

• Unlike what Russian President Vladimir Putin says, going to war with Iraq does not destabilize the world. Rather, the coming war is a response to an unstable leader of a country and is a way to bring about stability. Doing nothing would be the most destablizing thing possible. Appeasement, as we saw before World War I and II does not lead to a just a peace. All appeasement does is postpone and make worse the war that follows.

• Unlike what one local socialist university professor said, going to war with Iraq is not an act of terrorism. Going to war is to hold accountable those who would sponsor acts of terrorism. What is being done by the U.S. is in full compliance with UN Resolution 1441. To say the coming war is a terrorist act cheapens the meaning of the word and all of the people who have died as a result of such acts.

• Unlike what some fuzzy brained individuals are saying, our men and women in the armed forces are to be admired for what they are about to embark on. Regardless of your position on the war, the people serving our country in the military deserve to be supported and treated as the heroes that they are. I will not accept, nor will I defend, those who feel otherwise.

As WWII fighter pilot Quentin Aanenson said: "If a person has no cause for which he is willing to give his life, he stands for nothing." I hope and pray that this war can be avoided by Saddam leaving Iraq. But if he chooses not to, a line is being drawn and it is time to take a stand.

Aloha!

All is not new. It is hardly an original thought to say the war on terrorism is a new type of war. A war not against nations, but against men. Men who move from nation to nation pledging allegiance to none while gathering support from all. And therein lies the part that is old about this war.

Money. Wars run on money. Without money there are no weapons of mass destruction just as there are no bullets, or tanks, or ships. From our own history, George Washington to George "Gulf War I" Bush, we had to deal with this. You have to have the money.

But what about the costs to our economy? Let me say right here the cost will be willing paid by our nation, state, and counties. But we must remember that there is a cost. In a zero-sum game, any dollar spent on the war means a dollar less is spent on education, or health, or welfare.

The immediate secondary economic effect locally is the 30 to 40 percent drop in revenue from visitors afraid to travel. I bear no ill will against anyone who decides the place to be during a war is at home, not gallivanting somewhere in the Pacific. But this revenue shortfall will mean many business, already weakened from the September 11th attacks, will go bankrupt. Hardest hit will be the airlines, followed by the thousands of small businesses that support the visitor industry here.

From there it will ripple out to the services that touch these businesses. Even if this is a short war, thousands will be laid off because the damage is already done. People are already canceling travel plans. It will be months, after fighting stops, before a recovery can begin.

As I've noted before, it took our state 10 years to recover from Gulf War I. And while I have no way of knowing if it will take that long this time, I reckon the time frame will be measured in years, not months.

Aloha!

We still live, I hope, in a country in which we have the right to freely speak our minds. However, as with all rights, there are limits. You can not, among other things, defame someone, you can not incite riots, you can not yell "fire" when there isn't one.

In times of conflict, different people will have differing opinions. But our country can not survive if we do not adhere to the limits of our laws and Constitution when we wish to express these opinions. While politicians may be fair game when it comes to disagreeing with them, I do not believe it is acceptable behavior to assault our members of the armed forces or their families.

I hear from someone, who I have no reason to disbelieve, that there has been as least one incident in which the spouse of one of our troops was verbally assaulted at a grocery store, I assume, off base. "She was wearing an "T" shirt with an Air Force logo. A white female approximately 40 years old approached her and asked if she was in the Air Force. The woman spat and cursed at her when our troops wife indicated that she was not in the Air Force but that her husband was."

Folks, this is not acceptable behavior. It is also disrespectful to the sacrifices that all members of the armed services have made, do make, and will make in the future.

This must stop. If you have a problem with the policy of our country, direct your words at the politicians who make the orders, not the people who have to carry them out.

Aloha!

There is a time and place for everything. The Oscar ceremony is not the right place to make a political statement. While I agree with much of what Michael Moore had to say regarding the President, I don't think the telecast was the right place to say it. Yes, it definitely got his message out to more people than any of his documentaries, but if the purpose of his rant was to change people's opinions, then I think he failed. Maybe he should get a blog or something. Oh wait. He has one. Be warned that he is extreme in the way he puts things but as long as we live in a free country, he has the right to say what he believes in. I just wish he hadn't said them when he said them.

Aloha!

There are two critical objectives of this war. The first is to get Saddam. By get I mean kill or capture. Right now, it is too early to know one way or another the status of Saddam but be assured the US is holding back no effort to find him. This is because one of the lessons the current President learned from the elder Bush is that it was a mistake not to continue on to Baghdad in Gulf War I.

The second is to find weapons of mass destruction. While the President, his administration, and his military commanders try to but on a brave face about how world opinion does not matter to them, if the US does not find such weapons, whatever little international support they have will evaporate. But more importantly, domestic support will also substantially decline.

So what if either or both objectives are not met? No one can say for sure, but I think in the first instance, we will end up fighting Gulf War III to finish the job. In the second, domestic support will erode enough leading to the President losing the next election.

Internet access was down again this morning so who knows when you will be reading this.

The more the war progresses the stranger the strategy being employed seems. It appears the US has made a political decision to avoid inconveniencing the Iraqi people. By that I mean the US has avoided hitting the Iraqi infrastructure, at least in Baghdad, such as electricity, phone, water, food, roads, and air fields.

In addition, there appears to be an effort to supply humanitarian aid to Basra. Even as Iraqi troops are doing everything they can to stop the aid - up to an including using classic tactics such as ambush and hiding among the populace.

With all due respect to the Iraqis, the sooner the fighting gets over the better for everyone. Hence, to the extent that US troops are put in harms way because of these political decisions, is the extent the war could take much longer. I know it seems paradoxical, that by acting like barbarians we are actually being more humane, but war is like that.

We must not fall into the trap of loosing focus of the objectives and become distracted by side issues that do not directly lead to successful conclusion of the war. If focus is lost, events will spiral out of control and they will dictate the course of the war.

Aloha!

In relation to yesterday's post, some people are saying the reason Baghdad's infrastructure, up until recently, had not been targeted was because the President and most of his advisors felt that they could get Saddam's officers to surrender without a fight.

If this is true, then to say that idea is a non-starter is to be generous in the extreme. Does the U.S. continue to think everyone thinks the way we do? That "awe and shock" from the air would win the war without having to fight, on the ground, in the sand and mud? Do they think that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons when the obviously superior firepower of the U.S. military was displayed?

If this is what the planners thought would happen, then this is a flaw going back to at least that other old Texas wrangler President Johnson's strategy in Vietnam where he thought he could cut a deal with anyone.

This is not Gulf War I. The Iraqi are fighting for their country and their way of life. They are fighting foreign invaders on their own territory. Of course they will fight. Of course they will use classic guerrilla tactics against a larger, better equipped force. What do you think the early New England colonial irregulars did against the British?

Is this so obvious that no one wanted to acknowledge it?

In the end, the result will probably be the same, but how many U.S. forces will die because of a strategy based on fairy tales? If I've said it once, I'll say it again: If you are going to make war, to use a local phrase, Go for Broke. Use everything you have. Assume anything that moves is the enemy and kill it. To do otherwise is to place our forces in harms way for no reason.

Aloha!

Current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a man in the mold of former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara, wants to micro-manage war from thousands of miles away, while taking no blame when things don't work out (see, for example, how he blames the problems with supply lines and lack of troops on General Franks even though it is Rumsfeld who is directly responsible for both). Whatever happened to the buck stops here?

The full story is here.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

The events of September 11th have been and are continuing to be used as cover. Certain individuals not only want to roll back the post-Watergate reforms, forced through by Congress over a Presidential veto, but these same individuals also want to create centralized dictatorial powers greater than even President Nixon could have dreamed of.

It is frightening to freedom loving patriotic Americans to see the imperial powers this current president has amassed. The U.S. Constitution lays in shreds on the floor. The Republican U.S. Supreme Court has revealed itself to be a willing supporter of the process. The Republican controlled U.S Congress sprints away from its responsibility to be a check and balance against imperial usurpation of power. People convicted of high crimes, during the Watergate scandal, now run the government.

Is it any wonder our country has become an imperium? How long is it before we shall reap the bitter fruit of this choice?

See the story here.

As I've said before, there are two political objectives of this war. The first is to kill or capture Saddam Hussein and the second is find weapons of mass destruction.

Given the fog of war, and given the need to accomplish the objectives, first reports should never be believed until they have been confirmed. Having said that, there is a report that nerve agents have been detected in two locations in Iraq. I again caution everyone that this is a first report and it must be confirmed but you can follow the link yourself here from ABC news.

Late update. One of the two sites held only pesticides. See the story here.

Aloha!

There a line from Star Wars where Han Solo tells Luke Skywalker, after Luke has shot "down" a TIE fighter, that he shouldn't get cocky. If there was ever a time where this advice is valid, it is now, in Iraq.

Most politicians, once discredited and disgraced, remove themselves from politics. No, not because they suddenly find a sense of probity, but because no one with any brains will associate with them. Examples include former US Presidents Nixon and Clinton.

But some people just don't get it. They think that if they move far enough and wait long enough people will forget. They think they can find enough ignorant dupes that they can do their carpetbagger song and dance once again. They think that they can then weasel themselves back into politics and gorge themselves at public trough. They think that the money will come rolling in again and they can wield the power they crave so much.

Well, to a certain extent, they are right. People do forgot. People do have short memories. People do move on.

Chuck Quakenbush. A name those in California should remember (see one article here. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Times was the leading newspaper in uncovering this scandal. I say unfortunately because of its online policy of removing free access to old articles. Thus, making it very difficult to research issues such as this).

It is curious for a man to campaign (see his platform here) on lower insurance rates, tougher enforcement against individuals committing insurance fraud (but not, it appears, insurance companies), and greater competition through "easing regulatory burden" would actually do the following (see the full list here):

• Approve insurance rate increases, on average, of one every day, for the first three years he was insurance commissioner.

• Slashed the number of staff involved in investigating consumer complaints against insurance agencies.

• In relation to the Northridge earthquake - bailed out insurance companies while forcing homeowners to pay twice as much premium for half as much earthquake coverage.

All of of this, while getting millions in contributions from the very industry he was supposed to be regulating.

He was allowed to resign in disgrace, on July 10, 2000, rather than face what was probable impeachment. But now, three years later, he turns up here in Hawai'i saying he was framed. That he did nothing wrong - or at least, nothing illegal. He has given an interview with a national publication trying to get his name back into the limelight.

He has seeped into local Republican politics like oil seeps and spreads under a carpet - slowly, unseen. But the light of publicity has now been directed his way and the smart Republican fellow travelers are scattering like frightened roaches while the dumb ones are trying to attack the local newspaper for investigating what is going on (classic, stupid strategy of the guilty, go on the offensive and attack the accusers).

The more the local Republicans try to back this guy the dirtier they will get. And if they get dirty enough, they too shall fall.

Aloha!

Zero tolerance. It's such a powerful political image. Zero tolerance. We (those who have power) will not tolerate any behavior (from those without power). So much so that we will use no judgment in these situations. That is, regardless of the degree or grayness of circumstances, we will mindlessly apply maximum coercion to all instances.

We do this because it makes it appear we are doing something important. That we are so tired of dealing with the gray areas that is modern life that we can no longer trust using our own judgment. Hence, zero tolerance.

Under these conditions, when can family photos be considered to be felony child pornography? When you're poor immigrants living in Texas.

A family dropped off four roles of film to be developed at the neighborhood 1-hour type photo shop. The photo technician, upon developing and printing the film noticed that one role had several pictures of the couple's one and four-year-old children taking a bath while totally naked! Gasp! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the kids were naked while taking a bath. The horrible proof is right there in the pictures!

Now ladies, avert your eyes while we gentlemen read on. There was even one picture of, now get this, the one-year-old child sucking at his mother's, dare I say it, bare b r e a s t. Horrors! Mayhem! Cry havoc! Cats living with dogs! Rend the seventh seal!

Surely this is felony child pornography. Surely the children must be taken away from their parents to protect the very souls of these tragic victims. Oh, the horror! Oh, the pain these innocent infants must have felt!

Life is full of gray areas. Areas where we need to use our common sense and good judgment to make the hard decisions based on less than full information. Sometimes it will turn out we made the wrong call, but that does not mean we should abandon our responsibility to use your judgment. It does not mean we should hide behind the facade of zero tolerance to avoid having to make these decisions because to do so is to create a hell on earth. A hell reserved for those who run away from personal responsibility and instead take the easy way out.

See the full story here.

DISCLOSURE: Note that the family is apparently Seventh-day Adventist, as I am.

Aloha!

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being rich. There are good people who are rich and evil people who are poor (and vice versa). Even the Bible talks only about how the love of money is a sin and how that love makes it more difficult to go to Heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

So it should not come as a surprise when billionaire Warren Buffet comes out against a tax cut that would directly benefit him and others of his economic stratum (see the story here from the Washington Post. Note: requires free registration). Below are a few snippets of his column:

The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.

Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.

Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices.

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.

While being rich is a Good Thing, being greedy is something else (contrary to Gordon Gecko's famous "Greed is good." movie speech). The US Senate tax plan would steal, and I don't think that is too harsh a word, hundreds of millions of dollars from the middle class and working poor and give it to the top few percent that are rich. To what public purpose would this be done? How is it that Buffet now pays about the same percentage of his income (30 percent) as does the receptionist at the front door? How would it make things better, under the tax plan, for his tax rate to then drop to three percent while the receptionist continues to pay 30 percent?

As Buffet notes, the money would be invested and jobs would be created whether it was transferred to the rich or not. Hence, it seems, the only plausible explanation is to reward the people who helped the Senators to be where they are. But not only is this wrong-headed, it is poor public policy.

Aloha!

I came upon this link here while surfing Dan Gillmor's eJournal site. The link took me to Bill Moyers' reflections on Memorial Day. Below are a few paragraphs that I think focus on what democracy should be, but often is not, about.

Every Memorial Day I think about what these men did and what we owe them. They didn't go through hell so Kenny Boy Lay could betray his investors and workers at Enron, or for a political system built on legal bribery. It wasn't for corporate tax havens in Bermuda, or an economic system driven by the law of the jungle, or so a handful of media buccaneers could turn the public airwaves into private sewers.

Sure, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, freedom makes it possible for people to be crooks, but so does communism, and fascism, and monarchy. Democracy is about doing better. It's about fairness, justice, human rights, and yes, it's about equality, too; look it up.

I was never called on to do what soldiers do; I'll never know if I might have had their courage. But a journalist can help keep the record straight, on their behalf. They thought democracy was worth fighting for, even dying for. The least we can do is to help make democracy worthy of them.

Its been apparent for some time that the labels "Republican" and "Democrat" are not as useful as they once were. For example, how does a Republican stand for less government but then turn around and give to government sweeping police powers designed to crush the Constitution under its polished boots? How does a Republican hold that competition is good but then ram through sweeping changes in FCC rules that would do just the opposite?

Conversely, how does a Democrat say they are for the environment but then do everything they can to erode the beaches by building illegal sea walls so that they can increase the size of the pricey ocean-front mansions? Or how does a Democrat support public education but send their children to exclusive private schools?

Others, more perspicacious than I, have taken up the challenge. For example, fellow Daynoter Dr. Jerry Pournelle (see it here and rationalist Steven Den Beste (see it here) have tried to create new ways of describing the political arena.

Perhaps these are the first steps to a more descriptive language when speaking about politics. But I'm struck more by the contradictions in the new labels than by what they cover. In either case, we need new ways of describing ourselves and these are two efforts at starting the ball rolling.

I talked a little about the changing justification(s) for Gulf War II earlier. But I need to add one important point. The Bush Administration may have been wrong. Be aware that the discussion that follows refers to the Bush Administration and not the US military or their dependents.

Yes, I know, some people are now saying it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, it was about regime change (ask the people of many African nations about the need for regime change). It was about saving the Iraqi people from there own leader. To that I can only say you are gravely mistaken.

Remember back when the debate was centered on how one nation could attack another without first being fired upon? The sole ethical argument that could be made for this is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the other nation had the means and the intent to harm you first.

Note, both conditions must exist otherwise the justification fails. In other words, if I see you coming towards me I am not justified to shoot you dead. If I see that you have a gun in a holster, the threat level increases but I am still not justified in shooting you. If you are coming towards me yelling and screaming at me for sleeping with your wife the threat level increase even more, but I am still not justified in shooting you. If as you come within range you pull the gun out, point it at me, and say you are going to shoot me, I am now fully justified to try to shoot you first.

In this case, the Bush Administration tried to make the case that Iraq not only possessed weapons of mass destruction but also had immediate plans to use such weapons on us. That is, if we didn't shoot first, they surely would.

If that were true, and only if that were true as far as I can see, would there be case for a preemptive attack against another nation.

At this point, I can't say for sure whether Iraq possessed such weapons and was about to use them on us. But I can tell you this, if they are not found, it doesn't matter what kind of spin the Bush Administration wants to use and it doesn't matter if the Iraqis would have used such weapons had they possessed them - if they didn't possess them there would be no justification to preemptively attack them. And even if they did have them, you must still show that they intended to use them first.

I sincerely hope these weapons are found because if they aren't, all the Bush Administration will have done is created a thousand Osama bin Ladens.

----- o0o -----

I have our graduate school presentation before the Board of Trustees and Administration of the Hawai'i public Employees' Retirement System this morning so I gotta' go.

Aloha!

It occurred to me that yesterday's post on Iraq did not spend enough time on the question of regime change. First, be clear that invading Iraq will have some positive outcomes. Eventually. Perhaps in a year or two. Right now, the majority of Iraqi people are enduring a lower standard of living that they had before the war. This should not be a surprise to people. I'm sure the same thing occurred to the Japanese and Germans after World War II. But things will get better and I am thankful for that.

But lets be clear about one thing, we didn't invade Iraq to make things better for the Iraqi people and we surely didn't cross into sovereign territory to save the trees. While those things might be happy unintended consequences of our action, it wasn't why we went in. We went in, I hope, because we felt it was in our own best interests to do so.

Let me repeat that. We invaded a sovereign country because we felt it was in our best interests to do so. If this were only about regime change we would be in Rwanda, or Sudan, or Ivory Coast, or Zimbabwe. Those nations, if I can use that term, are hell holes. Millions of their citizens have been slaughtered like cattle. Literally. Yet, the U.S. does nothing.

Why? Because we don't see these African countries as threats to us and they don't have that much in resources that we feel are strategic to our country. I'm not going to get dragged into a discussion about oil so I will leave that to others. But my first point, being a threat to us is what my post from yesterday was about.

Either Hussein was an imminent threat to us or he wasn't. Hence, if you are President Bush, it seems to me you have two options. Use spin control and say it really wasn't about weapons of mass destruction at all: It was about regime change and saving the trees. Or, you can race around the desert trying to find the weapons (and Hussein).

Hawai'i Governor Linda "What? Me Spin a Story?" Lingle is at it again. She got 30 minutes of free TV time from a local station to broadcast what was a political campaign speech in the guise of news. All of the other stations declined to carry the speech. Perhaps not totally coincidentally, that same TV station then got a free trip to Japan with the Governor, paid by tax payer dollars, to cover her efforts to get more visitors to come to Hawai'i.

Neither the Governor nor the TV station see anything wrong with this picture. Neither see the co-opting of the adversarial relationship between the press and politicians as a Bad Thing. Heck, one hand washes the other, right? So what's the big deal about a business and government partnering to get the word out about the good works the Governor is doing?

Surely, you wouldn't suggest that the TV station might shade the reporting just a tad knowing that the bills are being paid by someone else? Surely, they wouldn't produce a puff piece about how spending taxpayer money on a junket is fine but funding for anti-child abuse safety programs should be line-item vetoed (which is what the Governor did just moments before going on her trip)?

Even better, the Governor used her classic response to those questioning her judgment by attacking the questioners and accusing them of not covering enough of the things she does purely out of the goodness of her heart. Why aren't all the TV stations giving her free time for campaign speeches? Why aren't all of the TV stations covering every carefully crafted press release? Why does she have so much trouble with these pesky questions while the Big Things she does for the state go unnoticed?

"Where is the justice?"; she asks. Indeed.

Just Googling. Search on "weapons of mass destruction" and you may get this. Search on "French military victories" and you might get this.

Aloha!

Two-Faced Two-Step. Would President Bush's administration break the law and breach national security to keep the truth from being told? Perhaps. In a world where the ends justify the means, I could see how easily this could happen. One hopes, however, and perhaps I am being naive, that it has not.

A writer for The Nation (see the column here) says the Bush administration may have blown the cover of a CIA operative in order to punish the operative and her husband. The husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, went to Niger to run down the source of the now infamous Iraqi nuclear weapons program buy.

The Ambassador came back and indicated the report of the buy was probably not true. Of course, the Bush Administration already reeling from the lack of evidence pointing to weapons of mass destruction, did not look kindly on the report. And if you believe The Nation, decided to make sure no one else got the bright idea of telling the truth by outing the Ambassador's wife. Of course, no one is confirming or denying she works for the CIA but the Ambassador is quoted as saying:

Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.

This story has more twists and turns than Mulholland Drive. But, as the saying goes in Washington, it has traction. And it is growing, regardless of these efforts to make it go away, or perhaps because of it.

Voo Doo Two. Let me tell you a secret: There is no free lunch. One wonders how much longer the Bush administration can last. I mean, how long can you continue to cut taxes while increasing spending but say, with a straight face, that the increasing deficit has nothing to do with this (see this article here on this and other Bush administration flim flam)? What part of Economics 101 did these people fail to understand? Cutting taxes and increasing spending works only in an expanding economy. One in which tax revenues are increasing through increased economic activity.

Note, and this is the critical point, the economy must already be expanding when you cut the taxes. If it is not, doing these things will guarantee deficits and no, cutting taxes will not lead to economic expansion so much as it will lead to greater deficits. Forget not the results of the Reagan administration's dalliance with this wrong-headed policy. Huge deficits. Inflation. Unemployment. Will we never learn?

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

I haven't said anything directly about Adm. Poindexter, ret., and I'm not going to say a lot now, but I think the time has come to say something.

First, some background. Admiral Poindexter was the originator of the Total Information Awareness program, the Policy Analysis Market (the ill-fated attempt to trade "futures contracts that deal with underlying fundamentals of relevance to the Middle East."), and during President Reagan's administration - the Iran-Contra debacle - the sale of weapons to Iran so that the profit could be funneled to certain Nicaraguan forces.

All of these programs, in isolation, may have had merits. But it is this isolation, this firewall between open governance and his secretive, anti-democratic ideas, that made him so dangerous to freedom loving Americans.

Why? There are several common threads that run through his programs. All were hatched as responses to what, I am sure, he felt were genuine national emergencies that required extraordinary measures on the part of patriots like, in his estimation, himself.

I am reminded of the famous speech from the movie A Few Good Men, which, he probably would have much sympathy, if not understanding, with:

Jessep (Jack Nicholson): You want answers?

Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.

Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!

Secondly, and in relation to the above quote, all three of these programs assume that the ends justify the means. That it is proper to take the extreme measure of disregarding the Constitution in times of; again, in his estimation, great national peril.

But it is in exactly these perilous times that the Constitution, and the rights contained therein, is formulated. For in good times, there would be no need for them. But in bad, when the fever of pseudo-patriotism overrides all, is when the shield that is the Constitution against well meaning, but sadly misguided individuals, is most needed.

Thirdly, all were designed in secret with no opportunity for public comment or debate. Democracy does not and cannot exist in secrecy. Yes, I understand that any nation must keep its secrets. But the secrets are to be kept from its enemies, not its own people. The secrecy is a weapon against its foreign adversaries, not against its citizens.

Fourth, all would trade freedom for safety. I believe there must be balance between the two. Taking either to extremes would not support democracy. In the first instance, absolute freedom must assume we have no enemies. Clearly, this is not the case. In the second instance, absolute safety would require absolute governmental control.

I also believe the balance may shift back and forth as forces also shift. But the objective should always be to maintain the maximum amount of liberty as possible.

In closing, I am further reminded of another speech, not from a movie, but from one of our great orators and patriots:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings...

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us...

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775 before the Virginia House of Burgesses

Aloha!

I'm really short on time today so maybe I shouldn't bring this subject up until I have to the time to run down some links. But I wanted to say that I'm becoming convinced that the government's response to the attacks on September 11 (e.g., "Patriot Act") were a cover to implement changes to our society that they wanted to make but couldn't figure out how to do without the equivalent of another "Pearl Harbor."

That is, the changes the administration in Washington wanted to make were so anti-liberty/anti-Constitution that even they knew the changes would never be enacted unless there was an event of such national proportions that people would give up their liberty to gain a little illusory safety.

For example, within six months of passage of the Act, prosecutors began to switch from targeting al-Qaida terrorists to US citizens suspected of being smugglers, con artists, or drug dealers.

In the case of drug labs, people are being charged with creating chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction.

Within six months of passing the Act, the US Justice Department urged prosecutors to use the Act not against bin Laden, but to use wiretaps against ordinary US citizens which they suspect of wrong doing. To use the Act to seize private assets of US citizens without due process of law. To use the Act to access private financial dealings of US citizens that have absolutely no connection to terrorism at the whim of prosecutors without any checks and balances.

It is becoming clear that these changes were planned years before the attacks of September 11th and were always targeted at US citizens, not foreign terrorists. That is, they felt it was time for a change and this is what 49 percent of the voters had elected them to do. For too long criminals were given rights. That the pendulum had swung too far to the left and it was time for some good old right-wing goon squads to deliver justice swiftly, if not Constitutionally.

Further, it is becoming clear that these are examples of misguided, and no doubt righteously frustrated officials feeling that the ends justify the means. That safety is always more important than liberty. That only Big Brother knows what is best for their ignorant subjects. And most tragically, that anyone who opposes Big Brother is by definition subversive and must be immediately imprisoned without a hearing before an impartial judge or, heaven forbid, a jury of his or her peers.

See one chilling round-up of governmental abuses of the Act here.

If you don't think any of this can happen to you, remember this:

• Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government purposes are beneficent...The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

• In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me. -- Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1938. He was sent to the concentration camp at Dachau, where he remained until he was freed by the Allied forces in 1945.

Aloha!

Below are some quick comments about things I have either not said anything or very little for various reasons.

Re: Outing of CIA Operative. Not everything that needs to come out about this incident of naming a CIA employee has come out. So perhaps it would be a good idea to name an independent investigator to look at this. What I can say for sure is just because someone works at Langley does not mean they are not working under cover. There are many operatives at Langley who never go to foreign countries but are nonetheless put in mortal danger when their covers are blown. Hence, to say that she worked only at Langley and therefore, by definition, can not be working under cover is naive at best. At worst, she and the people she ran could now be in danger. One can only hope no one, in any administration, would be so immoral and cynical as to put someone in danger for political gain.

Re: California Recall Election. I am pro democracy. I am pro referendum, initiative, and recall. Further, I believe that the answer for any problems with democracy is more democracy. So how do I square that with the circus that is California politics?

I have no good answer for this. But I think one of the lessons of this recall election is that 30 percent is too low a number to start a recall. One has to wonder how it is 30 percent of the electorate can nullify the will of the 51 percent that elected the Governor in the first place?

Secondly, what future governor will ever make the hard, controversial decisions that is best for the state knowing he or she will be recalled by a vocal minority? Conversely, politicians do their best to avoid making decisions anyway and, to a great extent, the problems the present governor is dealing with came from previous decisions not made. But I think this situation is made even worse by the lessons of this recall.

As an aside, I am sickened by the dirty tactics displayed against one of the candidates. I don't think it is a coincidence that the alleged charges of sexual harassment have come out a mere week before the election. I don't think it is a coincidence that the charges come so late in the campaign as to not give the candidate time to adequately respond. Whether or not the charges are true, to wait until the very end to come out with this dreck is despicable and, I think, could very well back fire on the people who are making these charges.

I don't know what the answer to all this is. The problems that whoever is governor of California has will not be solved by 30 second sound bites or slick campaign ads. But I know this, if the citizens of California don't solve this soon, things will only get worse. A lot worse.

Re: US Baseball. CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN!

Aloha!

We are doomed to repeat our mistakes. Awhile back I talked about Our Governor proposing to increase taxes to fund her new mass (as in too poor to own a Mercedes SUV) transportation system even though she and her fellow Republicans campaigned on a no new taxes platform. I also stated Democrats would not oppose the increase because of the financial benefits that would also accrue to them from all the proposed construction projects.

What I did not expect was Democrats wanting to trump the Governor by increasing taxes even more than she wants so that pet projects critical public service programs can be funded in the home districts of said Democrats. I guess one should never under estimate the stupidity short-sightedness of some politicians. Even as these Democrats push for higher taxes the voters are taking names and will remember them on election day.

Interestingly enough, the only people, other than tax payers, that are protesting the proposed tax increases are her fellow Republicans. Most, if not all, of her fellow travelers (to coin a phrase) have disavowed ever knowing the Governor and are refusing to support the proposal.

Now, let me say that we haven't had an excise tax increase in decades, all the while costs have been going up. So, perhaps a case could be made that we should do so now. But that case has not yet been made and if it isn't, the only mass transit that will occur is the one that transports the loosing Democrats out of the Legislature.

Government can be a huge waste of resources. There, I've said it. One of the things I do not miss from my days as a Budget Analyst is doing what-if scenarios. That is, creating financial spreadsheets that forecast costs based on various factors. Don't get me wrong, being open to innovative solutions is a Good Thing. But randomly casting about, by creating multiple scenarios that will never happen, is a huge waste of time.

This waste of time eats up countless man-hours of work and serves no purpose. For example, when I was with the Hawai'i Senate Committee on Ways and Means, each scenario would consume several hundred pages of printouts. The preparation of said printouts would take days. Heck, just trying to be sure the numbers balanced took countless hours. We did this, even though we tried to get the Senators to read simple summary spreadsheets that would give them the same information, but in a much quicker and more understandable and flexible format. But nooooo. They refused to budge and wanted multiple scenarios, none of which would have any chance of passing, created using an old mainframe-based computer system.

While I genuinely like and respect my bosses, it is very difficult to work under these conditions. Now that I'm being dragged into doing scenarios again, I'm beginning to get some of the old feelings of frustration. It's one thing to be told to do these things. But it's another to be told, and in the same breath, be told that they will not be used. So why do it? I dunno know. I just work here.

A Story of Creation
In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.

Shortly thereafter God was in receipt of a notice to show cause why He shouldn't be cited for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary planning permit for the project, but was stymied by a Cease and Desist Order for the earthly part.

At the hearing, God was asked why He began His earthly project in the first place. He replied that He just liked to be creative.

Then God said, "Let there be light."

Officials immediately demanded to know how the light would be made. Would it require strip mining? What about thermal pollution?

God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire, and provisional approval was granted with the proviso that no smoke would result.

The authorities demanded the issuance of a building permit, and (to conserve energy) required that the light be left off half the time. God agreed, saying He would call the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Officials replied that they were only interested in protecting the environment, not in semantics.

God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herb and such as many seed."

The EPA agreed, so long as only native seed was used.

Then God said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures having life; and the fowl that may fly over the earth."

Officials pointed out this would require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything went along smoothly until God declared that He intended to complete the project in six days.

Officials informed God it would take at least 200 days to review His many waiver applications and environmental impact statements. After that there would have to be a public hearing, and then there would be a 10-12 month probationary period before....

At this point, God created Hell. But as that name was already held by a private company incorporated in Aruba and had patented the name, He instead called it "Government".

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.

Congress said,"Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said,"How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said,"How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said,"How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said,"Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said,"We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman.

Three Boys
Three boys are in the schoolyard bragging of how great their fathers are.

The first one says:"Well, my father runs the fastest. He can fire an arrow, and start to run, I tell you, he gets there before the arrow".

The second one says:"Ha! You think that's fast! My father is a hunter. He can shoot his gun and be there before the bullet".

The third one listens to the other two and shakes his head. He then says:"You two know nothing about fast. My father is a civil servant. He stops working at 4:30 and he is home by 3:45"!!

Aloha!

Surf's Up, Don'tcha Know? People surf the waves all over the world. From the home of surfing in Hawai'i, to California, Australia, and Florida. But who would have thought of Sheboygan, Wisconsin? Yes, even in far off, and very chilly Wisconsin, the Aloha Spirit has spread the word of surfing. See the story here. Hang loose, brah.

On a Completely Different Note, Let's talk about hypocrisy. Yes, politicians are low hanging fruit when it comes to talking about hypocritical behavior, but that's because they are so richly deserving. For example, the Republicans are complaining about the Democrats blocking the confirmation of four potential life long federal judges. One must remember that this is the very same Republican Congress that blocked 60 of President Clinton's nominations. On the other hand, Democrats have so far confirmed 168 of President Bush's nominations. So how is it that Republicans have any right to complain?

For a local example, property owners are up in arms about a proposed city ordinance that would increase the size of parking spaces by three inches (~7.6cm). That's right, three more inches to shoe-horn those massive SUVs who insist it is their right to park in "compact" sized stalls (these are the very same folks who claim to be disabled and therefore have a right to park in disabled only stalls). Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! Think of the huge cost to the property owners to re-stripe the spaces (required only when they would otherwise do re-striping anyway)!

How soon we forget that these very same property owners, with the aid of compliant local politicians, pushed through an amendment to the then current ordinance to downsize the spaces so the owners could increase the numbers of spaces in a given area. How soon we forget that they didn't complain one bit about the millions of dollars they spent to immediately re-stripe those stalls.

All I can say is get out of your chairs. Go to your windows. Open the window. Stick your head out and shout: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Oh wait, that's been done before. Well then, remember these people and don't vote for them next year.

Aloha!

George Soros in an Alantic article talks about power and how President Bush and the so called neocons have used it post September 11th. Once again, there is evidence that the events of September 11th were used by the neocons as an excuse to push their agenda. I've talked about the domestic changes that were rammed through Congress but this article talks about the foreign policy angle. Namely, the US will use its power to maintain its military hegemony and more importantly, use that power in pre-emptive strikes against anyone who is seen as a threat. Or as Sofos puts it:

[T]he doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Aloha!

Fellow Daynoter Phil Hough has a good post on traffic cameras in the UK. Namely, that traffic cameras tend to be situated such that much revenue is generated but safety is, at best, a secondary consideration. That is, the cameras are not placed in areas where there have been the most collisions/deaths, rather they are placed where it will generate the most money.

It is possible to look at this situation from various perspectives. From a budget point of view, it is important to some people to show that you are running government like a business. Hence, you must show a profit (or at least no deficit). The problem in this situation is that the goal is, or at least should be, to reduce collisions/deaths, not make money. In fact, it may be impossible to make money if you only place the cameras where deaths have occurred because, thank God, the numbers have been decreasing over the years (pdf file). In fact, the only statistic that has been increasing have been alcohol related deaths (we'll come back to that later).

From a political point of view, getting elected is job one. One way of doing this is to show that you are doing things. What you are doing may not solve a problem, indeed, you may actually create worse ones. But the bad results won't be known for awhile and the act of doing something is seen now. Indeed, you can create a 30-second political spot showing you are a man/woman of action and no one could point to anything negative. So, when your constituents come to you and ask, nay demand that you do something about the carnage on the carriageway, you can install a traffic cam, along with the attendant hoopla (knowing full well that it will be ineffective in lowering crashes because most are caused by people who drink while under the influence of alcohol).

From a power perspective, this is a marvelous example of using adverse consequences (paying a large fine and/or higher insurance rates) to change behavior. It is Big Brother looking over your shoulder and recording your actions. But it only works if you are thinking about the consequences because if you are under the influence alcohol, you probably are no longer thinking.

In the end, using traffic cameras to control speed tries to treat an irrelevant but easy to detect symptom (speeding). But does nothing to cure the disease - driving under the influence, because it isn't speed that is causing the crashes. Rather, it's people who drink and drive. Figure out how to stop that and you make the highways safer for everyone. Thanks to Phil for the timely seasonal post.

It was good news to wake up to the announcement that Saddam Hussein had been captured. Congratulations to the armed forces who have been searching for him over the last eight or nine months. From what I understand, it was indeed a triumph of intelligence gathering that led to his capture. I've said it before but I'll say it here again, if you want to capture or kill a particular individual you can't do it the cheap way, by remote control, from thousands of miles away. You have to do it on the ground, and get up close and personal to do it.

By the way, the so called NeoCons, who have been back pedalling furiously over these long months saying the war wasn't about capturing Saddam or finding weapons of mass destruction are now saying they knew all along they would get him and they were just joking when they said it didn't matter whether he was captured or not. I guess they were also joking when they said he was killed many months ago because he sure looks pretty alive now.

Aloha!

While we were misdirected and watching Sadam's mouth being probed the President was signing into law what is euphemistically called Patriot Act II. The President and his Republican run Congressional allies slipped through sweeping new governmental controls massively concentrating dictatorial powers into the Executive branch of the federal government.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is now free to gather financial information from almost any source without the requirement of judicial review and warrant. Heretofore, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protected U.S. citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The Amendment was passed to thwart the abuse that comes with absolute power, even if used for what some would describe as beneficial purposes.

The new law does away with this protection by allowing the FBI to require entities to provide all your financial information by simply sending them a letter. Once the business receives the letter, they can not inform you of the inquiry and must provide everything listed in the letter.

In my opinion, this is yet another indication that the Bush administration has an agenda to create the most powerful, some would say Imperial, centralized government in the history of this country. An agenda that they will push forward using any means possible.

I fear we will all live to severely regret ever having elected these people into power.

You can read more about it here.

The Feds swooped down yesterday and confiscated hundreds of deadly scales. Scales? You mean those balances that tell you how much something weighs? Yup, the very same. Federal agents stormed into 10 O'ahu convenience stores and confiscated the scales as part of its "war against drugs." The US Attorney, Ed Kubo, called it a "warning shot across the bow" to businesses that the Feds mean business.

The prosecutor noted that the federal penalty against selling "drug paraphernalia" is up to three years in jail and a $250,000 fine. To be fair, [insert disclaimer here] they also seized rolling papers and glass pipes but I have to wonder how this translates into fewer people on drugs. In my opinion, arresting these people makes for good news coverage and it's easy to tally up the number of items taken but, other than Federal officials, does anyone in their right mind think this will deter a drug addict from doing drugs? Does anyone, other than this Republican administration, think the way to deal with drug addicts is to try to keep them from buying rolling papers?

I'm sorry, but however well intentioned the prosecutor may be, he and his bosses are simply wrong headed about this. Let's try to get more drug treatment programs, let's try to provide a better education and living environment. Heck, even just sending addicts to jail is better than having the Black Helicopters(tm) coming to fight the war on scales, I mean drugs. Pathetic.

One barrier to reforming the public school system are some teachers who, perhaps full of hubris, think they know it all and that anyone else, other than a teacher, who would dare propose something couldn't possibly know anything. Given that assumption, it is no wonder that reform is so difficult for these teachers.

When it comes to computers, I find the majority of teachers know far less than their students. In fact, I find teachers some of the least proficient in basic computer understanding of any group I've ever met. I know of a PhD who, literally, has a hard time turning the computer on or off. While some teachers have learned to use PC-based applications, few understand the computer or the operating system that runs on it.

One example of this is found in a Texas Star-Telegram article where a 13-year-old middle school student was suspended for three days for learning how to send a text message over the school's computer network. The student learned how to do this dastardly act from his father. The command he used was net send.

First, lets be clear that the DOS box command net is but one of a series of tools (at the command line type in net help for the list of tools) that comes with Windows. Typically, they are used to diagnose network problems but, as is the case with the net send command, can be used for other purposes such as a crude form of instant messaging that creates very little network overhead.

To be fair, it is possible to mess things up using some of the net command tools. And given the inventiveness of children, it may be possible to cause problems using the net send command. But that's not what this student did. He sent one word and was suspended for three days.

How does this punishment fit the "crime"? Especially since, apparently, what he did is not in violation of any of the school's posted rules!

One of the most powerful dialectics of pedagogy is to test the environment by experimenting. That is, we learn by trying. We learn by doing things and seeing what happens. As we master these behaviors, we can move forward and test new hypotheses. This is not to say we can, or even should, experiment without limits. It is easy to fashion a situation in which unlimited testing will not teach anything because the experimenter will be dead. But that's not what where talking about here.

We're talking about a child, learning how to use a legitimate network-based tool, to send a message. The message he sent to the entire domain, not knowing it was going to the entire school, was "Hey!". For this he was suspended for three days.

What lesson are we teaching here? What is it we want our students to learn? Do we want students that are inquisitive and eager to learn or do we want automatons too afraid to touch a keyboard for fear of violating a rule that does not exist but will result in a suspension?

I quote below the full text of a chilling email sent from the student's teacher to the writer of the news article:

Mr. L., I want to communicate to you my concerns about some of the 'reporting' done by [the] Star-Telegram and my concern about an article I have heard you might be writing. Too often, people who do not know the real world of public education feel that they are the 'experts' who have all the solutions and that their opinions are as valuable as those who live in this world daily.

If you comment upon events that are reported to you by a parent and do not fully investigate those reports before you publish your article, then you are one of those people. I have not heard that you have attempted to contact those people who really know the situation.

I am speaking about one incident in the Birdville School District in which a student was expelled for tampering with the district's computers. Having been a computer teacher in the real world of public education for many years, let me say that suspension of students who are guilty of such tampering sends a message to all students that is beneficial and necessary.

Students should not be of the opinion that it is acceptable to abuse the privileges that are afforded them by the taxpayers. If they are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished.

Hacking into a system should be highest on the list of tampering violations. I believe the other students are now aware that the district takes this seriously and will not tolerate such misuse of our equipment.

I invite you, parents, our state representatives, and anyone else that thinks they know how a teacher or a district should react to ANY situation to come live with us for a while -- be a substitute teacher for a few weeks and learn the real world of public education.

[Name deleted to protect the guilty]

I was a graduate student teacher for a semester about six months ago so I will take up her challenge:

1. Using the net send command to say "Hey!" is not hacking in either sense of the word. That is, it is neither an elegant coding algorithm solution to a problem nor an illegal break-in to a protected computer system.

2. Suspending a student for this action sends a powerful message. The message it sends is that authority is both absolute and unaccountable. That teachers and administrators, contrary to the litany of whining that we hear, have absolute power to destroy any possibility of constructive exploration and learning. That "violations" to rules that do not exist are mere technicalities. Students are second class citizens and do not have due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

3. Some teachers lack of knowledge and understanding of basic computer systems seems to know no bounds. This must be dealt with either by learning from students or by reading books or by taking classes from others that are knowledgable about such things.

A wise person once said that the first step in learning is to understand what you don't know. If you know nothing else, know that you may have done a great disservice to your community in general and to this student in particular.

See the child's side of the story here.

Aloha!

To this day, many people don't seem to understand what the Watergate debacle was all about. While there are many ways of looking at the series of burglaries, wiretaps, forgeries, and obstruction of justice that spanned several years, I think one central lesson of Watergate was that the ends very rarely, if ever, justify the means. Even, given the context of the times, if you feel there are enemies everywhere trying to get you (sounds oddly familiar), it does not mean it is okay to employ "dirty tricks" to gain political advantage.

But perhaps the present generation needs to re-learn this lesson. This story in the Boston Globe, if true, says Republican staff members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee gained electronic access to confidential Democratic memos on a server shared by both parties. While the access may have been made possible through the error of a technician who set the permissions incorrectly, this does not relieve the staffers from responsibility. Think of it this way, if a bank employee inadvertently leaves the bank vault door wide open does not mean it is then legal, moral, or ethical to walk in and take the money therein. The money does not belong to you. Notwithstanding your ability to gain easy access to it. In other words, access does not mean you are authorized to take.

Perhaps as a way of blowing smoke, some Republican apologists are saying an electronic memo is not "property" and therefore can't be stolen. Hmmm, perhaps they better talk to their fellow travelers over at the RIAA because they would differ from their self-serving interpretation of law.

But the main point is, and the Republicans have not disputed this, is that documents were copied and that it was done over the period of at least six months and perhaps longer. In addition, some of said documents were given to columnist Robert Novak (yes, this is the same person who is under investigation for leaking the name of a CIA analyst).

Clearly, the taking of the documents were unethical. Whether the taking was also illegal is for others to decide. But the underlying feeling, on the part of the Republican staffers, is that they can do anything they want because the ends justify it.

A belated Gong Xi Fa Cai to all. Especially you monkeys out there, of which, I am one of.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

There are pundits out there who are saying that the Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq so that they (the Democrats) can win in the November elections. Let's put that one to rest right now.

Democrats win on domestic issues not the results of foreign wars. Hence, if the concerns Democrats focus on are okay, that is, if the economy is doing well, if unemployment is not really out-of-line, the Republicans win.

Conversely, Republicans win during times of war or unrest. If anyone needs the "war on terrorism" to continue it is the Republicans. Remember how the country rallied round the President after September 11th? Well, if any one needs the fear that comes with war, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, it's the Republicans because they know as soon as the war ends, so do they.

It's a small victory over the forces of evil but an AP story says a "federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations."

Every little bit helps but time is running out. It is only a matter of when, not if, the new Patriot Act III - The Empire Strikes Back, makes its debut. So even as the courts slowly whittle away at the nearly fully operational Battle Star(tm), the Dark Side(tm) moves forward.

ABC New's John Stossel had a recent TV program in which he debunked common myths (Can you bunk a myth? - ed.). Some of these public policy questions will probably make you mad because it is something you believe in. If so, just move on. I'm not here to debate them. Go talk to ABC News.:

1. Getting cold can give you a cold. Nope, coming in contact with a virus or bacteria can cause a cold or the flu, not the temperature.

2. We have less free time than we used to. Compared to when and free to do what? Since 1965, a researcher has been studying the subject and found "we're working less, marrying later, having fewer children, and retiring earlier." What we do with our free time is watch hours of TV. Stop watching TV and you'll find you have plenty of time to do other things.

3. American families require two incomes. This one depends on what standard of living you want, but not necessarily need. It's about priorities and what you think is important.

   "Fifty years ago, the average family in the United States had one car. Today the norm is two or three. Houses have more than doubled in square footage, and shoppers just seem to spend as much as they want."

   "Most families don't have to have both parents working. They do this by choice. People have decided they want to maintain a very high income lifestyle on two incomes to have all the things to keep up with the Joneses,"

4. Money CAN buy happiness. This one may be true if you are making less than $50,00USD. But it seems that over that amount, having more doesn't bring more happiness.

5. Republicans shrink government and Democrats make it bigger. You've all heard the Republicans say BigGovernment(tm) is not the answer, it's the problem. The truth is, Republicans have doubled the size of government since they took control of Congress. No, this is not as a result of the "war on terrorism." It's the result of the war on your pocket book. Congress has expanded almost every department while at the same time sending home pork barrel projects to their home district. Strict fiscal responsibility? Give me a break.

6. The rich don't pay their fare share of taxes. According to the IRS (you decide whether to believe them - ed.), "the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes."

7. Chemicals are killing us. This is one of those areas where we don't do a cost benefit analysis. On one hand, we fear everything will give us cancer (which it may, in high enough doses). But on the other hand, what is the cost of not using chemicals like DDT? In Africa, the answer is two to three million people a year may die because they can't use DDT to kill the mosquitos that carry disease. While I'm not saying we should flood the world with chemicals, I am saying we need to rationally determine what are the costs and what are the benefits. Nothing, including pure oxygen or pure water is always safe in all doses. Hence, banning all chemicals will not make us "safe." Use chemicals rationally and at the lowest effective dose and the benefits will be greater than the costs.

8. Guns are bad. Based on this myth, "gun control" laws were passed to do back ground checks, to have waiting periods, and outright bans on certain types of guns and ammunition. The problem is, the Centers for Disease Control could not find any positive relationship between these laws and violent crime. In other words, these laws, which reduce or eliminate freedom of choice, don't make us safer. In fact, the only thing felons fear is an armed citizenry who will use these arms to protect themselves and their families. Let's be clear, laws don't make us safer, the police don't make us safer, and the FBI doesn't make us safer. Gun toting citizens make us safer.

9. We're drowning in garbage. Perhaps this one needs to be defined better. Some places are drowning in garbage but others are looking to make money from taking your garbage. The problem is economically getting the garbage from where it is produced to where it is wanted.

Aloha!

We live in a very cynical time and I know people can get especially jaded when it comes to politics. I mean, when it comes to things like political "dirty tricks", surely everyone does it. Right? But the truth is, no, not everyone does. Not everyone stoops to lies and innuendo to win. Not everyone believes the end justifies the means.

It's sort of like when you were in high school and you thought everyone was "doing it." Except you, of course. But they weren't. In fact, the great majority weren't.

But to believe that everyone does dirty tricks in politics reduces respect for the process and leads to lower voting rates. For a republic, this is a very dangerous thing. If people disengage from the political process, it leaves only the hardcore power brokers to do as they will. If you believe nothing else, believe that the power brokers, whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, don't care what is best for you. What they care about is what's best for themselves. But I digress.

I've been involved in politics for 30 years and the only dirty tricks I've seen seem to be the trademark of certain people. These people tend to call themselves Republicans. Before you go running off into the night screaming, let me say I don't believe these people are true Republicans. Rather, these people wrap themselves in that word like cowards wrap themselves in the flag - both hoping to draw attention away from their lack of courage, ethics, and morality.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a "photograph" is making the Internet rounds that purports to show U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda at a 1970 anti-war rally. First, let's be clear that Kerry, a war veteran, came back from Vietnam a changed man. He went there, from all reports, to serve his country and he did so with distinction. But he came back and protested the very war he had participated in as being unjust and based on false pretenses.

Did he speak out against the war? Yes. Did he speak at a rally that Fonda also attended? Yes. Did the photo capture him standing next to Fonda at this rally? Nope. The picture is a fabrication merging two photos taken at two different locations on two different dates. There are already other fabrications floating like dirt on the waters. Don't believe them.

As for me, up untill I saw the fabrication, I was undecided as to who I would vote for at our Hawai'i Democratic Party caucus next week Tuesday. I am no longer undecided...Give Peace a Chance. Kerry for President.

Aloha!

Some paraphrased questions, from Honolulu Advertiser editorial columnist David Shapiro. Think about them when U.S. citizens go to the polls in November:

1. Did President Bush exercise sound judgment by going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

2. Is the cost of the wars worth the record federal budget deficits that will tie our hands when we need to spend money on other areas (including security)?

3. Has the preoccupation with the Middle-East blinded us to the real and possibly present danger from North Korea?

4. Having instituted regime change, no matter what we now do in Afghanistan or Iraq, aren't both headed towards civil war?

5. What are our goals, how will we achieve them, and how will we know when we have met them?

Aloha!

Note this post is about religion so if you are offended by that, please click on through and come back tomorrow.

I am a Christian. Because I want to worship the Lord as I see fit, I jealousy guard against other people's efforts, Christian or otherwise, to force me to worship, or not, how they think I must. This means I am against Sunday laws, invoking God's name (often in vain) in governmental affairs, and efforts to amend the Constitution to establish a State religion. It's this last strategy, attacking the authority of the courts, that I want to talk about today (insert disclaimer here).

Many people who call themselves Christians are upset. They are upset about the possibility of gay people getting married even as they themselves get divorced, multiple times. They are upset about having to remove religious symbols (the Ten Commandments) from the steps of the courthouse even as they constantly and happily violate all of those Commandments. They are upset about not being able to push their religion in public schools (prayer) even as they don't believe in prayer itself. They are violently upset over women being able to choose whether to have children even as they kill those who disagree.

But the courts have been the last blockade against their hateful attempts to force other people to act as they wish. The Executive branch is now held by one of their own. The Congress is controlled by their fellow travelers. Having passed laws to push their hate filled agendas, they find themselves blocked by "activist" courts.

Time after time their blatant attempts to get around the Constitution have been struck down by the courts. There has been much gnashing of teeth and renting of cloaks over this. So far, the courts alone have held against their attacks, although it is but a matter of time before the appointments or election of like minded judges will work their way up, if they haven't already, to the Supreme Court.

Until that darkest of days, these people are trying to remove the jurisdiction of the courts by amending the Constitution. The first is the well publicized and President Bush supported amendment to ban marriages between gays. Note that it goes farther than just getting married. These people are opposed to gays. Period. So it doesn't matter if you want to call it "civil unions" or anything else for that matter. They consider gays evil and want to outlaw them.

The second is the "Religious Liberties Restoration Act". This bill is intended to ensure the courts do not have jurisdiction over, among other things, display of the Ten Commandments. Note that they don't care if you break all of the Commandments, just that they be allowed to display them in government buildings without the courts ordering them not to.

The third prong of their attack is the " Constitution Restoration Act of 2004". This one says "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

In addition, if that wasn't sweeping enough, the courts are prohibited from interpreting the Constitution in any other framework other than "...constitutional law and English common law." What this boils down to is legal precedent from other jurisdictions, save from English common law, would be prohibited. The apparent reasoning behind narrowing the definition is to enshrine the very thing the framers were trying to avoid by coming to America from England, the freedom to worship, or not worship, as you saw fit without the interference of a State religion.

In these dark and uncertain times it is easy for people to seek what they think is the safety of religious symbols. But if the sacrifice of Christ taught us anything, it was that the symbols of the past were but a way of pointing to His coming. That these symbols were signs that God was with us and would someday send His Son to take on our sins so that, through grace, we could enter into the kingdom of God. It is dismaying to me to see people confusing the symbols with God Himself and to try to get around the courts to do so.

Aloha!

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

So the Salary Commission's report is complete but I need to make a bunch of copies for the Legislature so I'll leave you with this:

Pentagon officials believe they have been unable to locate Bin Laden because he has found a place to hide out where: (1) It is easy to get in if you have the money; (2) No one will recognize or remember you; (3) No one will realize that you have disappeared; (4) No one keeps any records of your comings and goings; and (5) You have no obligations or responsibilities.

Pentagon analysts are still puzzled, however, as to how Bin Laden found out about the Texas Air National Guard in the first place.

By the way, Dr. K is back to posting. Two days in a row, in fact.

Aloha!

I guess it was just a matter of time, since the number of people in the military doesn't seem to be sufficient for the mission(s) it is being used for, but it looks like a trial balloon is being floated for a "limited" draft program.

This article here says the Selective Service System ("the draft") is in the planning stages for promulgating rules and procedures to draft people into the military.

This is being defined as a "special skills" draft designed to get people with linguistics or computer science backgrounds. These two groups would be added to the already set-up system for health care professionals.

Everyone is taking great pains to say this is just for planning purposes and that no one expects a draft to be implemented.

In other news, the Selective Service also announced a program to lease the Brooklyn bridge to indigenous peoples under the SPWBA Act of 1924.

A Wall Street Journal article on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US, a commission looking into the events of September 11 to determine who did what and when, indicates that to this day, there is much confusion as to what happened.

Confusion, after this type of event, is not a surprise. In fact, if the Commission finds that there wasn't any confusion, I'd be very suspicious of their findings. Unfortunately, the President, Vice President, and some of his officials are trying to spin the story to make it appear that Government responded in a coordinated, rational, and planned fashion. The truth is, this is far from accurate.

In any case, the next attack, when it comes, will probably use a different vector. Hence, a plan designed specifically to respond to civilian planes flying into buildings will have little value.

Hence, I hope the focus of the Commission will be on what general lessons to learn, that is: What were the impediments to getting good information on which to make decisions? What were the emergency plans in place and how could they be improved? What were the defensive military/civilian assets available and how could they be better deployed? In other words, how could the system be improved to quickly identify a threat and coordinate an effective response to said threat?

The report is due out on July 26th but I am not encouraged by the spin the White House is taking on this so I would be surprised if the Commission's report will have anything of value. If this turns out to be the case, an important opportunity to prepare for the future will have been lost.

Aloha!

Speaking of the blind leading the blind, this listing from the American Progress site is a humorous look at a serious subject. Namely, why did the US invade Iraq?

When a culture declines to a point in which it is totally lost, that is, when it cant' find its own way, then the tendency is to grasp at anyone who says they know which direction to go. Even if that person is as blind as everyone else.

Such is the case in this CNN article about a self-described "psychic's tip" that a bomb was aboard a plane. Government employees, being ever careful to cover their hind regions, canceled American Airlines flight 1304 while they used a bomb sniffing dog to search the plane. Of course, no bomb was found and hundreds of people were delayed by the cancellation.

I hate legislative hearings. No, let me rephrase. I hate how most legislative hearings are run. At least, the ones I've seen.

Our hearing on increasing judicial salaries was among seven other resolutions scheduled for 10:15am on Friday. I got there a little before 10 and found there would be two other agendas before us, one scheduled at 9:45 and the other and 10:00. I walked into the hearing room and found that the 9:45 hearing had not yet started. Sigh. A little after 10:00, they started the 9:45 agenda. It was after 11:30 by the time they got around to hearing our resolution.

Everyone who testified was against the resolution killing the salary recommendations. At noon, the Committee adjourned - without finishing the agenda and rescheduled the hearing for 6:00 p.m. that evening with "decision making" on Tuesday. Big Sigh.

I know legislators are really busy people, and perhaps they did us a favor by going on as long before they adjourned (I would have had to return at 6:00 p.m. otherwise), but don't they care about their constituents? Don't they care that members of the public have to take time off from their jobs to come down and wait to testify? Forget me, I'm a government worker and get paid to wait around [where do I sign up? - ed.] but the public doesn't.

If I were John Q. Public, waiting for my Representative to hear what I have to say and got treated like this I might very well vote for someone else. Anyone else.

In any case, very few people actually believe that anything is decided in a hearing. Usually, the decisions have already been made long before the hearing is scheduled, much less held. It reminds me of the Japanese form of theater called Noh. In many respects, what's happening in front of the audience is boring and has very little relevance or importance to what is happening behind the scenes. Which reminds of another Japanese term: shibai. Shibai is also a kind of theater, but in local slang, it means a show performed to hide something else going on. That is, what you see in front of you has no meaning and is intended to fool you into thinking one thing when another is actually occurring.

Most legislative hearings look like shibai to me. But if it is, the reason it is shibai is that we, the citizens, don't make it anything else. We are responsible for the legislators in office. We voted them in. Perhaps it's time for a change.

The problem is, poll after poll says all politicians are corrupt. Except, that is, the one we vote for. And so the same people get returned into office. Year after year. And nothing changes. Well, it is your legislator that is the problem. Go to a hearing. Any hearing. Watch how they run it. Do they start on time? Do they run things efficiently, while at the same time giving everyone a chance to be heard? Note the testimony and track what their decision is. Is your legislator responsive to the public? Does he or she vote the way you would want them to? No, they don't have to vote the way you want every time, but do they do so the great majority of the time?

If they don't, perhaps it's time to find someone who will. It's up to you. You choose. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here. Aloha!

Honolulu Advertiser

Honolulu Star Bulletin

Although the Judicial Salary Commission is administratively attached to the Judicial Council, it is an independent body tasked with "determining the salaries of the justices and judges and appointed judiciary administrative officers..." (§608-1.5(b), HRS).

To ensure its independence, the Commission is composed of five citizens: two appointed by the Speaker of the House, two by the President of the Senate, and one by the Governor.

The Commissioners clearly took their charge seriously and met every two weeks since the middle of November through the end of last month. The Commission reviewed numerous materials, as reflected in its lengthy Report and Appendix, and came to the conclusion that judicial salaries in Hawaii were neither fair nor just and that the State could not afford not to adjust salaries.

The resolution to disapprove the Commission's salary recommendations indicates the following objections:

1. The salary recommendations would increase the Judiciary's total budget by "over one percent..."

2. The salary recommendations "represent a permanent increase..."

3. The Legislature "refuses to commit future legislature to the liability resulting from these annual 3.5 percent salary increases without knowing their full impact on future financial plans..."

Point number one places the salary increase within the context of the Judiciary's total budget. As such, the FY06 recommendation would increase the Judiciary's total budget by 1.11 percent. If this increase is divided over the period since the last increase, it would be about 1/5th of one percent (1.11 divided by 5), on average, per year.

Point number two indicates the recommendations would be permanent. While it is true that almost all operating appropriations, whether for the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches, are reoccurring, it is difficult to see what the relevance of this point is within the context of the central question: Is a modest increase of 1/5th of one percent per year justified? If it is justified, than the fact that the recommendation is reoccurring simply mirrors the fact that the judges are required now, and in the future.

Point number three seems to miss the fact that §608-1.5(c), HRS, specifically authorizes "incremental increases that take effect over the span of years occurring prior to the convening of the next salary commission." It appears that the current Salary Commission was simply observing the statutory requirement when it recommended incremental increases. It is unclear, then, how there can be an objection to their methodology.

As to the full impact of, for example, the $373,842 recommended for FY07 on the State's financial plan, one must remember the context in which this recommendation resides. To put this in perspective, the recommendation reflects an increase of about 1/200th of one percent of the combined Executive, Judicial, and Legislative appropriations for FY04.

Lastly, as the Commission Report states;

If we are to expect quality justice from our courts...then we must do more to ensure that we are...attracting and retaining the most highly qualified individuals in the State. If we should put off to the future, adequate judicial compensation, we run the clear and significant risk of jeopardizing the tradition of excellence established within our Judiciary. Judicial excellence cannot be preserved unless compensation levels are sufficient.

In conclusion, fundamental reforms in how judicial salaries are determined came to fruition with Act 123, SLH 2003. These reforms are vital steps toward securing the rule of law in the State of Hawaii. To reject the Judicial Salary Commission Report, and the salary recommendations therein, is to jeopardize these reforms which are at the foundation of our democracy.

For these reasons I respectfully urge you to hold H.C.R. No. 189 in Committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Aloha!

Trust. Not having it causes more work for everyone.

The State House Committee on Labor and Public Employment met yesterday morning for decision making. Unfortunately, the decision they decided on was to "defer" decision making. That is, the two most important concurrent resolutions, whether to reject the salary recommendations for the Executive and Judicial Branches, are temporarily deferred. No word on when they will decide what to do.

Open, transparent government is critical to building trust. I've talked before on how important trust is in any relationship. Whether we're talking about business dealings, personal interactions, or government actions, having an open record that lets everyone see what is going on and why tends to build trust.

That doesn't mean you may agree with every decision, but at least you can see what the decision was based on and why it was chosen.

But turn that around and imagine a situation in which everything is done behind closed doors and nothing that you see has meaning. That Alice in Wonderland world is pretty much what the Legislature is doing in regards to these concurrent resolutions.

The committee chair said the concurrent resolutions were deferred while they "reviewed the Commissions' reports." One would think that the legislators would have read the report before co-offering concurrent resolutions to reject the recommendations found in these reports. But if it is true, as implied, that they have not "reviewed" the reports, then this leaves them open to the very charges of pettiness that they are so vehemently denying.

For why else would you co-offer a concurrent resolution to kill the recommendations, having never read the recommendations, if it weren't due to the fact that you want to somehow punish the Republican governor?

Indeed, operating the way the Legislature is doing leads to all kinds of scenarios. Hence, we are forced to track not only these concurrent resolutions, but also several bills that could be "gutted" and replaced with legislation to reverse the hard won reforms last year in what the State Attorney General called "an outbreak of good government."

I wish I could say I trusted the Legislature to do what's right by Hawaii's people, but if their actions so far is an indication of anything, I can't. So we all lose.

Aloha!

Sometimes getting all worked up about something helps me to write about it. But sometimes, I just get so worked up it's best that I cool down before putting fingers to keyboard. I'll let you decide which I should have done today [g].

Yesterday, the Hawaii Senate Committee on Ways and Means staged a theatrical release sometimes known as a public hearing. The hearing was on a concurrent resolution to reject the Judicial Salary Commission recommendations.

As I've stated before, the Judicial Salary Commission is an independent commission tasked with determining the salaries of judges in Hawaii. Four of of the five Commission members are picked by the Legislature (the fifth by the Governor). Hence, if there is an axe to grind, it's not the Judiciary that is doing it.

Part of the law authorizes the Commission to set salaries from July 1, 2004 through July 1, 2011. Now, I'd be the first to say that trying to project living conditions that far into the future is a daunting task. Nonetheless, unless the Commission decided to give judges a one-time raise, and then tell them that's all they would ever get for the next eight years, the Commissioners would have to do just such a projection.

So they did and what they come up with was 3.5 percent per year. This amount is in line with what other states have been giving their judges and more or less parallels the cost of living, as projected into the future.

Of all the things to object to, the Committee Chair objected to this. He said he could not accept the 3.5 percent per year increases because he didn't know what impact it would have in the future. News to Senator, the impact will be 3.5 percent per year.

Obviously, what he was objecting to wasn't the 3.5 percent. What he was objecting to was the Executive Salary Commission recommendations. Yes, I said Executive, not Judicial, salary recommendations. For you see, we have a Republican Governor and a Democratic party Legislature. In what has been described by the press as incredible pettiness, the Legislature doesn't want to give her, and her appointed Directors a raise (the last one being 14 years ago while the Legislature gave themselves a raise last year). So, in a tortured logic only politicians can understand, the Senate wants to kill the pay raise for judges also because, it is said, it would look bad to kill the Execute branch pay raise but let the Judiciary go forward.

Now you understand why I say the Legislature is involved in theater. What they say on stage is different from what they do. But, in the end, this play will be a tragedy because everyone looses. Including the Legislators.

On a related note, the Senate Committee also heard a similar concurrent resolution to kill raises for the Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Their situation is a little different but I wish we had the cajones could write testimony like the people supporting OHA. One of the testifiers, a woman lawyer from a law corporation dealing with Hawaiian issues, told the legislators not to "twist the knife stuck in the back of Hawaiians..." by passing their resolution. Man, that is great imagery in writing.

If only we could be so direct and to the heart of the matter.

Aloha!

Sometimes it's interesting to imagine, no matter how bad things are now, how they could get a lot worse. For example, what if we got rid of all the lawyers and politicians. Okay, so may that's not a good example.[g] But think, for a second, about what would happen if we didn't have judges and because of this the doors of our courts were closed.

All murderers, rapists, and thieves caught by the police would have to be released because there would be no impartial court to adjudicate the matters. All real property in probate would go to the highest bidder or the person with the biggest gun, whichever came first. All people wanting to adopt children would not have a legal way of doing so. All divorces would be decided by a flip of a coin. If you were hit by someone driving under the influence he or she could just drive away, scot free. If your employer didn't pay your salary there would be nothing you could do. In other words, there would be no rule of law and hence, no justice.

I realize, for some people, this would be paradise. But for most of us, this would be anarchy. And yet, we seem to value the work of judges so lowly that sometimes I think they should form a union and go on strike - just so people could experience the lower quality of life we would all have.

But even worse, if that is possible, imagine if we had judges, but they were uniformly lacking in education, experience, good judicial temperament, and plain common sense. Imagine going before a judge who worried more about how to send his or her children to a good college than whether you got a fair trial. Imagine a judge who supplemented her income by taking a second job working for a large corporation. Then imagine trying to sue that corporation in her courtroom. Imagine coming before a judge that had flunked out of law school in Grenada and then is asked to judge whether you go to prison or pay huge fines. Imagine coming before a judge so full of rage and frustration that he routinely needs to take sedatives to get through the day.

We aren't anywhere near being that bad. Yet. In the years I've worked here in the Judiciary I have had nothing but respect and admiration for the high quality of men and women who serve as judges. But it won't always be this way if we aren't willing to pay them (Checkout the California university system. At one time, it was a model of what higher education can and should be. Now, due to decades of declining funding, the best and the brightest professors have left. The system is a shambles and will probably never reach the level it was before.)

There is no magic bullet. There is no "doing more with less" when what you have is already too little. Voodoo economics has not, does not, and will not work. The bottom line is, if you want excellence, you have to pay for it.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

Our Great Hawaii Senate Committee on Ways and Means, in apparent haste to pass a budget early enough to be in session should the Governor veto said budget, is finding that it may have made a few mistakes here and there. For example, deleting 23 vacant positions that are 100 percent federally funded. If you are looking to minimize costs to the state, you usually don't delete federally funded positions since no state funds are involved (and thus, you don't save any state money by deleting them). Further, the particular positions involved actually bring in to the state about $265 million in additional federal funds for vocational rehabilitation of the blind. Hence, rather than saving state taxes, you actually end up spending hundreds of millions more. This is called a lose-lose situation.

In a hearing in which the head of the department where the positions were cut asked the Chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means why the positions were deleted, the Chair only responded by saying his "heart bleeds" for her problems. This is how our great legislative system, dominated by Democrats, seems to run now-a-days. His heart bleeds. Mr. Chair, forget about your bleeding heart and do a budget that makes sense and does what's right by the citizens of this state.

In other news, an attorney made famous by the hundreds of law suits he filed regarding alleged violations of the American with Disabilities Act, has been suspended from practicing law in Hawaii due to misappropriation of funds and several other violations of Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. The suspension is to last a year and a day.

Aloha!

Up to the Middle Ages and perhaps a bit beyond, it was possible to wage what I would call private wars. That is, a war started by a person and funded fully by that person. But as the cost and theater of war expanded, it became increasingly difficult, if not impossible for one person to afford it.

That is not to say private wars no longer exist. Even in the present, some local conflicts, such as those funded by the drug cartels, may fall under this definition.

But what seems to be emerging is a return to private wars in the sense that, through the use of terrorist techniques first developed in Arabic countries, one person can literally fund and execute a war against, for example, a country.

The logistics of a private war is made easier by several factors. We live in a global economy with global transportation systems. A lone terrorist can be in Baghdad today and Boston tomorrow. We also have the freedom to move around the country without being challenged.

We have global money systems in which funds in Nassau can be transferred, in an instant, to an account in New York.

We live in an open society in which information, such as what is needed to create a bomb is readily available on the Internet. Even the parts to cook such a lethal recipe is readily available in country.

All of these ingredients make it possible for one well financed person to wage war on a country.

Royal Australian Air Force Group Captain Peter Layton has written an essay that looks carefully at the rise of the hashshashin, from which we get the word assassin, and how they are characteristic of "The New Arab Way of War." While I don't necessarily agree with all his essay says, there is much to learn from it.

As an aside, he footnotes the word assassin thusly:

The word assassin seems particularly applicable to the foot soldiers of the modern Arab way of war. Assassin is used here as one who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; or one who treacherously murders anyone unprepared for defense. The name comes from the Assassins of the East, followers of the Shaikh al-Jabal (Old Man of the Mountain). This was a Muslim order active in Persia and Syria about 1090-1272 whose members believed their religious duty was to harass and murder their enemies. The word derives from medieval Latin assassinus, which is derived from the Arabic hashshashin, and first appeared in English early in the 1600s.

Aloha!

I have a 8:30 hearing this morning at the Legislature. If the state House of Representatives adopts the concurrent resolution being heard, the recommendations of the Judicial Salary Commission will be rejected and the Commission will need to reconvene in November.

I'll let you know how things went on Monday.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

So, the Hawai'i House Committee on Labor and Public Employment met and decided to amend the concurrent resolution that would reject the recommendations of the Judicial Salary Commission. The changes would allow the 14 percent increase for next year, but delete the incremental increases of 3.5 percent year for the following years.

Since this is different from the version the Senate recently passed (which rejects everything), the chances are there will be a conference committee, made up of members from the House and the Senate, to work out the differences.

The philosophers have long debated the nature of man (don't write letters, I'm using the generic sense of the word here). Is he, by nature, good or not?

Some people think that man is good and that there are too many rules. Rules that stifle freedom and ingenuity. Rules that keep people from reaching their full potential. Others think man is by nature bad. Hence, there must be restrictions on his actions because if left alone, he will make decisions that will be a detriment to others, if not also himself. Some people take a middle ground saying man is basically good but has tendencies to be otherwise. For what it's worth, I think we have the capacity to be both.

Whichever way you believe, the serious allegations that came to light last week regarding the treatment of prisoners by U.S. and perhaps U.K. forces in Iraq is very disturbing. Not surprising, but very disturbing nonetheless.

I say not surprising because of the ground breaking 1971 research, I've noted before, referred to as the Stanford Prison Study under Professor Philip G. Zimbardo (see also Professor Stanley Milgram's 1965 experiment with authority and obedience). Basically, what it found was that we all have the capacity to exhibit sadistic behavior. That even "normal people can take ghastly actions." In order to prevent such behaviors, systems must be in place to identify, deter, and if needed, punish such behavior before it spreads.

Another lesson from the experiment is that one person can make a difference. If not for the actions of Professor Christina Maslach, irreparable harm may have occurred. But through the fearless way in which she confronted Zimbardo, the experiment ended well before its scheduled conclusion. If nothing else, this demonstrates both the worst and best that we are.

Perhaps it is through self-awareness of our failings that we can be on guard and therefore avoid these situations in the future.

Aloha!

Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 21:22:18 -0700
From: JHR
Subject: Good (and Evil) May be in the Eye of the Beholder

Dan -

--To thoroughly mix my metaphors.

You wrote: "Perhaps it is through self-awareness of our failings that we can be on guard and therefore avoid these situations in the future."

This implies that there exists a standard definition of "failings" that is not only accepted, but taken for granted by all of humanity. IMO, that is hardly the case. What we may consider horrendous failure on the part of Moslems, Nazis, Red China, the Inquisition, to name a few, had the approval of Church or Government or both at the time they occurred. A devout Moslem sees no failure in murdering or enslaving infidels (you and me). In fact, he/she/it is praised as devout and courageous by Moslem nations and religious leaders.

I have no solution to offer. I only think we should be very careful of ill-defined terms; those subject to many differing valid interpretations. (The word "fair" is another one of my pet words in this category. Obviously - what seems eminently fair to one may be as legitimately UNfair to another. that's why Civil Courts do such a thriving business!)

Yet such behavior as exemplified by the Military in question cannot be ignored because there is no perfect solution. Such is life. We would diminish our personal humanity by ignoring it.

Other than this criticism, I applaud your post.

Regards,

JHR
--

Aloha!

"Worse than Watergate: The Secrect Presidency of George W. Bush" by former President Nixon White House insider John Dean.

In Dean's estimation, the secrecy with which Bush and Dick Cheney govern is not merely a preferred system of management but an obsessive strategy meant to conceal a deeply troubling agenda of corporate favoritism and a dramatic growth in unchecked power for the executive branch that put at risk the lives of American citizens, civil liberties, and the Constitution.

Aloha!

All the laws in the world don't mean anything if most people don't voluntarily follow them. This is because there just aren't enough police to catch every last person who doesn't pay their taxes, or always runs a red light, or who routinely speeds at 25mph over the speed limit, or burglarize homes, or commit rape, murder, or other mayhem.

There are thousands of other laws, important and not so important to follow with legislatures adding hundreds more per year. Hence, if the great majority of people don't voluntarily refrain from breaking these laws, society as we know it falls apart.

Yes, I know there are people out there that feel there shouldn't be any laws. But fortunately, for the rest of us, they are a small minority. All you have I to do is point to countries in Africa/Asia/Europe/Middle East where the law has no meaning to illustrate the point.

But lately, it seems to me, our state, if not our country, is getting close to reaching a point of no return. A point which, once crossed, will move us into a territory full of worst case scenarios.

Some of the signs are small. Like more and more people ignoring stop lights or stop signs. But some are larger, like people openly taking on the police rather than running when officers arrive to break up fights. Like the police themselves taking the law into their own hands and meteing out a swift justice with their fists.

It's like a veil of restraint has been removed and we are left with the law of the jungle to govern over us.

We do indeed live in darks times and, I fear, the times just got a lot darker.

The good news is that the Legislature failed to adopt the concurrent resolution that would have rejected the recommendations of the Judicial Salary Commission. This means the salary recommendations became law as of May 6, 2004 and the judges may get their raise on July 1, 2005.

Now the bad news. The Legislature will get one more shot at it during the next session starting in January of next year. It's anyone's guess as to what will happen but rumor is the Legislature may amend or repeal the law that setup the Salary Commission and refuse to implement some or all of the recommended salary increases.

At this point, all I can say is we will take this one step at a time, planning for the worst but hoping for the best...

The Army Times has an editorial calling for the relieving of "top leaders" from their duties for their failure in leadership in the Iraqi Abu Ghraib-gate (you saw the term here first - ed.) prison scandal. While they do not specifically say so, it seems they include the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

If that weren't enough, the well respected conservative columnist George Will seems to be at least raising the question as to Rumsfeld resigning.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, after finding out that CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite had turned against the war in Vietnam, said: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." And if he'd lost middle America, he wasn't going the get re-elected.

While I will admit that it is not a perfect analogy, I wonder if conservative sources such as the Army Times and George Will are calling for the resignation of our top leaders that perhaps our leaders too have lost the support of middle America.

Speaking of dissension among the ranks, the Washington Post has an article quoting various military officials saying U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should resign. While I agree with them, I don't see it happening unless more pictures of prisoner abuse make it to the public eye. Something, so far, that has not happened.

What has happened is exactly what I expected to happen from our Republican Neo-Cons. Secretary Rumsfeld has gone on the offensive attacking his critics and even went so far as to do a " Wag the Dog" moment by going to Iraq yesterday. Thus controlling the story and spinning it in direction away from him. Obviously, the strategy is to stall, deflect, and attack so that his opponents don't have the opportunity to bring him down.

The problem with all of this is that he, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz should resign. They have led us into a war without a clear, honest, and strategically important objective. Moreover, they have led us into a war without a clear understanding of what victory should look like, or what is usually called an exit strategy.

But worst of all, in my estimation, they have led us into a war whereby they have substituted political concerns for military strategies. From the very beginning, Secretary Rumsfeld scripted what I call "War on the Cheap". By that I mean he wanted to use tactics designed to use as few soldiers as possible with as little cost as possible. For example, before and during the early part of the war, the message was Iraq would be rebuilt using money from the sale of their own oil (something that has not happened and does not appear to be something that will happen in the future). Another example was the blitzkrieg strategy to strike quickly as far as possible as soon as possible. All the while avoiding house-to-house fighting. It was argued that victory would come quickly and with little cost of money or life.

Unfortunately, no strategy survives actual combat because your enemies have a way of forcing changes in strategy. The Cheap War has turned into the expensive war. The cheap strategy has turned into one in which hundreds have died since, what was called the cessation of major operations.

It is one thing to invade a land. But it is completely another to hold it.

The bottom line is we are increasingly involved in a war in which we don't know why we are there and don't know how to get out of. You may well think this sounds vaguely familiar to another war in another time and place, but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

All I can say is what I've said before: What is our objective? How do we plan to achieve this objective? And how do we know when we've reached it and can go home?

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

In other legal news, the US Justice Department is enforcing an 1872 law used "when brothels sent prostitute laden with booze onto ships as they made their way to harbor. The idea was to get the sailors so drunk they could be whisked to shore and held in bondage,..." Only, the Justice Department is using the law against the environmental group Greenpeace:

The environmental group is accused of sailor mongering because it boarded a freighter in April 2002 that was carrying illegally felled Amazon mahogany to Miami. It says the prosecution is revenge for its criticism of the environmental policies of President Bush, whom it calls the "Toxic Texan.""

What did the group do when it boarded the ship? They hung up a sign saying, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging."

All I can say is when a government no longer represents the People, it is incumbent upon said People to vote them out of office.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. From the US Declaration of Independence - July 4, 1776

You have a choice America. Yes, we were told that even if President Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer that he would surround himself by people who were. Like Donald Rumsfeld. Like Dick Cheney. Well, do you want four more years of this? Vote in November.

Aloha!

As further proof that the Bush administration considers the American people to be subjects, not citizens with unalienable rights, read this article from the Washington Post about how the U.S. Justice Department has censored a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on an ACLU challenge to the so called Patriot Act.

It seems even legal challenges to the Act are illegal to publish about as the ACLU found out when it announced its challenge.

The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.

The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "

Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article that says political appointees in the Bush administration overrode objections to new rules regarding the treatment of prisoners of war put in effect soon after the events of September 11, 2001. It appears these individuals, up to and including Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, rammed through changes that appear counter to the Geneva Convention. This, even after career military officers in the Judge Advocate General's Office strenuously objected to what they considered to be inappropriate, if not illegal, changes to prisoner treatment.

CSM persuasively makes the case that these changes set the stage for the abuse that occurred in Iraq.

As the Bush administration does its best to contain and spin the Iraq prison scandal, the forces against them are not sitting on their hands.

And while the power of the Presidency is far reaching, and getting bigger with a compliant Republican Congress, this UPI story says some in the US Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, and certain "relatively moderate" Republicans [is that an oxymoron? - ed.] are doing their best to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth out.

Right now, the trail leads to at least the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

But for me, unless more pictures that show even more abuse come to light, I don't see Rumsfeld resigning.

Perhaps it's because they are the first on the ground, but leave it to the Marines to tell it as it is. Follow this link to read what General Anthony Zinni, USMC (retired), former commander of CENTCOM, has to say about Iraq and the mistakes that have been made, the processes that could be used to correct them, and what may happen if we don't:

The Mistakes

1. The mistaken belief that containment as a policy doesn't work.
2. We didn't understand the region, the culture, the situation, and the issues, and the effect that what we were about to do was going to have on those.
3. We created a false rationale for going in to get public support.
4. We failed to internationalize the effort.
5. We underestimated the task.
6. We propped up and trusted the Iraqi exiles.
7. Lack of planning.
8. Insufficiency of military forces on the ground.
9. The ad hoc organization, that is, the Coalition Provisional Authority.
10. A series of bad decisions on the ground: deBaathification, disbanding the Army, and lack of dialogue/identification with Sunni and Shia leadership.

The Process

1. Sponsor a United Nations resolution that would allow others to participate.
2. Ask for planning and advisory assistance from neighboring countries.
3. Help setup and train police, border security, and armies for Iraq and neighboring countries to protect the borders and critical infrastructure.
4. Assist Iraqi small businesses to create needed jobs.
5. Define what form of government Iraq will have by helping to create political parties, under UN supervision.
6. Get Iraqis to "own" both the problems and the solutions.

What happens if things continue as they are? The insurgents will continue following the classic Maoist doctrine by

"disabling the infrastructure; frightening the people; attacking the outside interveners; attacking those that cooperate with them. Show them that the local authorities are ineffective. You do this by a series of violent acts, terrorist activities. We saw this in Vietnam. You saw it in classic insurgencies.

"You then move to convince people that the government is powerless and corrupt; that the outside intervention forces are there as powers to dominate colonial powers. And you try to make the case that you are the only viable representative they have. And eventually you move that to civil war. Unless the insurgency completes itself and succeeds, you'll move it to civil war."

Aloha!

Somewhere someone is winning one for the Gipper. Happy trails to you. Optimist. Full of humor. American.

I don't want to be an alarmist here. But. Democracy and freedom in the U.S. is hanging by a thread. The U.S. Supreme Court, through a series of 5 to 4 decisions, has so far turned away those who are afraid of or detest freedom and the personal responsibility that comes with it.

But President Bush and his fellow travelers in Congress are one justice away from achieving what the enemies of America have not been able to do since our founding over 200 years ago - to burn the Constitution and grind the ashes into the dirt.

I don't want yet another law to "fight the war against" [insert your favorite issue here]. I don't want yet another law to imprison innocent citizens without being charged, without access to legal counsel, without basic human rights once guaranteed in the Constitution.

We live in an unsafe world and all the laws man can design will not change that. I am reminded of something H. L. Menken once said: "The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."

We live in a time that hangs in the balance. If we choose wisely we may have freedom. Choose unwisely and we will have oppression the likes of which we have never seen here before.

Aloha!

Speaking of the unreal. Sometimes, I have to wonder if the present administration in Washington is evil or just really, really stupid. This article here says the Bush administration is looking into what has to be done to postpone the presidential elections in November in the event of a terrorist attack.

Excuse my paranoia here but why would we need to postpone an election? In my opinion, the only reason would be if all 50 states were attacked simultaneously and because of the destruction, all 50 election commissions were eliminated. Barring that, there is absolutely no reason to be even launching such a trial balloon.

The founders set up a system that has been resilient through two world wars and various conflicts. A terrorist attack does not mean we need to postpone anything. Yes, it's always good to be prepared and have contingency plans in place, but we are talking about end of the world kinds of attacks. If such does occur, voting would probably not be high on the list of things to be worrying about.

Otherwise, the only reason to "temporarily" postpone an election is to avoid being voted out of office. I realize dictators in ThirdWorld countries do this all the time and become Presidents for life. But, this is the USA so it really makes me angry when politicians in Washington start talking about postponing elections.

I know this is becoming almost trite, but we are doing to ourselves what terrorist could never do. We may as well burn the Constitution now and be done with it rather than continue with the facade perpetuated by this administration.

Aloha!

I don't know if this is for real but former US President Clinton apparently has a blog. A pretty good one at that (in the sense that it appears to be a conversation and not written by some marketing droid). Again, I don't know if this is for real and if so, I don't know if he actually writes the posts. But whomever is doing it is showing a lot of insight into who President Clinton is/was/may become.

Having said that, I'm not sure I want to hear much of what former President Clinton has to say. It is difficult for me to separate his humanity and his public self as President. I still have so much disappointment over what he did in office and how, in no small part, it paved the way for who we have now. I believe, had he resigned, Gore would be President today.

I guess I shouldn't judge President Clinton harshly as I've never had to face the challenges he has. But he seems to be trying to get me to feel sorry for him. He seems to be saying how he is so misunderstood and lonely.

I don't know. People say we hate in others that which we hate in ourselves. Perhaps I see too much of myself in him? Judge him for yourself.

This seems like something that theOnion would dream up but Reuters is reporting that the US House of Representatives has deleted $25,000 from the $19.4 billion foreign aid budget for next year. The $25,000 was earmarked for Saudi Arabia. I guess the Republican dominated House wants to show that they really, really mean business about not supporting regimes that harbor terrorists by reducing their budget by 0.00001 percent. Knowing that the House has done this makes me feel so much safer. Not.

Speaking of wiped and loaded. Many people say the press is biased to the left. Perhaps, perhaps not. In Hawaii, we have at least two Republican run media sources. One is the morning newspaper and the other is the Fox affiliate [gasp!] TV station.

How do I know this? Well, this weekend a Republican state representative "approached a plainclothes police officer outside a Kapiolani Park restroom and groped his crotch, police said."

[Name of the person omitted] "(R, Olowalu-Kapalua) was arrested for fourth-degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor offense, for an incident which allegedly took place at 11:15 p.m." The incident took place in a public restroom in a public park where people have complained to the police of unwanted homosexual advances by individuals in the area.

First, be clear that even though the representative has said he "plans to take full responsibility" for the incident, he has not been convicted of anything. But the fact he was arrested for this kind of conduct is newsworthy. This kind of thing does not happen every day. In fact, I cannot think of any legislator being arrested for this kind of thing. Ever.

So, you would think this would make all the local newspapers and TV stations.

You would be wrong. As far as I could see, the Republican TV station never reported the incident during its newscast the next day. On the other hand, I think the other two TV stations led their newscasts with the story.

The Republican newspaper buried the story four sections deep and then used the word Democrat in the bold-type subheading and the first paragraph before naming the representative as a Republican in the second paragraph (one would assume the editors were trying to confuse people into thinking the representative was a Democrat?). The unbiased newspaper had the story on the front page above the fold.

Perhaps in other areas of the US there is a left bias but here in olde Hawai'i, the right wing is strong and doesn't see any reason to report anything that might reflect badly on their party. Even if it's true.

As for me, as a Democrat, I don't care if the man is a homosexual or bisexual or totally abstinent. What he does in this private life is his own business (as long as he doesn't harm anyone else). The main question is does he represent the people of his district? I will leave it up to the good people of Maui to decide that question in the coming elections but how would they know how to decide if the media never report such things?

In regards to the Sandy Burger investigation two people come to mind: Fawn Hall and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North. 'Nuff said.

In related rumors, it is said Washington is not known for its oversight of federal programs or the money spent on them (especially if it's one of "their" programs). But remember this, it's your tax money being spent (and wasted). Every time someone illegally spends money on one program, it means another doesn't have enough to run or more money has to come out of your pocket to replace it.

In the end, the danger that occurs when one administration replaces another is the feeling, on the part of the new administration, that the previous administration consisted of a bunch of clowns who didn't know what they were doing and were only there because of their political connections. Which may or may not be true.

Of course, all of the appointees from the new administration are there only because of their political connections but that's different because, it is said, that they know what they're doing. Only, they don't. There are many totally unqualified people in this Republican administration who have no experience running the departments they head. Indeed, some of them don't have experience running any department, much less the one they head. What's further, they appear ready, willing, and able to ignore/break/feign ignorance of the law to make it appear they know what they are doing.

Reflecting on this situation, I think what brought down the Hawai'i Republicans in 1954 and Hawai'i Democrats in 2002 was the same thing. Hubris. Given this situation, I think the current Republican administration (in Hawai'i and in Washington, D.C.) has already sown the seeds of their own downfall.

Even though presidential hopeful Mr. Ralph Nader denies that people voting for him is a vote for President Bush, it should not be a surprise to anyone that of the 30,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot in Michigan, 5,400 came from his campaign, and 43,000 came from the Republican party (see the story here).

Obviously, the Republicans don't want Nader to become president. What they want is people voting for Nader instead of Kerry, just like they did in the last election - thus making Bush the winner. All I can say is anyone who believes anything Nader has to say, including his books, really deserves Mr. Bush as President.

As noted last week, I have all day meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday so posting will be short on those days.

Aloha!

While conversations, facilitated by blogs can be a good thing, there are those out there who confuse the medium as just another way to get their tired old message out. For example, this article from the Wonkette that indicates a supposed unrehearsed online chat session with the President's daughters turns out sounding like something scripted by Karl Rove (yikes!).

Liberalism. Who would of thought President George W. Bush would turn out to be a rampant liberal? But that is exactly what blogger Andrew Sullivan is saying President Bush really is (see the post here). Points to ponder:

• President Bush's foreign policy is expansionist (having invaded two sovereign countries) and is based on the radical notion of reformist nation building.

• President Bush has gone on an unprecedented binge of federal spending.

• There is no agriculture subsidy that your tax dollars shouldn't be spent on.

• The drug entitlement program he rammed through Congress (while lying about the cost) may bankrupt the government.

• He has usurped states rights in a blatant power grab based on his feeling that centralized government knows what's best.

• He has appointed radical activist juritst to the federal bench in the hope of making law through the courts rather than through Congress.

In essence, everything you thought President Bush is, is wrong.

This year, more than ever, is the year of the blogger. So it should not be a surprise when the most interesting thing to come out of the political conventions will be the coverage provided by bloggers (read one story about it here). If nothing else, you will have the opportunity to hear many sides of the story (instead of the controlled three or four you would get from the major media). This is a good thing.

Speaking of people to disbelieve, Fox's TV host Bill O'Reilly is taken to task for making allegedly false statements regarding one Jeremy Glick. Mr. Glick lost his father in the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, Mr. Glick does not support the war in Iraq and Mr. O'Reilly apparently believes that if you oppose the administration line you must support terrorists. Stanford Professor of Law Larry Lessig has a post, done earlier this year, that does everyone a favor by dissecting what Mr. O'Reilly said, what Mr. Glick said and lays out just how unfair and unbalanced Mr. O'Reilly appears to be. Professor Lessig reports, you decide.

We now mark the official beginning of the silly season. What is the silly season, you ask. It is the period beginning with the U.S. political conventions and ends with the elections. During this period, anything and everything one political party says about the other is to be disbelieved. Every call for Congressional investigations should be ignored. Every "revelation" of political wrongdoing is not. You have been warned.

I have to go to my all day meeting so feel free to follow this link to a page with more Democratic Party Convention bloggers than you can shake a stick at. I don't know how many are listed but there are a bunch.

I mentioned in an earlier post how the silly season had begun. I warned that lies, damned lies, and statistics would go flying about and that the first casualty of this war of words would be the truth. So you should not be surprised by certain Republican partisans who are trying to shoot holes in the military service of presidential candidate John Kerry. I won't repeat their lies but I wouldn't be surprised if they try to say Kerry never served in Vietnam. That it was all a Left Wing conspiracy and the the photos were faked using the movie sound stage next door to the one used to fake the moon landing.

It is a sorry state of affairs in which this is the level of the debate. To me, the bottom line is did either Senator Kerry or President Bush serve in Vietnam? If Kerry did and Bush didn't then lets leave it at that and move on to more important issues like how to pay for the war in Afghanistan/Iraq.

This sordid story reminds me of the Nixon years in which he recruited a team of supporters who, under direction of the President, burglarized offices, illegally tapped phones, spread lies about his opponent, and did just about anything they could to win the election. What is it about some misguided Republicans that they become so virulent and believe the ends justify any means?

In other political news, some right leaning pundits are predicting a landslide victory for Bush in November. As I've said before, the only way that will happen is if there is a terrorist attack just before the elections. Otherwise, our nation is so evenly divided that whoever wins will do so by a very small margin. In fact, it is entirely possible that we could have a replay of the last election in which the person who wins the popular vote loses to the person who wins the Electoral College. In fact, one recent poll I heard of says President Bush is presently ahead in Electoral College votes but behind in the popular vote.

Whoever wins in November will have to figure out how to unite a very divided country.

Aloha!

There's an old joke about if you don't know where you're going that's where you'll be. So I am depressed this morning. Why? Because we are being drowned in a rising tide of mediocrity disguised as brilliant writing. When I read stuff like this and see that this is considered "brilliant" I can only stop and wonder at it all.

I dunno. The writer says he can't say what peace should look like and that I can't either because it's impossible to do so. I disagree. It is a bit arrogant to tell me what I can or can't imagine. In fact, people can imagine what peace looks like and it's usually called an exit strategy. I would go further and say every conflict ends based on an exit strategy. Sometimes the strategy is wise, sometimes it isn't. What events result from the strategy sometimes turn out well (see post-war Japan) and sometimes it doesn't. But there is always an exit strategy.

To me, what it boils down to is goals and objectives. Yes, how you reach those goals may change (i.e., the plan), based on unforeseen exigent circumstances. But the goals and objectives remain the same.

Let me give you an example, many students go to college but never finish. Part of the problem is they can't stay focused on the goal. That is, each day brings a new challenge and while focused on the changing circumstances, they loose sight of where they wanted to go in the fist place. In the end, many just drift through life not accomplishing much of anything.

While I don't think it is a major part of his essay, and I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusions, I think he is missing the mark on this point.

In addition, and I hesitate to even bring this point up and because the level of debate will probably spiral down from there, but he also seems to miss the mark when he makes an ad hominem attack on those who would be so bold as to disagree with his assertion. This is a big mistake because it weakens his essay. In my opinion, a brilliant essay (and I'm not saying anything I write is brilliant) stays focused and uses arguments based on reason, not emotion.

Aloha!

Aloha!

Speaking of writers, I see that Dave Barry is writing trash his deep insights on the Republican National Convention in New York city. A short snippet on the process the RNC used on deciding to meet in probably the second most liberal East coast city:

We considered such factors as hotel space, meeting facilities, transportation and the financial incentives offered by the city. Then we smoked crack.

Oh, the most liberal city on the East coast? Maybe here.

Aloha!

We live in dangerous times, made more dangerous by some who would do anything because the ends justify the means.

As you may have noticed, I've stayed out of saying much about politics since my post on the 'silly season.' At that time, I said this is the time when you will hear lies, damned lies, and statistics. And sure enough, that's exactly what has happened.

I realize producing a cloud of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, so as to confuse people and get them to either vote in a way they wouldn't otherwise, or not vote at all, is the point of this exercise.

But if we believe the lies, if we don't use our common sense, then democracy fails (Greek words demos, meaning "the people," and kratia, meaning power, rule).

It fails because government would no longer be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It fails because power would no longer be in the hands of the citizens.

It fails because we would become servants, not free citizens.

Instead, power would be in the bloody hands of an elite who believe they know what's best for them (and don't give a rat's behind about you).

As we enter the last week of primary voting here in Hawai'i, (the general election will be in November) I expect things to get even worse. But there is still time. I challenge all of you to think about what is being said by both sides. Then carefully examine what each is actually doing.

Do they claim one thing, but do another? If so, don't believe what they say.

Do they work towards inclusion? That is, empowering all citizens? If not, don't believe what they say.

Do they put freedom and personal responsibility before safety? If not, don't believe what they say.

And most importantly, don't vote for them. It's up to you. You decide.

Aloha!

Speaking yesterday of forgeries... The experts that outed the CBS documents have now determined that the US Constitution is a forgery (see the unequivocal evidence here). This is a slam dunk. Clearly this is a forged document. Hence, how can we believe anything written there? I speak especially about the amendments therein. Surely there are questions.

Surely the framers meant to include religion in government.

And free speech? Who needs free speech. Everything should be copyrighted for 10,000 years, or as long as Jack Valenti is alive (whichever comes first).

And unreasonable searches? There's no such things as an unreasonable search. All searches are reasonable to the "authorities". Perhaps not the person being searched, but then, they're guilty so who cares about them.

And indictments by grand juries of their peers? Or juries at all. Why bother. Just lock people up. For any reason, for any length of time (see the Imperial Patriot Act).

And a speedy trial (see Patriot Act above)? Just arrest the person and throw away the keys. No need for inefficient niceties like due process and transparent government.

And, of course, slavery. What was wrong with that? Talk about a sweet business model! Talk about low cost manufacturing. You don't get any lower than free!

What a country!

Speaking of miracles. I find it a miracle that so many self-described typography experts have come out of the slime saying it was impossible for the CBS documents to have been created by a typewriter in 1972.

With all due respect to them, I have to question their conclusion because it cannot be supported by the evidence. That is, to say the documents could only have been done in Microsoft Word is to draw a conclusion no expert would make.

There is uncertainty in all things. At best, an expert can give a probability. But to say with metaphysical certitude (apologies to The McLaughlin Group) that a document is written by a certain person 30 years ago is not as easy task. In fact, using the faulty methodology used by some, almost any typewritten document could look like any other document.

Now, let me be clear, I don't know if the documents in question are forgeries or not. But remember, the Forces of Evil don't care if they are real either. What they want to do is spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. All I can say about that is: Mission Accomplished.

Now that some more thoughtful people have weighed in, like PC Magazine in an article here, or another source here, there is some doubt about the doubters.

Again, I don't know if the documents are forgeries, but given the evidence that pundits have been using and methods used, neither can they.

If you think an imperial presidency is impossible in America, think about this. While taking into account the source, i.e., the Minority of Office of the Committee on Government Reform, I think this report is important because it documents what the Bush Administration is doing, as opposed to what they are saying. In this case, the report documents the Bush Administration's attempts to close access to essentially all government records.

Two of many examples: the Freedom of Information Act, without which untold acts of government abuse against its citizens would remain secret. Rather than assuming government records are public, as was the case before, changes this Administration have made mandates the opposite and puts the burden on citizens to prove otherwise (which is a difficult exercise since you can't view the documents until they are released and they won't be released until you can prove they shouldn't be secret).

The Presidential Records Act, passed post Watergate, made the startling assumption that presidential records were public records. The Bush Administration has turned that around and made the assumption that everything is private and is none of your damned business.

The list goes on and on but I think you get the main point: The Bush Administration doesn't want you to know anything unless it's something they think backs up what they want you to know.

Perhaps you think this is how a democracy is supposed to be run but I respectfully disagree. A citizenship kept in the dark is unable to hold politicians accountable for their actions. Actions supposedly made on the behalf of the citizens. Indeed, actions made in the names of citizens.

It seems to me that the Bush Administration is run under the assumption that the President is infallible. I mean that in the Catholic sense in that the Pope is (presumed) incapable of error in pronouncing dogma.

Given this mindset, any information that proves the Bush Administration wrong is, by definition, heresy and must be crushed and those responsible publicly punished (to teach the lesson that all must obey).

I wonder how long it will be before the ThoughtPolice start their whispering web of lies against even small sites like this one. How long will it be before even your site will be targeted? How long will it be before you must worship the Beast or be threatened, tortured, or worse?

We live in dark times and I am resigned to believing that they will get even darker. Enjoy what little freedom you still have because time is rapidly running out.

Until then, remember what I've said here. Remember that while I may have been wrong in some instances, I've never lied to you. So when the lies against small sites like this begin, use your common sense, think critically, and note who is spreading the lies. Remember their names and...don't...believe...them.

Aloha!

Dear Friends,

Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.

Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.

My friends, it is time for a reality check.

1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,5025667.column. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.

3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).

4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.

So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."

Yes...Yes...Yesssss....He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...

WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?

Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

Yours,

Michael Moore

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

What if the US was like Iraq? What would that look like? Would we think it looked like something we would want? In some ways, we may already be there.

There's an old saying by John Stuart Mill that says; "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people... it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." If it is true, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that the kind of people who watch conservative Fox TV broadcaster Bill O'Reilly aren't as aware of current issues as those who watch liberal Jon Stewart (no relation to JSM).

According to this article here, O'Reilly called Stewart's audience "stoned slackers." But if education is any indicator, a Nielsen Media Research survey found viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor." In addition, a University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey found viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't. And finally, viewers of the Stewart show made more money.

Hmmm. Better educated, better informed, and making more money. Yup, sounds like stoned slackers to me, too. ;=}

Aloha!

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams, 1776

Many people love conspiracies. They love to wallow in it. They love to spread word about it because, perhaps, they feel it shows how superior they are to the target of the conspiracy and how they now know the "Truth".

One of the masters of the conspiracy is President Bush's Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President, Karl "Baghdad Bob" Rove. According to an article in the current Atlantic Monthly, and excerpted here:

So now we get some details about how the Rove treatment works -- and not just speculation, but with descriptions from former Rove staffers who helped organize some of his trademark whispering campaigns.

An article out this week in The Atlantic Monthly focuses specifically on a series of races Rove ran in Texas and Alabama in the 1990s.

The Alabama races in particular haven't gotten that much national press attention in the past. And one of the most lizardly passages in the article describes how Rove launched a whispering campaign against one Democratic opponent suggesting that the candidate -- a sitting Alabama state Supreme Court Justice, who had long worked on child welfare issues -- was in fact a pedophile ... When his term on the court ended, he chose not to run for re-election. I later learned another reason why. Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children's Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, nonprofit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. One of Rove's signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

This is just one snippet from the piece. But when you read the whole thing, what happened in South Carolina in 2000 and what's happening now with Kerry and the Swift Boat business will all seem a lot more clear.

So just who is Karl Rove? This article here reports Rove mentored under one Donald Segretti. History buffs may remember Segretti, during President Nixon's administration, as a member of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). Segretti headed the section of CREEP charged with counterfeiting documents; spreading lies; false rumors/conspiracies and in general; fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

One of his more famous exploits include an attempt to hire prostitutes as part of an organized campaign to discredit Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson by putting him in what would appear to be a compromising position. Another, for which he served four-and-a-half months in prison and was disbarred for two years, was the creation of a document, on forged letterhead, falsely claiming that Senator Jackson had fathered an illegitimate child with a 17-year old girl.

At the knees of that master, did Karl Rove learn. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Rove targeted Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). McCain, fresh from a victory in New Hampshire over then Governor George W. Bush, needed to be stopped. So, using classic Republican techniques, Rove started a whispering campaign saying Senator McCain, rather than being a Vietnam war hero, acted as an informant while as a prisoner of war in Vietnam; that McCain had fathered an illegitimate African-American daughter (if it works against Jackson it'll work against McCain, but add in the African-American part to win the South); his wife's drug "abuse"; and finally, seemingly countering the illegitimate child angle, that McCain was a homosexual.

These techniques were eerie precursors to the present presidential campaign. The common thread being: attack the opponents strengths. If your opponent is a Vietnam hero, insinuate that he collaborated with or aided the enemy. If he is a good family man, say he fathered an illegitimate child. If he is a strong Christian, claim that he is gay. If his wife is anti-illegal drugs, whisper that she is a drug abuser.

The saddest thing of all is that these techniques sometimes work. Senator McCain lost in 2000 to George W. Bush while Bush went on to win against Vice President Al Gore.

But it doesn't have to be that way because, in the end, you can choose fear, uncertainty, and doubt, or you can choose freedom. You can choose fascism or you can choose democracy. You can choose openness or you can choose secrecy. Choose wisely.

Aloha!

It seems Karl Rove isn't the only one who tries to beat people by attacking their strengths with lies. This site here is saying Microsoft's Steve Ballmer is calling Apple iPod users thieves. Ballmer, currently Chief Executive Officer of MS, is quoted as saying "We've had DRM in Windows for years. The most common format of music on an iPod is 'stolen'."

Speaking of such things, this site here is saying that Senator Kerry may have brandished, now wait for it, a pen during the debate with President Bush. Heavens, a pen. Well, stop the presses and call me a Republican. Senator Kerry had a pen with him during the debate. Well, clearly that means Senator Kerry is flip flopping on pen holding and therefore is not of leadership quality.

All I can say about that site is he looses what little credibility he has every time he posts something like that. He might as well sell the URL to Rove now and be done with it.

The Truth (yes, I know, the Rovites have already started their whispering campaign against Soros) is indeed out there, folks. It's just often times very difficult to find, given all the untruth being splashed about.

Speaking of the obvious, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the hand over of political power on June 28, is now saying the US made two critical mistakes in Iraq (see the article here): "not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein."

Both errors are based on political decisions and both are rooted in the same problem. The Bush administration was warned that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to execute the mission ordered of it. This is on the record and the spin doctors cannot deny it (although, as usual, the Bush administration used a whispering campaign to impugn the integrity of the general that had the cajones to tell the truth. You can bet no other general, who wants to stay in the military, will now do so).

But the politicians in Washington, looking perhaps towards the coming election, decided it would be political suicide to send such a large force. Why? Because the present military is not designed for a large scale, long-term mission. It's a light reaction force meant to put out so called "brush fire" conflicts. In order to have hundreds of thousands of troops in the field, for years at a time, would require the re-institution of the draft.

Politics being what it is, re-instituting the draft, without the justification to do so nor the support of US citizens, would mean the end of the Bush administration. So, for the politicians, the path was clear. No draft and therefore no hundreds of thousands of troops. Once that decision was made, the fate of the war was sealed.

Oft quoted security maven and author Bruce Schneier has a nice essay entitled "Do Terror Alerts Work?" While most of the points are obvious, at least to people who have open minds, they need to be stated and discussed. Otherwise, the echo chamber that is the Internet will ring with lies.

A few examples:

When Attorney General John Ashcroft came to Minnesota recently, he said the fact that there had been no terrorist attacks in America in the three years since September 11th was proof that the Bush administration's anti-terrorist policies were working. I thought: There were no terrorist attacks in America in the three years before September 11th, and we didn't have any terror alerts. What does that prove?

Terror threat warnings are a publicity tool. They're a method of keeping terrorism in people's minds. Terrorist attacks on American soil are rare, and unless the topic stays in the news, people will move on to other concerns. There is, of course, a hierarchy to these things. Threats against U.S. soil are most important, threats against Americans abroad are next, and terrorist threats--even actual terrorist attacks--against foreigners in foreign countries are largely ignored.

Since the September 11th attacks, Republicans have made "tough on terror" the centerpiece of their re-election strategies. Study after study has shown that Americans who are worried about terrorism are more likely to vote Republican. In 2002, Karl Rove specifically told Republican legislators to run on that platform, and strength in the face of the terrorist threat is the basis of Bush's re-election campaign. For that strategy to work, people need to be reminded constantly about the terrorist threat and how the current government is keeping them safe.

I know that those who will not see will not believe the obvious truths presented by Mr. Schneier, but for those who can think critically, it's way past time to start the discussion on how to change things.

This one was so obvious I'm embarrassed for the Bush administration to even link to this story on money for guns in Iraq. It seems a five-day program, as part of a truce agreement, paid hundreds of dollars to anyone who turned in weapons. Any weapons. Unfortunately, many if not most of the weapons weren't worth what they were paid for. Bad as that may seem, the obvious and very much more worrisome problem is the cash can then be turned around to buy more modern working weapons.

When the attack of 9/11 occurred, I posted we should follow the money trail. In that context, it is difficult to understand the reasoning behind a money for guns program that better arms the enemies of the US. Do we really want to give money to our enemies? Do the weapons taken in through this program actually work? Are these arms better than what our enemies can buy with the money they get? Are these arms from our enemies or from people who would not be using them against us in the first place? I don't know the answers to these questions and from the looks of things, neither does the Bush Administration.

Perhaps there is some good news coming out of Iraq. As others have correctly said, the Iraq situation will not get better until the Iraqi people take responsibility for their own security. Outside forces, including the US, cannot force anything on anyone for very long so it is up to the Iraqi people to stand up to those who would kill and maim innocents to further their religious aims.

But while signs that the Iraqi people in Fallujah appear ready to take responsibility for their situation, we have not seen concrete action to backup their brave words. History has taught us that freedom is not free. It has to be paid for with the blood of brave Iraqi men and women. We hope such people will come forward and act. Soon.

Day 2, and still no reply from O'Reilly - Aloha!

There are different management styles. Each style is neither good nor bad in all situations. In fact, a manager that does extremely well in one situation may fail miserably in another.

The keys then, are three-fold. You have to be aware of who you are (what are your strong/weak points), what is the context of the situation (which management tools would work best), and most importantly, be flexible enough and knowledgeable enough to employ these tools with precision.

Today, I'm going to talk about one type of manager and how the context is critical in determining how successful he or she will be.

So, some managers learn how to be managers through on-the-job-training. There is much to said for this kind of manager. They tend to have a deep understanding of the job because they've had to live it. That is, they've had to make decisions without having a theoretical context with which to examine the situation from different perspectives and then make a decision based on the totality of views.

This type of manager can make quick decisions without being hamstrung by competing views.

Hence, the tool these managers have is the ability to make quick decisions. The downside is they are rarely reflective. That is, they do things, many times, by rote or by what has worked in the past or even by what some would call blind faith. This problem was crystallized by Mark Twains apt phrase; "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Don't get me wrong, the problem is not in using the hammer, rather the problem is in not realizing that it isn't the best tool to use in all situations. Sometimes this is because the manager is not aware of other tools. Sometimes the manager is aware of other tools but the manager is not adept at utilizing them.

Let me give you a real-life example. One manager I know of, I'll call him Brian, works in an environment in which managers don't take responsibility for decisions that don't work but always crow about how they are such superb managers when they do. When things don't work out, Brian always blame his staff. It was staff that made the error, not him. It was staff that gave him incorrect information. It was staff that didn't tell him what he needed to know. Brian's tool is to avoid personal responsibility.

Even if this is true (that staff is somehow at fault), which it isn't, it isn't a sign of a good manager to blame others for their decisions and not take personal responsibility for being the decision maker.

Which brings me to this 11 page New York Times article on President Bush entitle "Without a Doubt".

The article's main thesis is that President Bush operates on faith rather than facts. That he is a true believer and what he believes is that he is on a mission from God. Literally. Any facts to the contrary simply denote your lack of faith and will result in your being labeled an unbeliever and a dupe of Satan.

As I said at the beginning, there is no one way of management that is always right. And at times, President Bush's style of management may be effective. But at other times, this type of management can lead a country to its doom. In November, choose wisely.

I've talked about an article in the Atlantic about President Bush's Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President, Karl "Baghdad Bob" Rove before. But now that the Atlantic article is on the Internet, you can read it for yourself.

The article is a chilling indictment of a man who uses fear and/or anger to motivate people to vote. It doesn't matter if he makes charges up out of thin air, the thing is to win. The means to that end is always justified, at least in his mind.

The problem is that the democratic process is the loser. Freedom is lost. Truth is lost. Justice is lost. The very values that make this country strong are pushed aside in favor of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. We, as a nation, are weakened by these tactics.

And you know what? It's working. The few feeble minded voters that he needs to tip the balance are being swayed by his charges. He has whipped them up into a blind fury. Raised their anger levels to such a high state that they no longer think for themselves because the minds of such people are easily influenced.

This coming election, the voting for which has already started locally, could be the most important in our history. Think for yourself and then choose wisely.

Aloha!

I don't usually hang out at the American Conservative web site but I went over there recently and read an article by Paul Schroeder entitled "The War Bin Laden Wanted: How the U.S. played into the terrorist's plan." I was startled to read, in his concluding paragraph:

This is a change only a new administration could make, though obviously not during the electoral campaign, when it would be suicidal. Once in office, however, it could claim that it had found things to be even worse than it knew and could make the kind of 180-degree turn Bush executed after his election. A gradual disengagement from Iraq and re-concentration on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the pursuit of al-Qaeda, a devolution of tasks onto the UN and NATO on the grounds that even the best meant efforts of the United States are frustrated by the fact that it is seen as the enemy by too many in the region, a willingness to admit past mistakes and agree to focus co-operatively on other problems as well-all this would become possible, though not easy, if only the current American war mentality and psyche gave way to a saner one. This still could happen-but of course not under Bush.

Please go and read the entire article because it lays out a compelling vision of why Osama bin Laden attacked the US and how the Bush administration fell directly into the trap set by bin Laden.

But more importantly, it makes the case that in order to correct our policy mistakes, a new administration will need to be elected. I will let that lay as it is and let you draw your own conclusions. But remember, this is coming from the American Conservative, not Kerry headquarters.

What is even more startling to me is that conservatives have, apparently, finally realized that the Bush administration may be a lot of things, but conservative it is not. Yes, President Bush pays lip service to conservative issues, but what the Bush administration actually does is as radical, in their own way, as anything coming out of Berkeley.

I've noted before how the Bush administration has expanded federal powers by taking it from states (e.g., elections, marriage, education reform, health care, etc.). I've noted before how this administration (and the Republican controlled Congress) have been on a spending spree the likes of which we have not seen since President Johnson during the Vietnam War. And I've noted how this administration has plowed full ahead into expansionist wars across the globe.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see real conservatives finally disavowing themselves from the Bush presidency. Unfortunately, I think it's too little too late.

(Warning: 5.2MB mov file)

A republican for Kerry, and his reasons why he thinks this is the only rational choice. Fear vs. Freedom. You decide.

The Windows operating system is a tool. Like any other tool, there may be times that it is appropriate for the job. Hence, to say it has no use is nonsense in light of the millions of people who use it and are quite happy to continue to do so. Screaming that Linux is the One True Way only helps them dig in their heels.

Conversely, I think Microsoft (MS) has learned a lot about politics and how things work as a result of the lawsuits brought by the states and the recent republican strategy in the Presidential race. However, none of it is good.

It seems MS's Steve Ballmer sent out a memo to customers last week that implies Windows has economic and security advantages over open-source software and warned that Linux users are liable for intellectual property lawsuits. This is part of Microsoft's Get the Facts Web site effort to spin the truth. Essentially, it attacks Linux on its strengths by lying. Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar.

To its credit, Novell countered with their own website called Unbending the Truth. Unfortunately, Novell may be spinning reality in their own way rather than using the sharp tip of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as a sword to clear away Microsoft's FUD.

Given the recent elections, I think the only response to a lie that works is to tell the truth as simply and clearly as possible. Don't use an essay when a paragraph will do. Don't use a paragraph when one sentence will do. And don't use a sentence when one word will do. But in all cases, do not spin. Do not shade.

Keep it simple and tell only the truth. It's the American Way.

Aloha!

If you think electronic voting, without a paper trail, is safe, secure, and reliable, read this article which says over 4,000 voters in North Carolina had their votes go literally into the ether and not get counted.

Then there is this CNN article that says a Columbus, Ohio precinct electronically registered 4,258 votes for President Bush. The problem is only 638 people voted in that precinct.

Aloha!

Many thoughtful people are trying to make sense out of present day politics. I wish them well. One view is from Chris Nolan (see his post here). His is a prescription for what he calls Progressive Libertarians.

Conservative's reliance on organization and structure and lines of authority make it out-of-touch. The Republican Party's anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-immigration rhetoric is also unattractive. But they are equally unimpressed by the high-flying rhetoric of the Left with its conspiracy theories and "us v. them" rich v. poor rhetoric. In a world where the individual works best - and succeeds the most - the class warfare of the Democrats looks backward when taking for large corporations and giving to labor, taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, worked and worked effectively. The pro-union, patronage politics that has come to characterize the Democratic Party - its version of the corporation, as slow moving as the Republican's - is also deeply disturbing.

The first group to articulate a philosophy - and political philosophy is always rooted in economics - and move past these out-of-date views is the one that will run national politics in this next generation.

I don't know if his neo-utopian view will come to pass [insert standard disclaimer here] but I put it out there for your consideration. My own view is it won't and that we will continue on into our own Dark Ages, led by well meaning, but seriously flawed neo-cons who have faith, but no light.

Newsday is reporting a putsch by Central Intelligence Agency head Peter Goss. But in this case, the "cleansing" is taking place in the CIA itself. It seems the Bush administration is outraged by the CIA reporting evidence that contradicts what the administration wants to do or believes is reality - especially as it relates to the conflict in Iraq.

Hence, a litmus test is being administered to certain CIA employees to determine if they are "loyal" to President Bush. In other words, the Bush administration will fire anyone who reports the truth. People are not stupid and lessons will be learned. Namely, feed the administration only what it wants to hear [Isn't that how we got into the Iraqi mess in the first place? -ed.]. Unfortunately, the lessons learned may put the US at increased risk because US foreign policies may be at variance with reality.

Evidence that loyalty tests are being administered in other departments may be found in the resignation of US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell, long a man who prides himself on making rational decisions based on facts was out of place in an administration based solely on irrational faith. As such, he found himself out-of-step with an administration that did not want to know about truths that were at odds with what the President and others believed.

As the Bush administration gathers to itself other true believers, the President apprently believes it will result in a more coherent and controlled administration. While these goals may be met, the quality of decisions made by this administration will, more likely than not, be found wanting.

Aloha!

The US Congress is reviewing a bill that would, among other things, make it illegal for you to skip over commercials. In addition, but more importantly, "fair use" would take another hit in BigMedias' attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

For decades, the media conglomerates (i.e., movies and audio) have been saying technology would kill its business. First it was blank cassette tape which, according to the mega-opolies, was a sure sign that people were wantonly and with reckless disregard for the rights of corporations, recording music they had bought leased from said companies. Surely profits would suffer. Surely innocent companies would go out of business because of these pirates stealing their intellectual property. Something must be done!

But the reality is record company profits soared. People bought leased even more music so they could create their own mix of songs to go along with them while driving. Did that stop the watchdogs?

Nope. The next threat, according to the industry, was blank tapes for VCRs and the VCRs themselves. Surely this was proof positive that pirates were out there. What other possible conclusion could a objective person come to regarding VCRs? Surely VCRs were designed to snatch the food out of the drooling mouths of content providers everywhere. Why, VCRs where the evil spawn of Satan himself!

But the reality is movie company profits soared. Record profits were hit year after year. Money cascaded in as more and more people bought rented movies on tape to watch on their VCRs. Did that stop the watchdogs?

Nope. Along came DVDs and their players. Now, surely everyone could see this was the threat that would kill off the Goose that laid the Golden Egg. Anyone would be able to make perfect copies of content provided by movie companies. The sky would wall. Cats would live with dogs. Movie executives would have to get real jobs instead of living in mega-mansions while snorting cocaine out of the belly buttons of their pneumatic secretaries.

But the reality is movie company profits soared yet again as people bought rented DVDs to watch at home.

Comes now the Internet and personal computers. Surely, now anyone with eyes can see that the pirates will this time steal everything! This time the wolf really is at the door. This time we really mean it.

I dunno. While I know many in Congress are owned by the companies Congressman want to work for once they retire, I don't think all is lost. If enough people let their Senators know that they are "mad as hell and won't take it anymore", perhaps something can be done. You decide.

Aloha!

Speaking of the truth, or in this case, what may be half-truth. The local mayoral election, earlier this month, came down to a difference of a thousand votes in hundreds of thousands cast. Hence, it is a reasonable conjecture that some small changes may have thrown the election one way or another.

One of those small changes was an allegation, on a web site, that the wife of one of the candidates somehow cheated someone out of some money. This incident occurred before she became the wife of said candidate. The allegations came from a civil case filed in a local court.

Or, at least, the allegations came from selected quotes from just one side of the civil case. As anyone who knows anything about court cases, if you listen to just one side you would think this was a compelling, slam dunk of a case. You would, of course, be wrong because if you hear the other side things aren't that simple.

So, about three weeks before election day, this woman writes a "story", based on one side of the case and tries to pass this off as professional journalism (with all the ethics rules and editorial oversight that it implies).

But the writer is not a professional journalist. At least, not since she was fired for unprofessional behavior while employed at a local business weekly newspaper. Indeed, she wrote so many slanted, unprofessional, and obviously unfactual articles against Democrats that the editor, who is a Republican, was forced to fire her. In addition, she failed to disclose that she is the girlfriend of a Republican state senator. A senator that supported the opponent of this candidate by being in a full-page ad in the daily paper. But most importantly, she failed to report the other side of the story contained in the very documents she used to write her story.

In her defense now comes a local conservative Republican radio personality trumpeting how if you want the truth, you should go to her site because "Big Media" won't write any stories about it. Well, actually other media have written stories. But for those that haven't, what they've said is that there isn't a story. That the charges have not been substantiated. Further, and this is the critical part, there is substantial doubt that the allegations are true, based on the evidence in the very case the female writer quotes from.

There has been a lot of crowing, within the blogshpere, about how blogs are the "new journalism" and that the old media don't get the stories that are important. While this may be true, sometimes, people need to remember that just because something is published on a website doesn't mean it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

People need to remember that there are people out there that will try to weave a web of half-truths that sound plausible in order to fool you and to get you to vote one way or the other. All I can say is that you need to think critically, know the source of the information, use your common sense, and then determine what is the truth.

Aloha!

It won't stop here if the MPAA/RIAA has anything to say. The author of the site says he had to turn in his cell phone, driver's license, and submit to a body search before he could, now wait for it, watch a movie at a theater. Madness! Madness, I say.

What kind of country have we become?

According to this article, U.S. airport security forces are doing full body searches of men and women. This includes hands on searches of womens breasts, genitals, and buttocks. What's next, full body cavity searches? When will this insanity stop?

The Boston Herald is reporting that the Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley Bank is predicting that the US economy has no better than a one in 10 chance of avoiding an economic Armageddon. By that he means:

America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.

The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded...

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day. That is an amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings. Sustainable? Hardly.

Meanwhile, he notes that household debt is at record levels. Twenty years ago the total debt of U.S. households was equal to half the size of the economy. Today the figure is 85 percent.

Nearly half of new mortgage borrowing is at flexible interest rates, leaving borrowers much more vulnerable to rate hikes.

Americans are already spending a record share of disposable income paying their interest bills. And interest rates haven't even risen much yet.

But they argue there may be an alternative scenario...Greenspan might instead deliberately allow the dollar to slump and inflation to rise, whittling away at the value of today's consumer debts in real terms.

In any case, the economy appears boxed into a situation that will result in either much higher interest rates, higher inflation, or possibly both.

Aloha!

In the most recent local election, Hawaii citizens were asked to vote on four state Constitutional amendments. Even though most people didn't realize it (insert disclaimer here as I am an employee of the Hawaii Judiciary), the amendments were intended to shift power from the Judiciary to the Executive and/or Legislative branches.

As many people will remember from their high school civics class (is that even taught anymore? - ed.), the idea of separate and co-equal branches of government was intended, among other things, to prevent any one or two of the branches from seizing absolute power (with, as the old saying goes, leading to absolute corruption). For as long as the three branches remained roughly in balance, no one could achieve hegemony over the people.

However, the Framers created a mechanism of amending the Constitution to take into account unforeseen situations that would occur in the future. But this mechanism requires, if citizens wish to keep their freedom, that said citizens are vigilant towards any changes that would weaken the protections found within the Constitution.

Recently, the Republican Right-Wing/Neo-cons/Evangelicals have been alleging that the Judiciary is an obstruction to what the people want and that the solution is to force the Judiciary to bow down on its knees to the Executive and Legislative branches. They say the courts have barred Christian prayer from the public schools; banned displays of the Christian 10 Commandments in public buildings, required equal protection among the races, sexes, genders and ages; and beat back the Federal Justice Departments' efforts to find terrorists through draconian searches and seizures of innocent citizens without the protection of judicial review. This, these seriously misguided people say, will not stand.

So the electorate went along with the changes and passed the four amendments, either not knowing or not caring that they had begun a journey down that slippery slope that leads to tyranny. Taking notice of the shift in power is Slate writer David Faige. Faige correctly frames the changes as a weakening of the right to confront and cross-examine witness, the right to due process, and perhaps most importantly, the right to live freely unless a grand jury returns a list of indictments against an accused. Go read the article and be chilled that even in blue states like Hawaii, the Republicans are moving ever towards absolute power. Power they are not afraid to misuse against you. Power that inevitably becomes corrupted absolutely.

If you think it can't happen here, it already has.

A couple of days ago I wrote about how some Republicans, tired of having their anti-everything laws ruled as unconstitutional are trying to shift power from the courts to themselves. Some of my eleven readers probably thought I was exaggerating or spinning things to my slanted left-leaning views.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Before I say more, keep in mind that I am an employee of the Judiciary (insert disclaimer here) and therefore may be biased. Note that these, as always, are my personal views and not those of the Judiciary.

That said, Republican John Hostettler, of Indiana, said:

When the courts make unconstitutional [according to Rep. Hostettler] decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

Rep. Hostettler reportedly plans to introduce a bill that would deny federal courts the right to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage. In other words, make it illegal for the courts to try this Act so that no one can say it is unconstitutional and strike it down.

A second example, Congressman Robert Aderholdt (R-Alabama), "was quoted as advocating court stripping as a means to protect state-sponsored Ten Commandment displays, such as the one erected by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore." In other words, keep the courts from ruling on such displays and all will be well with the world.

Essentially, what these Republicans are sayings is: Sleep. Sleeeeep. We are the government. We will take care of you. Don't worry about thorny questions like whether something is unconstitutional. Let us do our work without anyone reviewing it. It's for your own good. It's what God wants (or at least it's what we want you to believe/have faith God wants). Now just go to sleep knowing that the 10 Commandments are safe (even as they break all of them -ed.).

This article from the Palm Beach Post gives other examples of Republicans supporting measures to eliminate judicial review and, by doing so, rip the Constitution to shreds. Tyranny, here we come.

Aloha!

I did a short post earlier about the increasingly personal body gropings being done at US airports masquerading as security checks. In it, I half jokingly said the next would be body cavity searches. But I guess this TV report says I'm wrong. Their already doing such searches. Of course, the government says they will investigate and let you know what they find. Maybe. Someday. If it's not classified as double top secret. Tyranny is already here.

I don't know that I agree with everything the Cato Institute does but I do agree with one short article on the "war" on drugs. Like the "war" on terrorism, the war on drugs will never end. One hopes the outcome of the war on terrorism will be better than the outcome, so far, of the war on drugs but I am not optimistic.

In any case, some of the points the articles makes:

Today, federal and state governments spend between $40 and $60 billion per year to fight the war on drugs, about ten times the amount spent in 1980 -- and billions more to keep drug felons in jail. The U.S. now has more than 318,000 people behind bars for drug-related offenses, more than the total prison populations of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined.

Our prison population has increased by 400 percent since 1980, while the general population has increased just 20 percent. America also now has the highest incarceration rate in the world -- 732 of every 100,000 citizens are behind bars.

The drug war has wrought the zero tolerance mindset, asset forfeiture laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and countless exceptions to criminal defense and civil liberties protections. Some sociologists blame it for much of the plight of America's inner cities. Others point out that it has corrupted law enforcement, just as alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s.

On peripheral issues like medicinal marijuana and prescription painkillers, the drug war has treated chronically and terminally ill patients as junkies, and the doctors who treat them as common pushers. Drug war accoutrements, such as "no-knock" raids and searches, border patrols, black market turf wars and crossfire, and international interdiction efforts, have claimed untold numbers of innocent lives.

With the sacrificing of our freedoms and criminalization of untold numbers of terminally ill patients the bottom-line question is: Are things better now than they were before? In other words, are we "winning" the "war" on drugs? The answer, according to the Cato Institute, is no:

Even by the government's own standards for success, the answer is unquestionably "no." The illicit drug trade is estimated to be worth $50 billion today ($400 billion worldwide), up from $1 billion 25 years ago. Annual surveys of high school seniors show heroin and marijuana are as available today than they were in 1975. Deaths from drug overdoses have doubled in the last 20 years.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the price of for a gram of heroin has dropped by about 38 percent since 1981, while the purity of that gram has increased six-fold. The price of cocaine has dropped by 50 percent, while its purity has increased by 70 percent. Just recently, the ONDCP waged a public relations campaign against increasingly pure forms of marijuana coming in from Canada.

I've talked before about the contradictions between what the Red conservative states say is important and what the citizens of these states actually do in their personal lives. Andrew Sullivan has a recent post that says the same thing.

But it's important to remember that this isn't new. Studies done in the 1950's, a time known for its fear of external threats (e.g., Godless communism) and supposedly conservative values, indicated that people said they were more moral that they actually were. Way more moral than they actually were.

Namely, they would tell survey takers what they (the people taking the survey) thought was the moral thing. But if there was any correlation, it was an inverse relationship. That is, the more moral the person said they were, the less they actually were (as measured by various behaviors).

So it shouldn't be a surprise that rates of divorce, adultery, or any of the sins noted in the Bible are highest in the states who say they are the most moral while lowest in states considered to be Godless communist/socialists.

What I've said before and will say again now is watch what people do, not what they say.

Aloha!

I've said it before, and with the present administration in Washington I may be saying it a lot in the future, if your policy fails, never try to weasel out of taking responsibility for it (i.e., a failed policy) by saying no one could have foreseen the outcome at the time the decision was made.

Why? Because there will be people who did, in fact, foresee the outcome. For example, I've talked before about former U.S. Army General Eric Shinseki (disclosure: he is from Hawai'i). In a devastating article by Frank Gibney, President of the Pacific Basin Institute, Gibney notes General Shinseki's thoughts on, among other things, the number of troops that are required in Iraq, the limits of those forces, the difference between acquiring territory and holding said territory, multi versus unilateralism, and what the General calls complicators (outside, forces that can cause you to divert your own forces). Below is a mirror of Gibney's article so that it will remain in the public eye rather than disappear behind an advertising vault's door.

When Donald H. Rumsfeld swooped down on the Pentagon in 2001 as President Bush's secretary of Defense, Gen. Eric Shinseki must have looked like a natural ally to him. Like Rumsfeld, Shinseki wanted to "transform" the armed services and had announced his plan for changing the Army when he became chief of staff in 1999.

But Shinseki's notion of transformation differed substantially from Rumsfeld's. To the new Defense secretary, transformation meant greater reliance on technology, not troops, to achieve goals; to Shinseki, it meant more intensified training, featuring highly mobile medium-light brigades of mechanized infantry capable of a variety of missions.

Their philosophical clash became public when the United States went to war against Iraq. The preemptive attack relied on overwhelming air power and deployed a bare minimum of ground troops. Asked by a Senate committee to estimate the number of troops needed for the operation, Shinseki said "several hundred thousand." Rumsfeld's office immediately denounced the number as "wildly off the mark." But the disastrous experience in postwar Iraq has proved the general right: Security remains elusive because the numbers of U.S. and coalition forces on the ground are inadequate.

Since his retirement in June 2003, Shinseki has restricted his public appearances to foreign policy and university audiences. Early this month at Pomona College, he outlined his policy for a post-Cold War Army equipped to deal with a multitude of duties.

Here are some excerpts:

• The Army's job: "During the 1990s, we used the Army for many nontraditional tasks — humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, wildfire control and peacekeeping, among others — but the Army's nonnegotiable contract with the American people is to fight and win wars. We grow our own leadership — thorough troop training is our most vital mission — but we need about 180,000 new people each year, so recruiting is a vital task. For a professional Army, it must not slip."

• The limits of force: "In my time in uniform, the use of force was often not the preferred solution; neither was it necessarily the first option considered…. Once the use of force is sanctioned, there's almost no turning back…. Lethal force involves blunt trauma and surgical strikes, [which] better describe a military planner's range of options than they do the effects produced on the ground…. We can pinpoint targets with total accuracy … as long as they don't move."

• Military occupation: "If your forces are in Baghdad, you own it. And that means you own the water, the electricity, the public buildings — and public order. If the task is to create a secure environment, troops on the ground are needed."

• Multilateralism: "Unilateralism as a stated policy is bad. The U.N. and this country have had our differences, but we need its cooperation and support."

• Crisis management: "I was personally involved … in dealing with explosive crises in East Timor and Bosnia. The U.S. needed to help get Indonesia right and to link whatever happened in Indonesia to a comprehensive long-term strategy for the region. In Bosnia, the effort at peacekeeping took a long time, but after nine years the forces needed there greatly diminished — from 20,000 to 8,500. How long would it take to stabilize Iraq?"

• Threats and complicators: "In the Bush administration's first appraisal of defense needs, reference was made to 'asymmetric threats transcending geography.' Little was said about the kinds of 'complicators' that those of us who lived abroad in the 1990s were watching. These complicators — the best term we could find at the time — included transnational criminal organizations, international narco-trafficking, the surge in terrorist incidents involving Muslim extremists and the suspicion of ongoing proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology. The nagging question for which the Army had no answers was, 'What happens if the four complicators merge into a larger transnational threat? Whose responsibility will it be to deal with that kind of danger?' "

• Force levels. "We need to have enough forces on the ground to deter and hold crises where they are. You can't fall into the trap of organizing for specific missions and then being unable to perform other missions when the conditions change very quickly — and in places like Kosovo, they can change in 20 minutes. You may find yourself having to go very quickly, intellectually and physically, from what was a peacekeeping mission to fighting a war — and preparing the troops for this [shift]. And with the missions multiplying, you cannot go on fighting a 12-division war with only 10 divisions available."

What puzzled many of us who had listened to Shinseki was the contrast between his emphasis on careful military planning and how shortsighted the administration was in preparing for the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Before the war, Shinseki's Army planners were not once consulted by Rumsfeld's office. The State Department's planning proposal for postwar Iraq was similarly ignored by the administration.

It was a case of an outside group of civilian neoconservatives moving into the Pentagon and arrogantly taking over the military. Heedless of any advice to the contrary, Rumsfeld's "shock and awe" attack gained an apparent quick victory at the cost of postwar policy. Some 20 months after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq remains in pieces, with anti-American fervor strong and our military victory tarnished by a stubborn insurgency and the needless brutalities at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

If this is what Rumsfeld's idea of "transformation" has brought us, it's a pity we didn't try Shinseki's.

So what did General Shinseki get for being right? He was fired forced to retire by Secretary Rumsfeld. While it might be somewhat presumptuous to say US troops are dying because of the Bush/Rumsfeld administration's failed policy, it wouldn't be far off the mark.

Aloha!

I have yet to see a comprehensive, balanced, and dispassionate review of the CBS/Dan Rather memos. Even at this late date, I think there is more smoke than fact.

But no less than the Columbia Journalism Review has published an article on the subject.

Unfortunately, all that I can get out of it is that Republicans had a strategy to deflect criticism by attacking everything and anything via blogs (well, duh). Some of said blogs being created, funded, and written by Republicans (double duh). The result of which produced postings that ignored inconsistencies in their stories but attacked Democrats and their fellow travelers "like witches in Salem, while Bush's defenders forged ahead, their affinities and possible motives largely unexamined."

These attacks effectively killed the real story: President Bush got preferential treatment while in the National Guard.

But I agree with the CJR's final conclusion that CBS should not have gone with the original story because the documents could not be substantiated (which is not the same thing as saying the documents were forged).

Aloha!

With the November elections in the past and the inauguration upon us, the Bush administration is letting everyone know that their three million vote lead is a mandate to stay the course. In fact, they say, not only is it a mandate for what he is doing in Iraq but also a mandate to continue on to Iran.

This startling claim is in a New Yorker article here that says US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said

This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign...Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah-we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.

While I agree the Bush administration won the election and that the majority of the voters voted to keep him in office. I'm not so sure about a mandate on his running of the war in Iraq nor adventures in Iran. Congress and the public was fooled by a bunch of hand waving about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but what will the administration come up with in Iran? Times up. The answer is, now wait for it, weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not making this up. Weapons of mass destruction. Again. Expect to see a lot of additional hand waving, satellite pictures of milk tanker trucks, fertilizer factories, and aluminum pipes. Is it possible Iran is working on nuclear weapons? Probably. But then, so are most industrialized nations (if they don't have it already). The question is, do we invade every country that we think may try to get such weapons?

Apparently, the Bush administration is saying yes. But remember, Iran is a country, not a quasi multi-national religious group. It has a border, government, and people who aren't usually implicated in suicide bombings. If they have any rationality about them, then a policy of containment and assured massive relation, could work. Just like it worked for 40 years against Russia. Is it worth the chance we would take versus multi-nation wars? You decide.

Aloha!

Insert the standard disclaimer here. I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal opinions. These are my own views.

While California is many times viewed as a liberal state, that is not true in all cases and in all counties. For example, the Orange County, California Court of Appeal has opined that women convicted of sunning themsleves while topeless must be listed on the Internet as being convicted sex offenders.

Why is tanning oneself considered to be a sex offence in this county? I have no answer other than to say when you insert sexual morals into the law, you start down a very slippery slope that soon leads to results like this.

The larger question is why is tanning oneself, while topless, legal for men but not women? Are male breasts not lewd but women's are? Yes, some men think of women's breasts only as sexual objects so, naturally, other men would love to suppress/cover/deny any such attraction.

But of all the things a county should have as a high priority, whether women are tanning topless should not be one of them. Of course, Orange County is a Republican stronghold so is should not be a surprise to anyone that an appeals court has ruled thus.

But what rationale is used to make this illegal? Is there a public health hazard from women's breasts? Will little children get cancer from seeing uncovered skin? Will Orange County men, as opposed to the men in Florida, Hawai'i, or much of the civilized world where topless sunbathing is not usually prosecuted, somehow become sexual deviants and begin attacking such women? Why do Republicans, who say they are for individual rights and keeping Big Government out of it are invariably so invovled in suppressing women's issues?

I don't have any answers to this question but I would stay out of Orange County if I were you because there be idiots seriously flawed people there. Come to Hawai'i instead.

Aloha!

Shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could have known that teaching only sexual abstinence, that is not giving teenagers any information whatsoever on birth control (other than failure rates), can lead to more sexual activity by these very same teenagers. No, they aren't saying there is a cause and effect relationship, only that rates of intercourse go up immediately after this educational effort (see the Texas study here). As with all studies, replication is required to confirm the results but it seems like common sense to me.

I've said this before and I'll say this again, this is a public health related subject. Schools should teach how not to get sexually transmitted diseases. How not to spread such diseases and how to detect if they have such diseases and where to go to get medical treatment.

From a religious point of view, parents and their churches are free to teach only abstinence but religious points of view like this should not eliminate public health education classes, which is what is happening in Red States like Texas.

My guess is, rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases may increase in such states and this is something that can and should be studied. If it (abstinence only education) works, great! But if it doesn't, then from a practical and pragmatic point of view, we should try adding something that does.

Aloha!

The American Conservative web site has an article entitled "Hunger for Dictatorship" (read it here) that declares there is a far right extremism permeating the US that dwarfs anything seen during the Cold War. The article quotes Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell as saying this new extremism "celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state." The article goes on to say the most recent parallel era that this type of extremism occurred was in fascist Germany.

While many people would expect such talk from Michael Moore, that it's instead coming from noted conservatives should add impact to the already stunning message: The US may be on a track that can only lead to its doom. Although, the author optimistically seems to be saying there is still time to change course, the groundwork for fascism is already laid and I would say it is just a matter of when, not if, the Brown Shirts will rise again. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

The "Jeff Gannon" fake reporter story seems to be winding down. You can read one version of the events here. He has apparently resigned from "Talon News" over the controversy of who he really is. As an aside, it is interesting how many of the most virulent Republicans seem to turn out to have ties to pornography (in this case, gay porn).

There is a local angle to this story in that a local news site of dubious distinction has been re-publishing Gordon's writings for some time. Gordon has apparently even mentioned the site in an interview with PBS TV. I've talked before about this "news" site so I won't belabor the point but one does have to remember the old dictum: consider the source. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Kudos to Ian Lind for the links.

Aloha!

Groklaw has an article that says Microsoft's Bill Gates is threatening to pull 800 jobs from Denmark if the Danes don't get religion and support software patents.

According to the article, Gates, speaking to the Danes like a master would to a dog, warned Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Economic and Business Minister Bendt Bendtsen and Science Minister Helge Sander that they must not block the disputed European Union directive on patenting software. Otherwise, Gates indicated, he would close an MS owned, but Danish based company called Navision.

It is so refreshing to see how elected Premier Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates speaks to his European inferiors peers. But, I guess, money talks so expect that Mr. Gates will eventually get what he wants.

Yesterday I talked about the stink that is coming from Redmond. A stink coming from the internal rot and decay that is Microsoft. But I've long been a pragmatist when it comes to software. That is, all other things being equal, I choose the tool that works best for me. And for many years, most of those tools were on Windows. But the day is rapidly approaching wherein those tools, or ones better than them, will be available on other systems.

The wise are now experimenting with these tools so that they will be ready when that new dawning arrives. Are you ready?

Aloha!

To President Bush and members of Congress:

you have sold the First Amendment, your birthright and that of your children. The Founders turn in their graves. You have spit on the grave of every warrior who fought under the Stars and Stripes.

From retired Texas judge Steve Russell. Read the full text here. WARNING: there is much strong language in his remarks. Thanks to Doc Searls for the link.

I see that former presidential candidate Howard Dean has become the head of the US Democratic Party. His election to the post seems to imply he will not run for the presidency the next time around.

Why? Because none of his possible competitors would have allowed him to hold the party chair if he said he would run. Hence, I assume either he isn't going to run or he will, but in doing so will have to cut all ties to the party when he does and perhaps run as an independent.

Which path he chooses isn't as important to me as how he, and all Democrats, will deal with the Fear Problem(r).

There are as many reasons as voters to explain why President Bush got re-elected. But I think the most important was the Republican employment of fear as a motivator. It may be somewhat cynical to say we vote against someone because we fear them more than we vote for another. But it sure looks like that's how many people are voting.

For example, one of the early uses of fear was in the late 1980s William "Willie" Horton ad. In one of many brilliantly cynical moves, the Republicans referred to Mr Horton as Willie, rather than by his full given name. Why? Because the name William R. Horton sounded like a white bank manager from Kennebunkport, Maine while Willie Horton gave the impression of a low-life from Mississippi. Indeed, Mr. Horton calls himself William and all court records and news reports referred to him as William. That is, until the Republican ad ran.

In addition, another later ad ("Revolving Door"), intoned that Dukakis "vetoed mandatory sentences for drug dealers he vetoed the death penalty. His revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first degree murderers not eligible for parole. While out, many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape, and many are still at large. Now Michael Dukakis says he wants to do for America what he's done for Massachusetts. America can't afford that risk." Notice the fear code words: mandatory sentences, drug dealers, death penalty, murderers, crime, kidnapping, rape, and finally - "America can't afford that risk."

Another example. The Republicans wanted to paint President Clinton as being "pro-gay" so, by inferral, they could say he was "anti-family." The perfect opportunity arose in the case of gays in the military. In a superb move by the Republicans, they created a Catch-22 situation by charging, on one hand, gays in the military would be subject to blackmail because of their sexual orientation so they shouldn't be allowed in. On the other hand, the Republicans were against letting gays openly state they were so. That is, if gay soldiers wanted to free themselves from being blackmailed by openly stating they were gay, they would be booted out of the armed services, or not allowed in to begin with. Into this mix, the Republicans stirred in a whispering campaign about straight soldiers having to fear they would be gang raped by roving gangs of gay sailors. As an aside, calls to get rid of gays in the military have recently fallen silent, perhaps because there are severe manpower shortages due to President Bush's foreign adventures. But I digress.

From there, it was a natural progression to focus on fear of gay marriage. Again, if you are for gay marriage, or even civil unions, you are somehow against straight families. In 1996, Republican candidate for President Alan Keys, one of the most virulent anti-gays around, said "If we accept the homosexual agenda, which seeks recognition for homosexual marriages, we will be destroying the integrity of the marriage-based family." Running again in 2000, he went further saying granting of civil unions means "you've legitimized pedophilia." By inferral, Keys seems to be saying, somehow, allowing gays to marry will lead to homosexuals preying on young boys. And, you know, this twisted logic worked. People in 11 states recently voted to ban marriage of gay couples. All told, 39 of the 50 states now ban gay marriage. Why? Because they fear homosexuals somehow will make their own marriages less secure? Because they fear married gays will kidnap young boys and force them into gay slave servitude. I dunno, but I guess so. How else do you explain it other than through the use of irrational fear?

And so we come to the most far reaching example. Fear of external threats. Before there was terrorism, there was the Republican push to create a missile "umbrella" because we feared we would be attacked. By whom I'm not sure since the umbrella would be for the continental US and the only country with nukes that could reach the US would be Russia. On the other hand, Hawai'i and Alaska can be reached from North Korea. But, of course, there's no "umbrella" for either of these two states. But, again, I digress.

Republicans have used the fear of external threats for decades. The most famous was during the 1950s and the "Red Menace" (see also Senator Joseph McCarthy) scare. People were scared into digging holes in the back yard to create fallout shelters. Lists of communist sympathizers were created (or at least pieces of paper purported to be lists were waved about, along with a lot of arm waving). Everyone was suspect, including your neighbor, your priest, your teacher, or anyone because they could be...a communist.

Bring that forward to today and everyone, including your neighbor, your priest, or your teacher could be...a terrorist. People are building "safe" rooms into their houses to protect against bio-chem attacks (get out the duct tape and plastic sheeting Aunt Minnie, the terrorists are coming!). Congress and the President have shredded the Constitution because, they say, it is necessary and prudent during war to protect us against the terrorists. Never mind this is a war without end, or definition, or even criteria as to what victory would look like. What's important is that you are at risk! There is danger everywhere! The Constitution is but a mere impediment to what needs to be done! Grave times require grave men who are not afraid to take charge!

Under these conditions, the new Chair of the Democratic Committee finds himself. What will he do? I don't know, but what happens over the next couple of years will be critical to the survival of the US as a free, democratic republic.

Monday is the President's Day US national holiday. Hence, there won't be a post.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

The English language online version of the Spiegel has an interesting article entitled "Could George Bush Be Right?"

The article's main thesis is that Europe, or at least Germany, tends to look to the past while the United States tends to look to creating new futures. An example given was President Reagan's vision of a united Germany when he "stood before the Brandenburg Gate -- and the Berlin Wall -- and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this Wall'". The immediate political reaction was that ol' Ronnie was off his rocker. But President Reagan turned out to have seen the future more accurately than the local politicians. At least, according to the article.

The article then makes the leap to the present and says perhaps President Bush's vision of a pan-Arab shift to a democratic-like style of governing could be an accurate prediction of the near future. While this is a very large gap to bridge, what if the author is correct? Imagine the possibilities.

However, while one can hope that if democracy can take root in the former USSR and Eastern Germany, perhaps it can take hold in Arab countries, we must remember the differing dynamics.

Many Arab countries enfold themselves in the robes of their religion. Much more so than western countries and, I believe, much more so than the USSR and Eastern Germany did (unless you define communism as a religion).

In history, religion has played both the role of conservator as well as revolutionary. Which role will it play in the Middle East? I don't know, but for now, it seems to be more conservative and rearward looking than the contrary.

Aloha!

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- the fourth US President James Madison (b 1751 - d 1836)

The policy of having internal passports, much like that of Hitler's Germany and the old USSR, and the requirement to get permission from the Government to travel within the boundaries of your own country, is slowly coming true here in the US.

Today, law enforcement officials can require you to produce a government issued identity card, for any reason, or no reason at all. If you refuse, you can be arrested. Today, you are required to produce your identity papers at the airport. Refuse, and you can be arrested. And therein lies today's chilling story.

As you may know, many of the laws passed by fearful lawmakers post September 11th are patently un-constitutional. One of the most egregious is one that makes many security laws secret. You are required to follow these laws but you aren't allowed to know what they are. Violate one of these laws, or at least be charged with violating one of these laws and you can disappear into a secret system whereby you can be imprisoned, without charge or legal representation, forever.

But there are a brave few who are challenging these laws. One of them goes by the name of John Gilmore. Mr. Gilmore, the fifth employee hired at Sun, has led an interesting life. But what's important here is he wants a public debate about what is happening to this country. Namely, while the military is fighting in foreign lands to bring them freedom and democracy, our own country is headed in the opposite direction.

Mr. Gilmore wanted to board a flight to Washington, D.C. so that he could petition his Representative to get redress. At the airport, he was asked for identification by the airline agent. At that point he asked the agent

...if the ID requirement was an airline rule or a government rule. She didn't seem to know. Gilmore argued that if nobody could show him the law, he wasn't showing them an ID.

They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanted, patted down and sent along.

As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.

It seems to me that if security is the reason for stopping Mr. Gilmore, and if he was willing and passed an extensive search of his person, then he should be allowed to board since he would not be a security threat.

Indeed, if security is such an issue, how is it that people board buses, trains, boats, and automobiles all the time without having to show government issued identification. What is it about aircraft that we require it?

Regardless of the reasons for asking, the scary thing is the law Mr. Gilmore supposedly violated is secret. So secret not even his lawyers are allowed to see it. Why? How is someone supposed to defend himself in court if you can't even view, much less challenge the very law he is charged with violating?

What kind of country do we live in? Right now. Today.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government purposes are beneficent...The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. -- US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Aloha!

An excerpt from an open letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from former Canadian Prime Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy:

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

The Social Security system in the US is either broken or doing well and doesn't need tinkering. At least, that seems to be the two positions staked out by the President and most Democrats. As is many times true, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

But regardless of the truth, picking a position (i.e., doesn't need tinkering - Democrats) that is at odds with the majority of the people, will not win you friends nor get you elected in November.

In my opinion, most people intuitively know that the system works, to the extent it does, when the number of people working is large enough so that their contributions can provide benefits to those retired (without bankrupting either group). People also know that the "Baby Boomer" generation, a relatively large group of people with similar ages, is at the brink of retirement. As more and more people retire, the percentage working will decrease and so will the amounts paid into the system (or the amount taken from those working must substantially increase).

So, to stake out a position that is difficult, if not impossible to defend will not help you in the elections. And that folks, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal, is exactly what President Bush's Senior Advisor Karl Rove wants. Rove apparently doesn't care about what happens to Social Security, although it would be nice if his boss's position takes the day. Rather, what's more important is painting Democrats into a corner by which they can't come out of.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying President Bush's Social Security plan is the answer to the problem. What I am saying is that the Democrat's answer isn't workable either and is seen being contrary without reason.

Sitting out here in the middle of the Pacific, I've asked myself this very question. Why are my fellow Democrats putting themselves into unpopular positions just to be different from President Bush? It boggles my mind how such highly educated people can be so blind to what is happening. Perhaps their vision is made foggy by their hate of all things Republican? Perhaps they just want to differentiate themselves? I don't know. All I know is it's not helping America to solve our very real problems.

Aloha!

I'm still at home because of my back pain. I wasn't planning on doing a post today but when I saw that George F. Kennan had passed away I decided to briefly note his passing.

Others more qualified than I will write his obituary, but it is not rhetoric when he is described as "the nearest thing to a legend that this country's diplomatic service has ever produced..."

His vision of post-World War II gave key insights into Soviet behavior. Whether you agreed with his insights or not, his opinions were followed by those in power during that period and beyond.

Perhaps the best epitaph that anyone can have is the one that says: "The world is a better place for his having been here." May he rest in peace.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

Insert Disclaimer here. These are my personal views.

The three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - see Articles I, II, and III) of the US government are set-out in the US Constitution. All of the branches were created co-equal. That is, no one branch is to have unchecked dominion over the other. This equilibrium is created through a system of checks and balances.

While the fulcrum point among the branches may have shifted back and forth over the years, the system of checks and balances remain to this day. One of of these checks on the Legislative branch is the prohibition against ex post facto laws (see Article I, Section 9):

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]

A second is a check on the Executive and Legislative in the process of amending the Constitution (see Article V). Note, the Executive branch plays no part in the amendment process. Proposed amendments originate either from Congress or the state legislatures/conventions and are ultimately approved by the states (either by the respective legislatures or by conventions). Hence, the President does not have the ability to wield one of his most powerful tools, the veto. And Congress can propose an amendment, but only the states can approve it.

Another check on both the Executive and the Legislative is that the Judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means and therefore whether a bill passed by the Legislative branch and signed into law by the President is constitutional. Of course, the Congress, along with the state legislatures/conventions can amend the Constitution (as noted above) but this is a slow and by no means certain process.

With that background we come to the case of a Florida woman by the name of Terri Schiavo. In 1990, Schiavo suffered a heart attack that, among other things, left her brain without oxygen long enough to cause severe and irreparable brain damage. While she can breathe on her own, she cannot otherwise take care of herself.

For the last seven years, her husband Michael Schiavo, has tried to have his wife's feeding tube removed as an effort to end an existence he says his wife did not want. Recently, he was successful in his efforts and Florida state court ruled that the feeding tube be removed. Efforts to appeal the case to federal court have, up to now, failed since the case is viewed as having no federal basis. As background, under various state laws, patients have the ability to choose what level of medical care they receive. However, in this case, there is no record of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes except for the verbal account of her husband.

Because of this lack of legal record, the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo, her husband, her parents, the state of Florida, and now the US Congress may be at odds.

Over the weekend, Congress passed a bill for an Act, and President Bush signed into law the bill that gives:

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

This is an extra-ordinary piece of legislation, created for one person, rushed through Congress over the weekend (with one account saying only three out of the 100 members of the Senate where even present). It does not require a stretch of the imagination to guess that it will eventually require the involvement of the US Supreme Court. This involvement may come in several ways but the main question would still be is this Act constitutional?

I'm no lawyer and I definitely don't know Florida law. So don't expect me to give my two cents on this matter. All I will say is if Mrs. Schiavo had spent a few hours creating the necessary legal documents while she was well, all of this could have been avoided. If you haven't looked into what is required in your state, please contact your attorney and find out what needs to be done. Now. While you still can. My wife and I did years ago, so should you. Don't let a court, or Congress, determine things for you.

Aloha!

Who'd a thunk it? Dan Bricklin has a post where he says, in some ways, Microsoft "gets it" but Apple doesn't. Before you go off and flame the man, read his post first.

What he's talking about is Apple's lawsuit to find out who leaked some product information to web sites. The EFF has a pretty good summary of the particulars:

In December 2004, Apple filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara county against unnamed individuals who allegedly leaked information about new Apple products to several online news sites, including AppleInsider and PowerPage. The articles at issue concerned a FireWire audio interface for GarageBand, codenamed "Asteroid" or "Q7." In addition, Apple filed a separate trade secret suit against Think Secret on January 4, 2004.

Apple is seeking information from these news sites regarding the identities of the sites' sources, and has subpoenaed Nfox.com, the email service provider for PowerPage, for email messages that may identify the confidential source.

EFF opposes Apple's discovery because the confidentiality of the media's sources and unpublished information are critical means for journalists of all stripes to acquire information and communicate it to the public. Because today's online journalists frequently depend on confidential sources to gather material, their ability to promise confidentiality is essential to maintaining the strength of independent media. Furthermore, the protections required by the First Amendment are necessary regardless of whether the journalist uses a third party for communications.

As a journalist/blogger/developer, Bricklin was torn as to what to do. On one hand, he develops software for the Mac. In order to do that, he has to buy Apple products. On the other hand, as a good citizen of the Internet, he is concerned by the negative attitude that this lawsuit personifies.

One tool he tries to use to weigh his response is economic. He balances his need to acquire Apple products (and therefore, in small part, fund the very behavior he objects to) to make a living versus the cost of boycotting Apple to persuade it to change its behavior. He also points out the benefits, tangible and not, Apple accrues due to these fan sites.

For him, the bottom line was he bought the product(s), but from a resaler rather than directly from Apple (so that Apple's profit would be less). You may not agree with his decision but I think everyone needs to decide for themselves what the costs versus benefits are.

The 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning was awarded to Nick Anderson of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal . Here is a collection of his work. Below are a couple that I especially like:

Aloha!

Some people, full of hate and anger, seem to only see what they want to see. [insert disclaimer here]

As the US slowly moves toward ultra-conservatism, and the totalitarian state that would logically result, some are trying to get people to see the danger. Some are trying to get us to pull back from the abyss that lies inches from our feet.

I don't know Arthur Silber. As far as I can remember I've never visited his site nor read anything he has written. But he has a short post entitled "Towards a Stalinist Theocracy, Advocating Murder, and Hell Draws Closer." It documents the thoughts of certain people on the right who seem to be calling for changes to the courts that would destroy our system of Constitutional checks and balances and the republic it protects.

These checks and balances were put in place by the forefathers to make government inefficient. They were willing to make this tradeoff, it can be argued, because they lived under totalitarian rule and knew the feeling of government's boot pressing down on their throats. So, they were willing to trade a little efficiency for a lot of freedom.

What is so strange to me is that the US Congress already holds the final trump over the Executive and Judicial branches because it is only Congress (and state constitutional conventions) that can create, amend, or destroy the Constitution. It is only Congress that creates the very laws Congress now seems to want the Judiciary to ignore.

Talk about wanting activist judges! These conservatives seem to want sycophants who will do their bidding, regardless of the rule of law. Forget about separate, but equal. They want servants who will do their dirty, political work. Heck, forget about interpreting the law, many of these people don't even want the Judiciary to hear many types of cases. In the end, the Congress seems intent on breaking down the separation of powers so that it alone is the final arbiter of the law.

It is not without reason that federal judges are appointed for life. While, in the past, I have wondered whether that was a Good Thing, I now see the wisdom of the forefathers. They saw the passions that swayed the minds of men. They saw the irrational fears, anger, and yes, hate that filled men's souls. Emotions so strong that ideas so contrary to freedom and democracy could not only take hold, but spread like a wild fire across the parched prairie. A fire that consumes like the fires of Hell.

We make our own destinies. Nothing is set in stone. You can choose freedom or you can choose Hell. Choose wisely.

Aloha!

It's no secret that the lifestyle of the average US citizen is being financed by foreign banks (see especially "Ownership of Federal Securities", 8MB Word document, Table OFS-2, column 11). The trade deficit, the difference between what we buy from other countries versus what we sell hit a record in February of $61 billion. As the US government, that is you and I, runs up a deficit for this year alone of $477 billion, a 10-year cumulative deficit projected to be $2.4 trillion dollars, and the current total debt of $7.8 trillion, this article says Asian markets are becoming afraid.

The problem is, if the foreign banks (mainly China and Japan) panic and start dumping dollars, the impact on the economy of their biggest customer (i.e., the US) would be negatively affected. If that happens, their customers won't be able to buy the stuff they sell.

So, strange at it may seem, the Asians are in a bind. They can't keep funding record US borrowing forever. But if they cut off funding too abruptly, Bad Things happen. So they must walk a narrow path wherein they gradually reduce their buying of US debt (in various forms such as US Treasury securities) while not reducing it too quickly.

But whatever the Asians do, there will be an impact on the US economy. Interest rates will go up. It is inevitable in an economy dominated by debt and a Republican dominated Congress intent only on spending as much as they can, as quickly as they can, that the cost will eventually have to be paid. That time may be now.

Aloha!

Mr. Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, is saying that President Bush is a champion of democracy in the Middle East, and has been for years.

Before I go any farther, I want to state that I have no ill will against Mr. Reynolds. He has the right to his opinions and nothing I say here should be construed to mean I don't have anything but respect for what he says.

That said, I wonder how it is a GoodThing to champion democracy now, but when former President Jimmy Carter talked about it, neocon Jeane Kirkpatrick, writing in the neocon magazine Commentary, and as quoted in a Washington Post column by Michael Kinsley, mocked:

"the belief that it is possible to democratize governments anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances." Democracy, she said, depends "on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions." It takes "decades, if not centuries."

Kirkpatrick attacked President Carter for trying to "impose liberalization and democratization" on other countries. Hmmm, talk about historical revisionism!

I'll let you decide who is revising what.

Aloha!

The web site "GoUpstate.com" has a New York Times article that says seven months after the so called assault weapons ban was repealed, there hasn't been any increase in crime related to assault weapons.

I think most people realize criminals carry pistols, not rifles (assault or otherwise). Pistols are easier to conceal, cheaper, and work better in close quarters. Hence, banning assault rifles doesn't do much. For that matter, passing a law against pistols might not be effective either. But that's a debate for another day.

Aloha!

The administrator of a Kaua'i public school was sentenced to jail yesterday for viciously beating her adopted son. She pled guilty to two counts of felony assault. According to one report, she tied up her son, making sure to wrap the rope around his neck, then beat him with a baseball bat.

She will apparently keep her job as principal of the public school as if nothing has happened. As if she can do her job from jail. As if beating a child, her child, counts for nothing. At least, it doesn't appear so at this particular school because the school's board fully supports her and will not fire her. Even though she will be in jail, as a convicted felon child beater.

Here's the rest of the story. These charter schools are an experiment in local control. Each school is run by a local board. For good or evil, the boards have the power to, among other things, hire and fire and set their own budget priorities. The schools are free of all "statutory and regulatory requirements that tend to inhibit of restrict a school's ability to make decisions relating to the provision of educational services to the students attending the school". They are free of "bureaucratic red tape and accommodating of the individual needs of students to allow the State to dramatically improve its educational standards for the twenty-first century".

This is done, they say, because it focuses accountability directly onto a local group, rather than some faceless administrator on another island, thus releasing the innovative energies of the community.

So what message are we sending when a local board fails to hold their own administrator accountable? What remedy do the people of this child's district have when the problem is holding the local board accountable?

In at least this case, the answer appears to be nothing.

So if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and if, according to this report no such weapons were secreted out to Syria, or anywhere else, tell me again why we went into Iraq? What? Oh, right. Freedom in our time. Whatever.

George Bernard Shaw is oft quoted as having said that youth is wasted on the young. Perhaps this has some meaning as you read this story about college students.

The University of Hawaii (UH) is trying to work with the U.S. Navy to create what is known as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). While I can find examples of various UARCs I can't find anything that defines what a UARC is supposed to be.

In any case, the UH UARC would do classified research for the Navy and would bring to Hawai'i around $50 million USD in federal funds over the next five years.

This is where the students come in. Some have been making claims about how UH would be developing weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the UH doesn't exactly have expertise nor resources in that area but I guess that is irrelevant to some students. As a practical matter, it is difficult to develop weapons of mass destruction on $10 million a year. That kind of money is spent by weapons developers on junkets to the Virgin Islands, not Universities developing WMD.

The administration of UH insists the research would be in the areas of oceanography, astrophysics, optics, and development of sensors. Areas in which the UH does have expertise. But then, who do believe?

Notwithstanding that, the student protestors decided to take action. So they occupied the UH President's office last week and haven't left. The protestors are saying they will not leave until the UH changes their mind about the UARC or they (the students) get arrested.

I have to give full marks for patience to the UH President as he, so far, has let the students occupy his offices. He has also offered to meet individually with the students to discuss the situation. However, the students, who apparently distrust the President, would have none of that.

Actually, I also have to give full marks to the students because at least they are active rather than passive consumers of what they've learned in school. And, so far, they've not damaged the offices or the equipment therein. Some of them even appear to have an open mind and are willing to discuss the matter with the President.

That said, I don't know what good will come of this [insert disclaimer here]. I hope the sides, and there are more than two sides to this story, can come to an understanding of how to humbly and peacefully proceed. I hope the sides can create a mechanism whereby trust can be built and transparency in decisions (for all sides) are the rule, rather than the exception. I don't know how that is going to happen but one can hope.

Aloha!

Almost any GoodThing, taken to extremes, can become a BadThing. [insert disclaimer here]

For example, many Republicans talk about abhorring judicial flexibility. That is, they seem to feel that judges shouldn't be allowed to use much, if any, discreation.

Many refer to judges that they don't agree with as so called "activist judges." These activist judges interpret, rather than strictly follow the wording of laws. According to this argument, using one's good judgment goes beyond what should be authorized under the law.

To a certain extent, this is true. Judges should not be making the law. Making laws, under our Constitution, is given to the Legislative branch. The Judiciary, according to these people, should only settle disputes and mete out punishments without regard to the circumstances surround the situation. Otherwise, they say, the law has no meaning.

Those who are strict readers of the law talk about mandatory sentencing or "zero tolerance" when it comes to most, if not all crimes. While this does solve the problem of activist judges, it soon runs afoul of either the Constitution or common sense.

One real world example of what happens when you blindly follow a rule without taking into account the circumstances surrounding the problem is this one.

It seems, like many schools, the school in Georgia has a ban on students using cell phones at school. Usually, such bans are in place to maintain discipline and order in the classroom. This is a GoodThing. I think we would all agree that the classroom is a place for learning, not talking on your cell phone.

Violate that ban and you should expect negative consequences.

However, in this instance, things are a little more complicated than that. First, the student was on his lunch break, not in a classroom. Second, the call that came in was from his mother. His mother is a soldier. In Iraq. There is a time difference between Georgia and Iraq. If they are to speak, sometimes the calls will be during the students lunch break.

The undisputed fact is, the student did break the ban on cell phone calls. Other than that, everything is in dispute. I don't know, but he may have sworn at the teacher that ordered him to end his conversation with his mother because he was violating the ban. And the teacher may not have known the student was talking with his mother.

Regardless of the particulars, the principal of the school enforced the ban and suspended the student for 10 days. The rule is clear, there are no exceptions. There is no room for dealing with specific circumstances. The rules are the rules. There is zero tolerance. Period.

Until, of course, the story hit the national news and common sense arrived in the form of a storm of derision falling on the school. Of course these are special circumstances. Of course you should be able to take into account the totality of the situation. And of course, in the interest of justice, which is what the rule is supposed to serve, the punishment should be tailored to the crime.

The punishment was revised to the two days he had already been suspended. Perhaps this is justified under the circumstances and therefore well and good. But the lesson for the school should be that not everything is so cut and dried. People who have to judge other people need some flexibility in applying the rule and its punishment. Otherwise, following the rules leads to injustice.

Aloha!

Congress is at it again. Once again, Congress is choosing the police state over freedom by grabbing power from the states and centralizing it in Washington. In this case, we're talking about a national ID card called Real ID.

In the name of security, Congress is mandating, among other things, state driver's licenses to include a "common machine-readable technology", RFID chips, and no post office box addresses. Each has real life costs higher than the imaginary benefits.

The author of the article states that the common machine readable technology will facilitate ID theft. Rather than having to deal with 50 different variations, organized crime and terrorists will be able to rely on one single point of failure in stealing your identity. Crack that one method and you are home free across the nation. What could possibly go wrong?

Secondly, RFID, with a transmission range of over 90 ft (see the Wikipedia article here) also facilitates ID theft. Unlike most magnetic stripe cards, which require third-parties to physically run the card through a reader, RFID merely needs to be within range of an electronic scanner. The information exchange occurs without user notification, knowledge, or consent. Your information is there for the taking by anyone with a reader within range of the chip. What could possibly go wrong?

Lastly, millions of people use post office boxes rather than street addresses. For some, it's a business convenience or physical necessity (there being no mail box). For others, it shields them from stalkers and terrorists intent on killing them. In any case, why does the federal government think it is any of its business to require me to tell them what street address I live at? What could possibly go wrong?

Why is the political party that supposedly hates centralized power so intent on becoming a centralized police state much like the former Soviet Union? Why do they think becoming a police state will make us safer? Why do they think shredding the Constitution and grinding it into the dirt under the jack boot of a federal bureaucracy is a GoodThing?

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering and the end of the Republic. Even as these words are being written, the Imperial Senate is debating the right of the majority to bring tyranny to all and to end over 200 years of freedom.

The majority Republicans, full of hate towards the Judiciary (insert disclaimer here), is trying to pack the courts with faith-based judges. In this case, faith-based is a code phrase for Jesus Christ centered judges.

Although I am a Christian, I do not want judges to reflect only one religion nor do I want them to make decisions based solely on their Christian faith. Either we are a country of laws or we are a country of priests.

One would have thought that we would have learned one of the great lessons of history: priests should minister to their fellow believers, not try to run countries. But I guess not.

I don't know if history will record a single event that will mark the end of the Republic of these United States, but this well could be it.

Aloha!

All tools can be used for good or ill. It is the human being holding the tool that decides how it is used.

Such is the case with science. According to this CNN article, President Bush is unhappy that Congress would expand public funding for embryonic stem cell research.

In 2001, the President decreed that federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells be limited to cell lines already in existence. However, scientists have noted that many of the existing stem cell lines were contaminated and thus, unusable.

Conversely, many conservatives equate stem cell research with abortion and are therefore categorically opposed to it. While there have been notable exceptions, such as former First Lady Nancy Reagan, many conservatives still have strong concerns.

In this instance, the President is threatening to veto any legislation that expands stem cell research. The question before Congress is whether to expand our knowledge through science or let other countries lead the way while we metaphorically stick our heads in the sand and hope the whole subject will just go away.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

Republicans have been successful in making the word "liberal" have negative connotations. The next word to take a hit seems to be the word "progressive." For example, this column is from someone who says he is "leaving the left" because he can "no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives." In this two part post called Sanctuary, another writer echoes the call to abandon being progressive.

I have to ask, is being retrogressive a GoodThing? Isn't the root word of progressive: progress (from the Latin word for advance)? Isn't progress or advancement what most of us want? I mean, if you aren't trying to improve things, what are you trying to do? Make them worse? Is this what these people who look down on progressives want?

Further, what does it mean to leave the left? Does that mean you are joining the right? Or does it mean you are part of the majority who abhor the extreme rhetoric of both the far left and the far right?

I dunno. I agree that the far left, seemingly full of Socialists, is not where I find myself. But neither does it mean I agree with the far right tyrannical policies of expanding government's power over the individual citizen. Whether the bullet to the head comes from a faith-based black helicopter or a Socialist's AK-47, matters not to me.

What matters to me is the attitude that being progressive, that is reform minded, is a BadThing. I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me, I want to live in a world that is rational, forward looking, and open to accepting progressive reform.

If the these columnists want something else, then I want no part of their world.

Aloha!

Mitchell, McCord, Sturgis, Ehrlichman, Colson, Dean, Haldeman, Liddy, Segretti, Hunt, Richard M. Nixon. Names from the past. But one of the long kept secrets of the Watergate scandal was the identity of the person known only as "Deep Throat." The confidential source helped the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by pointing them in the right direction when they could have just as easily gone astray. The question? Did the scandal go all the way to the President?

The answer was yes, it did. Not only did it go to the White House, the President personally directed the operations, including the so called dirty tricks part of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. The President managed, approved, and funded multiple burglaries, forgeries, and as a chilling example of things to come from Republicans, whispering campaigns full of half-truths or downright lies.

In the end, President Nixon tried to cover his illegal acts by wrapping himself in the flag and declaring national security concerns. He declared that those who would hold him accountable to the Constitution were unwittingly aiding the Communists. That now was not the time to investigate the President because there was a war on and soldiers were getting killed. That it was unpatriotic and dangerous to be looking at his actions and, in any case, he was immune from prosecution.

Comes now news reports quoting a Vanity Fair interview with former FBI Assistant Director W. Mark Felt, now 91 and living in California, as saying he is the man called Deep Throat.

The Republican spinmeisters will probably say otherwise but, in my opinion, whoever is Deep Throat is a patriot and deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Without his actions, one of the most corrupt, anti-democratic, imperial regimes of the last century would have gone unpunished.

Aloha!

Most reasonable people would agree that very few "rights" are absolute. That is, each right is usually balanced by another because if you take one right to an extreme you end up violating another.

Such is the case with transparency in government. While citizens should be able to know what their government is doing in their name, that doesn't mean all documents should be available without redaction to protect the privacy rights of those involved.

For example, many court records are considered to be open to the public. So, anyone can walk into the appropriate office, fill out the appropriate request form, and view any of these records. The thing is, many of these records include private information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, mother's maiden names, addresses, phone numbers, and even the names of pets.

And for the most part, this has not caused problems (although there have been incidents with stalkers). But with the age of computers, where millions of records can be searched or compiled in seconds, problems arise.

In the rush to make public records available in electronic form, millions of records have been released without redaction. It is now possible for anyone with an Internet connection to find and compile information that wouldn't/couldn't be done before.

Some jurisdictions have even seen this as a money making opportunity. That is, they are selling the unedited records to anyone who is willing to pay. Unfortunately, some of those willing to pay are up to no good. For instance, they want to steal your identity or bury you under an avalanche of spam.

The point is, government needs to be doing a better job of balancing the right to privacy versus the right of the public to know what's going on.

One way this is going to happen is when citizens hold government accountable. Like this woman who is making it her cause to embarrass or harass politicians into doing what should have been done in the beginning - redacting private information before releasing government records.

What frightens me the most is that it may be too late to do anything effective. Once this information hits the Internet, it's almost impossible to erase it. The only hope, if there is any, is to keep new unedited information from being published.

Aloha!

Over at the Weekly World News site is a story that must have been left over from Loof Lirpa Day. According to the story, President Bush authorized the selling of the Hawaiian Islands to the highest bidder. In an auction held soon after the second inauguration, supposedly, that bidder was Japan.

"It's so far away, that it doesn't even seem like part of America anyway," the President is alleged to have said at a cabinet meeting, adding, "Besides, I talked to Daddy about it and he says there's no oil there, just pineapples and coconuts."

I'm not making this up (although they are).

If the politicians in Washington know nothing (which is probably true - ed.) else, they should know that the country is deeply divided over just about everything. Hence, before they go off pontificating about how they won the election and therefore they can do anything they want, they need to know that half the country will not follow. And if the country doesn't follow, everything they try is doomed to failure.

For example, support for what Washington is doing in Iraq is fading. The latest evidence of this is a Washington Post/ABC News poll that finds:

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean US citizens don't support the military or the unfortunate citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. One cannot view this photo of "Aussain Ali, an Iraqi policeman who was wounded in clashes between Iraqi police and gunmen in west Baghdad, Wednesday June 8, 2005 after gunmen attacked a police car. One police officer was killed and six injured" and not feel for the brave men and women trying to bring peace to their troubled land.

But a smart politician will lead wherever his or her constituents want to follow. Unfortunately, many politicians are extremist who don't care what their constituents want. Therein lies the tragedy that befalls us.

This article is a prime example of what I say many Republican politicians (and bloggers) do. Or don't do, as the case may be.

What they don't do is admit they are in error. Many US citizens, Democrats and Republicans, were concerned about the Terri Schiavo case. However, many politicians on the Republican side, apparently seeing this as a situation ripe for political posturing, passed federal legislation trying, essentially in my opinion, to coerce the courts into violating the Constitutions of Florida and the United States (insert disclaimer here).

Comes now the autopsy which finds massive, permanent brain damage. As many people know, the brain cannot regenerate itself. The brain cells you have is all that you will ever get. As they die, they are not replaced (barring stem cell research, another thing many Republicans seem to be against).

The autopsy also proved that Schiavo was totally blind (as opposed to legally blind, which is something else). Many true believers said a video tape showing Schiavo supposedly reacting to visual stimuli proved that she was not in a permanent vegetative state. But since she was blind, this belief is provably and objectively unsustainable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about the motives of Schiavo's husband. Nor am reducing the power of prayer or faith. I am, however, saying that the medical record indicates that Terri Schiavo was in fact severely brain damaged and, barring a miracle, was never going to get better.

Aloha!

Although the courts dealt a blow to the supporters of the so called broadcast flag, it is Congress that always has the last trump. According to this EFF alert, an un-named Senator or Senators have inserted legislation into an unrelated appropriations bill reviving the broadcast flag.

If successful, as I understand it, the hardware and software to implement the digital rights management would block your VCR, TiVo, DVD recorder, home theater receiver, cell phone, personal video device, router, or PCs from transporting, displaying, or recording anything containing the flag without the permission of the provider.

If this legislation had been effect earlier, there would be no VCR, DVD, CD-ROM, TiVo, or any other device that could transport, display, or record anything containing the flag.

If it's not already too late, you may want to contact your Senator and ask him or her to vote to remove the broadcast flag amendment.

Aloha!

We have enough real problems and real enemies in the world that we don't need to make some up. But the Washington Post has an article on the new McCarthyism. I've talked about this before but it is helpful to summarize what President Bush's White House senior political advisor Karl Rove does.

It comes down to this kind of question that Rove, and neo-McCarthyites like him, like to use: Will or will not Karl Christian Rove stop having sex with furry farm animals? Yes or no? Will he or won't he? There is no gray area. Either he will or he won't. Answer the question. The American people have a right to know. Will he stop having sex with furry farm animals? Michelle Malkin is all over this story.

Obviously, this presupposes he is having sex with furry farm animals. If he isn't, and I have no evidence to believe he is, trying to answer such a question is a no win situation. That's why he and others of his ilk like to use such tactics. It immediately puts the target on the defensive.

From there, you then segue to asking: When are you going to stop being a socialist/communist/liberal/Jewish/black/Hispanic/insert your choice here? Don't you realize that the events of September 11th changed everything? How can you be socialist/communist/liberal/Jewish/black/Hispanic/insert your choice here after the 9/11 murders caused by the Iraqi terrorists Saudi Arabian terrorists and their weapons of mass destruction our airplanes?

During his time, US Senator Joseph McCarthy really asked these types of crude questions. But the dirty secret was that it worked. People were afraid of the power that he grew to have. Until, that is, enough patriots stood up to the playground bully. Once it became clear that the accusations were false, the accuser had no power to hold the stage and left in disgrace.

When will that happen to the neo-McCarthyites I don't know. But it can't come too soon.

Aloha!

A Newsweek report on the MSNBC site indicates President Bush's White House Deputy Chief of Staff and political strategist Karl Rove may have been the source that identified a Central Intelligence Agency undercover agent. According to the report,

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Whomever is the source of the leak should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Revealing the true identity of a CIA undercover agent puts the life of not only the agent in jeopardy, but also anyone who the agent had ever worked with. It is not overstating things to say people's lives may have been but at peril because of Washington beltway political shenanigans.

Aloha!

As to whether it is Miller or Novak or some other person who should be in jail for publishing the name of a CIA undercover operative, all I can do is agree with blogger Andrew Sullivan:

"For the partisan right, outing CIA operatives in wartime is the patriotic thing to do. There's only one real option worthy of Bush: give Rove the Medal of Freedom."

Not.

As I've said before, [rant="on"] I don't know who revealed the name but whomever it is, he or she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you think me partisan for saying that, so be it.

But I believe partisan politics has no place when it comes to the security of our nation and any who say identifying our CIA operatives, during a time of war, doesn't weaken our security is either a fool, a Republican sycophant, or both. I don't care if it turns out to be Senator Clinton herself who leaked the name, whomever did should be prosecuted.

And lest we forget, the leak itself was apparently based on partisan politics to try to spin the Nigerian uranium weapons of mass destruction theory of President Bush. And lest we also forget, I seem to remember that the British author of the Nigeria report used by the UK to justify invading Iraq committed suicide when his name was published. Yet some cling to the report without a healthy bit skepticism as to its conclusions.

Bah. Enough of this. Give Rove the Medal of Freedom and President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

[Insert disclaimer here. I am not a lawyer. These are my own opinions.] This week will mark one of the most important debates for Hawai'i since statehood. Today, Congress will hear the so called "Akaka Bill." The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, is commonly referred to by the name of the Hawai'i senator, Daniel Akaka, who introduced the bill. This measure would further the process whereby the US would eventually recognize native Hawaiians in ways similar to, but not exactly like, native Alaskans or native Americans.

Broadly speaking, the bill provides three points:

It establishes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to be composed of federal officials from agencies which administer Native Hawaiian programs. Both of these provisions are intended to increase coordination between the Native Hawaiians and the federal government. And third, the bill provides a process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

The bill is seen as the second of many steps to recognize certain legal rights that, it is said, Hawaiians either never relinquished or were illegally taken from us. Chief among those rights is the third point mentioned above, the ability to form our own "governing entity", much as native Americans have formed their own. What form that governing entity would take is not spelled out in the bill.

Nonetheless, the process of recognizing these rights began with the enactment, on November 23, 1993, of Public Law 103-14 150 (107 Stat. 1510), commonly referred to as the "Apology Resolution" which states, in pertinent part, that Congress:

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and

(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.

This is a very complex undertaking and as is made even more so by certain people who spread misunderstandings, distortions, and outright lies. I don't know if justice will finally be done, but this effort is as close as Hawaiians have ever been. Imua

Aloha!

Anyone who's been following the ethanol for fuel debate probably already know this but it's nonetheless important to note that this study shows that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than you save by using it in place of oil.

Let me repeat the obvious, it takes more energy to produce ethanol as a fuel for vehicles than is saved by substituting it for gasoline. Note, this is just the cost of producing the ethanol (not including the three billion that U.S. big agriculture receive in subsidies from the US tax payers).

The other loss is that ethanol has less energy per unit burned. This mean you have to burn more of it to go the same distance for a given unit of gasoline. Which, of course, means you have to buy more of it to go the same distance you would otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I believe our dependence on oil is a strategic risk and a not so hidden cost. In addition, burning gasoline has many negative environmental effects. That said, it is difficult to make a rational case that substituting ethanol for a portion of gasoline makes sense -- economic, environmental, or otherwise.

Let's be clear, the whole point of switching to ethanol is a way of transferring money from tax payers to agriculture interests. Big agricultural interests. The kind that buy and sell politicians.

There is even an effort here to force people to buy ethanol laced gasoline so that the failing agriculture businesses here can prolong the inevitable.

Speaking of Republican bias, the local TV stations led off their broadcasts with the Akaka Bill story. Several of them even sent local reporters to Washington to cover the story. While I can not watch all three major stations at once, it seemed each of these spent about two minutes reporting the deeds of the Republicans. But the Republican run local TV station did not say why the Republican hold was put in place and spent about a meager 15 seconds, total, on the story saying only there could be a vote sometime this week.

While it is true there could be a vote, it is also said to be true that if pigs had wings they could fly. The point is right wingers love to say how the media is left leaning and therefore doesn't report in a balanced way. Well, I've got news for them, if it's not a GoodThing for liberals to do, why aren't these people up in arms when conservatives do the same thing? Can you say double standard?

Even the morning papers seem to reflect the conservative leaning line. The Republican run newspaper seems to think a non-story of the possible closing of Pearl Harbor, so that a shipyard in Maine can be saved is more important than the future of Hawaiians. So, it seems, that leaves no space on the front page of their website and, I think newspaper, for the Akaka Bill. On the other hand, our other morning newspaper sees fit to have a front page, above the fold article on the bill and second on the list on their website.

While, if Pearl Harbor were closed, that would definitely be front page news, it is not going to happen. There is no way, unless Maine's two Republican senators put their state's economic well-being ahead of our nations security, will Pearl Harbor close. I wonder if they believe our Canadian neighbors to the North will be lofting a few missiles our way? If so, Mainers need to seriously rethink who they vote for. We are more likely to be hit by a missile from Florida, than one from Ottawa.

If Pearl Harbor does indeed end up on the base closing list, all I can say is Republicans have devolved into the lowest form of life on this planet -- politicians.

In the mean time, let's have some truly balanced reporting.

Imua!

I talked yesterday about how Hawaiians were as close as we have ever been to moving forward with recognition as an indigenous group via the Akaka Bill. Unfortunately, the forces of evil Republicans have once again shown their true colors by blocking the debate in Congress.

Once again, Republicans have stolen what is rightfully ours.

Once again, Republicans have kept us from exercising our inalienable rights to self-determination.

Once again, Republicans have broken their word.

It is ironic that only two weeks ago, on July 4th, we commemorated the 229th anniversary of the signing of Declaration of Independence. Yet, these Republicans would deny us the very rights enshrined therein. I wonder if these Republicans realize they are only fueling the fires of those who have no trust nor faith in the US political process and having fueled these fires, do they understand the logical and predictable consequences?

Let it be on their heads.

The sad saga of the Akaka Bill continues. According to our one non-Republican newspaper, there are two "holds" on the bill. Both placed by Republicans. One of the holds is supposedly based on a concern that Hawaiians might legalize gambling. Of course, this hold is from the senator from, now wait for it, Nevada. As in Las Vegas, which happens to be in Nevada. Surely, this is not a conflict of interest. Right? Surely he has the best interest of native Hawaiians in mind. Right? Surely he isn't concerned that casinos in paradise would drain profits away from his state. Right?

The article is silent on the reason for the second hold. But it doesn't matter. If these holds are released, either others will come or amendments will be made to the bill such that no one will vote for the bill because of the amendments.

As far as I can see, this bill is dead for this year and probably any year in which the Republicans are in power. The good senator Akaka has been trying for six years. He has listened to the opposition and amended the bill, multiple times, to address their concerns. This year, the Republican leadership committed to moving the bill to the floor for a hearing and vote. And yet. It hasn't happened.

While one can never predict what politicians will do, it is not likely this promise will be kept. Sigh. Unless something positive comes of this, I don't think I'll be commenting more on this (hold down the cheers - ed.).

The Plame CIA "outing" debacle gets more and more interesting [everyone else in the world who has a life can just skip on down to the next item - ed.]. It seems that conservative columnist Robert Novak has a new column in which he makes certain claims.

First, he asserts that he is "a veteran of 48 years in Washington." Assuming this is true, one presumes he is saying he is wise in the ways of Washington and is, therefore, an expert rather than a journalistic dilettante.

If we accept this at face value then, I believe, it is fair to judge him in that light.

Novak goes on to say that one CIA source told Post reporters that he (the CIA source) "had 'warned' me [Novak] that if I 'did write about it her name should not be revealed.'" Novak does not dispute this report but says it's nonsense to not reveal the agent's name because anyone could just look in Who's Who and get the name. Novak is silent as to whether quoting Who's Who would reveal that Plame was an undercover agent. As noted before, revealing the name of a CIA secret agent is a federal offense because it endangers the security of the United States, the agent, and any operatives the agent may have worked with. This is especially true in time of war which, President Bush and other Republicans love to remind us, we are constantly in.

As a sidebar, it is exceedingly curious that no charges have been leveled against Novak, yet. One hates to speculate as to why, since most of the obvious reasons are so unseemly. But lets think about this for a minute and list some of the possibilities. One, the man didn't do anything illegal. Two, he did something illegal but he cut a deal with prosecutors in an attempt to save himself and point the blame at someone else. Three, he did something illegal and certain people in the Justice Department are doing their best to look the other way. Four, he did something illegal and will be indicted.

Getting back to his column, Novak says he was told by the CIA source that if Novak revealed her name, "she [Plame, the undercover agent] probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" In the world of reading between the lines, using the word "difficulties", in relation to an undercover agent, is a red flag to anyone who has any understanding of nuanced communications. If, in fact, Novak was an experience Washington hand, he should have realized that he was being warned not to reveal undercover agent Plame's name because of national security concerns.

Instead, Novak says "I never would have written those sentences [outing Plame] if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody." Funny how a self-described experienced reporter like Novak now conveniently seems blind to the, I believe, clear warning he received.

I am not a lawyer or a judge (insert disclaimer here]. So, I leave it up to you to decide what is happening here. But what seems clear to me is that either Novak is not the experienced reporter he asserts he is, or he is making what appears to me some very questionable and potentially legally actionable statements.

It seems to me that sometimes, we resist change even when, in the long run, it will benefit us. Perhaps because it is seen as work to implement a change. Maybe because, in the short-term, the change is not advantageous or because we didn't initiate the change and we don't trust others who want to force change upon us. Sometimes we resist change because our eyes are clouded and therefore cannot see the good end result. Other times, we may may understand the need for change, but stay silent out of respect for others who may not understand and therefore be offended by such a change.

This may be one of those times in which all of the above is occurring. However, I cannot remain silent because the stakes are much too high and the damage that could result is too great to stand by and watch a great institution be torn apart.

Before I go farther [insert the standard disclaimer here], I need to note, as I've noted before, that I attended the Kamehameha Schools (but did not graduate from there), a private school founded in 1887 through the will of the last surviving royal descendant of King Kamehameha -- Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.

At the time I was there, in the early 1970's, the Kamehameha Schools had only one campus and approximately 3,000 students (kindergarten through 12th grade) encompassing all races, backgrounds, and religions (but with a preference for native Hawaiians).

With that said, a brief history may be helpful to further set the context of the situation.

Before the arrival of foreign peoples, as many as 800,000 native Hawaiians may have lived on these blessed islands (pre-contact population estimates vary from a low of 200,000 to over 800,000. Compare this to the present day total population of not just Hawaiians, of about 1.2 million).

But due to our isolated location, Hawaiians, for centuries, had no contact with other peoples and therefore had built up no resistance to even what many consider to be common childhood diseases. But after coming in contact with such disease carrying foreign peoples in the late 1700s, the population declined, in the span of just over one generation, to less than 50,000.

Reacting in horror to the shocking and rapidly continuing decline in the population of her people, the Princess hastened to try, if possible, to provide for their educational needs after the last of the Kamehameha line was gone. One must remember that, due to this rapid decline, it wasn't at all clear there would be any native Hawaiians to educate after her death. Hence her will did not say to educate only native Hawaiians, fearing there wouldn't be any, rather only that preference should be given to native Hawaiians, if any, and especially those who were orphaned. But her other writings, and those of whom she spoke to, seem to clearly indicate she was desperately trying to spare as many native Hawaiians as she could, through education, so that they would not disappear from the face of the Earth.

For the more than two centuries since then, the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate (hereinafter Estate), the entity created to fund the school, was cash poor but land rich. Indeed, at the time of her death, Princess Pauahi owned approximately one-tenth of all lands in the Hawaiian islands.

However, because much of these lands were in remote areas not immediately fit for habitation or set aside for watershed or other conservation efforts revenues from said lands were relatively small and therefore the school did not have the resources to expand.

But some of the Estate's lands included prime properties in Waikiki and the very expensive area called Kahala. However, it is my understanding that the Estate leased these lands at, for the most part, below market value. Why this was done is a long and winding road down paths littered with greed, politics, intrigue, double dealing, and Estate trustees seemingly more concerned with lining their pockets than educating children of Hawaiian ancestry.

That said, one of the lessons learned by native Hawaiians was that land was the basis for all that exists. Without land, you are nothing. Hence, we were loathe to part with any land, even if it might be beneficial to do so in certain instances.

When the Estate eventually began to raise lease rents to market values, politically adept lessees became angry and persuaded the local city council to pass an ordinance requiring the Estate to sell certain lands in fee (the lessees had to meet various requirements but having done so, the Estate had to sell regardless of what the Estate wanted to do).

Various native Hawaiian groups were up in arms and cried over how their land was being stolen. Although it can be argued that they were right, the forced selling of the land was found legal.

If there was a silver lining to this dark cloud, the eventual outcome of all these former lessees buying the Estate land in fee is that the Estate now has an estimated worth of about $6.2 billion USD and is one of the larger charitable trusts in the US, if not perhaps the world.

With these new funds, the school has expanded to two other islands (Maui and Hawaii) and now enrolls, through the various campuses and pre-school programs approximately 6,500 students; making Kamehameha the largest, independent private school in the entire United States.

But last week, three federal judges, in the much larger US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (warning: link goes to a PDF) that the Kamehameha Schools policy on giving preference to Hawaiians is illegal under federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Although this case still has a ways to go before it is finally settled, I have long felt that native Hawaiians will not find justice in the US legal system. The US system simply does not sufficiently take into account the special needs of this place and its people and perhaps, never will.

In the final analysis, I have come to believe that it is only through self-governance that we can find justice. Whether we will ever become self-governing I cannot say. But in the mean time, I think we have to prepare for the harm that certain groups of people will try to do to us in the name of the law.

In chess, you sometimes sacrifice a pawn now to create the opportunity for a better position in later moves. Likewise, I believe the admission criteria for the Kamehameha Schools should be amended to provide for the education of all Hawaii's children, native Hawaiian and not. By doing so, the school itself can continue on.

I believe this for two reasons. First, it may avoid a long and costly legal battle that, in the end, we may lose. Millions will be spent defending us against laws that were originally created to end white racist control over Blacks. These laws are now effectively being turned against native Hawaiians, by some of the same types of people that so long ruled over Blacks.

Our programs, such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, was first to be successfully attacked by certain haoles. Now, it is the Kamehameha Schools. Who knows what will be next. But in the end, I believe, it is just a matter when, not if, most if not all the programs created to help right the wrongs perpetuated against native Hawaiians will be found illegal.

Secondly, native Hawaiians are no longer in danger of becoming extinct. If anything, the number of Hawaiians or part-Hawaiians is growing [Late update, the Census Bureau released data which shows a decline in native Hawaiian population over the last four years. Read the full story here]. If things continue as they are, there is no danger whatsoever that we will go the way of the Dodo bird. I believe the mission of the Kamehameha Schools should reflect the changed circumstances and remove the policy of only native Hawaiians and expand it to all children in Hawaii (realizing, of course, that no private school has the funding to enroll all students).

I believe we must adapt. I believe the future is ahead of us, not behind. I believe that if we meet the challenges before us, we will come out of this a stronger people for it just as the Estate has become financially stronger as a result of converting lease to fee.

In the end, I agree with the Princess that the way to save ourselves is through education. And by educating everyone, we can now only grow stronger until that day when we can govern ourselves and sing, in the words of the old Black spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Although I did not attend the march, below are some photos taken during the march held last Saturday. It is estimated between 10,000 to 15,000 participated in the march from I'olani Palace to Mauna Ala (the final resting place of the royal ali'i). Photos found on the Internet from various sources.

The powerful and resonant sound emanating
from the massed conch shells gave me
"chicken skin" when I heard them on the news.

Heading mauka through Chinatown.

Half-way there.

Almost there.

For additional reading:

The Washington Post

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Aloha!

It seems the Governor of Kentucky, Ernie Fletcher (R), has gotten himeself into a bit of problem. Said problem may involve illegal hiring practices (Shocked! Shocked, I say!). His response when that pesky Attorney General, Greg Stumbo (D), started investigating? Why, the Good Governor pardoned everyone and then said no one was guilty of any lawbreaking, even though he was pardoning everyone for doing just that (i.e., lawbreaking).

Any Governor who believes he has to pardon his staff for wrongdoing that he says they didn't do is saying to the voters - "I believe you are the idiot issue of cousins mating and therefore will not know, nor care, that I'm lying to you."

See the story here.

Aloha!

Be wary of those who blame others for their own mistakes. Think carefully about what the spin doctors are saying when they blow smoke in your face and tell you there was no way to anticipate the horror that is New Orleans and if so, it was the all the Democrats fault, anyway. Remember this is the standard tactict of the Rove Republicans. Deny, then attack. When you see that, know that they are covering up for their own bungling and do not believe them.

A day of reckoning is long past due for these people. Perhaps that day has come (even as they spin as fast as they can saying now is not the time to find out why they didn't do their jobs...). The spin doctors are saying "Sleep. Yes, sleep. All is okay. We are the Republican government and all is fine. Don't ask pesky questions. Don't ask why we didn't do our jobs. Sleeeep."

Aloha!

JHR left a comment on yesterday's post. I decided to respond. My comments are interleaved with his (JHR's are in italics).

How convenient to have a Republican Gummint to blame for all the ills of the world!

Yes, very. Just like the Republicans blamed Democrats for everything from flouridated water to the loose morals of women. All I can say is if the Republicans can't stand a little of their own medicine they shouldn't be in Washington.

1. It was not the Feddle Gummint who failed to mobilize the National Guard.

Perhaps. Although the Federal government has the power to do so (which is how the Federal government sends these very same troops to "guard" Iraq).

That said, the Federal government does control FEMA, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard. How is it that the Coast Guard was up and rescuing people the *_day after_* the hurricane but the rest of the government was vacationing in Texas and campaigning in California?

2. It was not the Feddle Gummint who refused the offer of National Guard from nearby states.

Nope. But would that be Republican held Texas?

3. It was not the Feddle Gummint who refused the offers of EMR teams from nearby states because they were not licensed in New Orleans.

Don't know about this one but an EMS group of four from Hawaii who, I assume, are not licensed in New Orleans, were welcomed and put to good use providing emergency care the *_day after_* the hurricane hit. These EMS personnel are returning today as they have been working essentially 24-hours a day since then and are totally burned out.

You might find Bill Whittle's essay on Tribes enlightening: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html

I'm not sure what his point is. Is he saying, because his tribe doesn't, supposedly, behave a certain way he doesn't have to provide any help?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what we call civilization is a very thin veneer that can and is stripped away very easily. We know this. And yet we do not plan for it and seem to be completely surprised every time it happens. We saw it in Iraq when authority, albeit a very despotic one, was removed. We've seen it in the Sudan and many other places.

The point is, lawlessness will occur where authority is not established. We know this. We can prevent it by planning ahead and then executing the plan. The Federal government did neither. You cannot blame the local police for this because they were the ones doing their job, even as they were fired upon by gangs of thugs.

End of mail

[Insert disclaimer] As I said, if the Republicans can't stand the heat, then they shouldn't be in Washington. But I find it amusing when, and I'm not referring here to JHR, they sequel like the stuck, tax spending, pork barrel pigs they seem to be.

I've taken Wal*Mart management to task for their virulent opposition to their workers organizing into unions. But I have to give them their due for their planning and implementation of their emergency response plan for hurricane Katrina. From what I understand, they pre-positioned trucks filled with the kinds of goods that the survivors would need and rolled those trucks within 48-hours of the storm passing through.

This is an outstanding example of what private enterprise can do when its goals coincide with the public good. Well done to Wal*Mart. If only governments (local, state, and federal - save for the Coast Guard) could plan and implement so well.

With more storms coming, it is worth repeating that for the first three days after such an event, you are on your own. Individuals must take responsibility for their own safety and welfare. You must have your own emergency kit that includes food, water, clothing, medications, bedding, and whatever else you need during that period immediately after an event. Do not expect help from anyone except yourself so prepare now.

As for us, with two or three hurricanes in our area right now, you better believe we've checked our emergency kit to make sure we are prepared. Although hurricanes may not be a problem in your neck of the woods, there are tornadoes, earth quakes, avalanches, mud slides, and other disasters. So, be prepared.

Aloha!

Having won the wars against terrorism, organized crime, and drugs, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is creating a unit for fighting materials targeted to consenting adults. Yes, that's right, a new war on adult images. The FBI will be jurisdiction shopping to find backwards areas that find pictures of consenting adults doing what they want illegal. I'm sure they'll find a few such areas but I think this effort will go the way of all earlier ones. That is, it will sputter and go limp.

I guess I shouldn't take the FBI to task since it was the, hawk spit, Republican Congress that required the FBI to do so. But you have to wonder about a Congress concerned more about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes than hunting down terrorists. In any case, see the story here.

It should also not surprise people that the National Academy of Science is saying:

The unmatched vitality of the United States' economy and science and technology enterprise has made this country a world leader for decades, allowing Americans to benefit from a high standard of living and national security. But in a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor is readily available, U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas so that the nation will consistently gain from the opportunities offered by rapid globalization...

Why is this not a surprise? Well, I believe there are many answers to this. There are differences in the cost of doing business, when compared to other countries, so that manufacturing and the engineering jobs that go with it are moving offshore. There are differences in standards of living such that poorer countries see, correctly, that an advanced degree will increase their standard of living.

But mixed into this is the anti-science, anti-rational thought, conservatives. These conservatives exalt faith and denigrate science. Hence, it should not be a surprise that the US federal government is diverting funds to faith-based education and away from science. Away from critical areas such as stem cell research and STD disease prevention/cure to proving that the Earth is really 6,000 years old.

Aloha!

I don't know where the University of Hawaii is going with this but two TV stations have reported that the university refused a request by the Oahu Democratic Party to hold a meeting on campus over the weekend. The meeting, open to the public was to identify and discuss what was important to Hawaii's citizens.

Interestingly enough, last year at about this time, the Chair of the Hawaii Republican Party spoke, on campus, during the week, on "the basics of campaigning in Hawaii and organizing the Bush campaign."

Hmmm, it's not okay for the Democratic Party to use a UH meeting room on the weekend to talk about citizen's concerns but it is perfectly fine for the Chair of the Republican Party to speak on campus during the week about how to organize and campaign for President Bush. Why am I not surprised, given that the University professors supported the Republican candidate for governor.

Note, I am not saying it was wrong for the Republican Chair to speak on campus. As a liberal (as classically defined) I think it is a GoodThing that differing views are available to students and citizens. Such views can broaden the mind and sharpen the debate. On these things were our country made. But I guess, by this action, the University believes in freedom, academic or otherwise, only for a certain few.

Aloha!

As I've said before, all sexually transmitted diseases are, and rightly should be, public health issues - not moral ones. Let's treat the disease first and worry about the moral development of individuals secondarily. We do it for lung cancer, even though much of this cancer is caused by people choosing to smoke. We do it for heart disease, even though much of this disease is caused by our poor eating habits. We do it for a host of other so called lifestyle diseases because by moving forward from the Dark Ages model of disease to a more modern one based on rational science, we have improved the lives of all.

But some of you out there may have thought I was overstating things when I've said there are conservative Republicans that would rather have people die of cancer than making the mandatory the use of a vaccine that is almost 100 percent effective. But this article on cervical cancer describes exactly that. These people, who I would call extreme, but who are apparently mainstream Republicans, link morality with what should be a public health issue. The article quoted this statement:

Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, "We expect you to be sexually active,"

I'm not sure what century these people think they are in but I have news for them: their parents were sexually active. And their parents. And their parents before them. I have other news for them - many teenagers are sexually active.

Does abstinence prevent this type of cervical cancer, barring genetic mutation? I'm no doctor but, probably. However, as you can also prevent getting, for example, the measles by avoiding those with such an infection, it is easier and probably safer to be immunized because those that are infected may or may not display symptoms at the time they are infectious.

I believe this is a public health issue and I have to wonder if trying to link this to morality is itself immoral. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

Whenever there is a push to "reform" the actions of Congress, they always interview a Congressman who guffaws at the mere mention of the possibility that he would sell his vote for money. "Why reform a system that isn't broken?"; says the Congressman. Surely, no one would take money in exchange for something only he can provide.

But time after time, there are examples of exactly this situation. The latest is a California Republican from San Diego. U.S. Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who pled guilty to accepting $2.4 million USD in bribes in exchange for help in securing defense contracts.

No, this isn't something related only to one party. But since the Republicans happen to be in power, it's the Republicans who will be the ones able to grant such exchanges. And some will. Since such exchanges are already illegal, but people do it anyway, one has to wonder what more can be done to deter such behavior. Comments are open.

Aloha!

So I was over at the American Conservative site [whoa! You, at the American Conservative site? -ed]. Ahhh hem. So, as I was saying before being so rudely interrupted, I was over at the American Conservative site when I stumbled across an article by Robert Locke entitled "Marxism on the Right" .

Locke is referring here to what is generally referred to as Libertarianism. As I understand it, his main thesis is:

If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.

I don't know enough about Libertarianism to say whether he is right and even if I did (and he is), it's still up to you to decide for yourself. What I can say is Libertarianism, taken to extremes, is full of self-contradictory statements that don't work in the rough and tumble world known as real life (I believe the same is also the case with Conservatism and Liberalism but we're not talking about them right now). Locke goes through a list of them: Libertarian approval of slavery, the abolition of all child labor laws, the abolition of clean air/water/land laws, and the abolition of government backed money to be replaced by money issued by banks.

All I can say is that the great majority of people have exercised their freedom of choice and have chosen not to be Libertarians (nor to have a country run by them). Perhaps this is because absolute freedom, like absolute power, corrupts absolutely? YMMV. Insert disclaimer here. Use at your own risk.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

WARNING: Political content. Skip on down if you are offended.

I've posted before on how I believe the so called Patriot Act was a call to shred the Constitution. On how it would allow acts that are contrary to the letter, sprit, and intent of the form of government our founding fathers died for. On how our hard fought system of checks and balances, which was purposefully designed to make Government inefficient so that it could not act precipitously, without due care and regard for the rights of its citizens.

But after the horror of September 11th, many people said we needed to give up our liberty so that we can be safe. That we must give up our Constitutional rights and system of checks and balances because we have to trust President Bush since he is the only one that knows everything and can therefore protect us. That we must radically transform the Executive Branch into the one, ultimate, ruler over all others since only the Executive Branch could be trusted to know what to do and could do it efficiently.

However, now we begin to see that President Bush broke that trust. That the President could not be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when he laid out his reasons to bring war on Iraq . That the President could not be trusted to protect the Constitutional rights of all when he signed a secret order to allow the National Security Agency to spy on US citizens without proper judicial oversight. And that the President could not be trusted to protect the citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina blew the dikes down .

So what to do? Since impeachment, although well deserved, is not likely with a Republican controlled Congress, what must happen is Congress must begin to fulfill its Constitutional role of a check and balance against the Executive Branch. So far, only the Judicial Branch has stood firm against the lies, mistakes, subterfuge, and innuendo of President Bush and his administration. But the Judiciary can not stand alone. Congress must act, now. Congress must resist the easy way out and begin to Just Say No to President Bush. Congress must begin to force accountability on this Imperial President.

will this happen? Not unless the American people force them to, it won't. Most politicians won't do anything that is hard unless he or she is forced to. What many want to do is simply look the other way as our country slowly sinks into dictatorship. Only you can stop this from happening. Already, President Bush has been forced to admit some of his mistakes. Not because he believes they were mistakes. In fact, he says they weren't and not only did he commit them, he's going to do them again, just as former President Nixon denied any wrong doing. Indeed, he is daring Congress to stop him.

Rather, if he is to be held accountable, it will be because the American citizens do not trust and support him. So, get off your okole and let your Congressman or woman know that you don't trust the President, and neither should they. Restore the system of checks and balances before it is too late.

Do extreme Islamic terrorist read Mao? I guess President Bush's Department of Homeland Security must think so. It seems a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth (that hot bed of revolutionary activity since 1895) who is taking a class on "Fascism and Totalitarianism", requested an inter-library loan of Mao's famous tome on godless communism "The Little Red Book."

The book was to be part of a research paper for the class. However, based on that request and perhaps his travels to Europe, two Homeland Security agents knocked on the student's door demanding to know why he wanted the book.

Now, I realize "connecting the dots" is not an easy thing to do. And I'm not pointing fingers at the individual agents. I'm sure they're trying to do the best job they can given an impossible mission. More over, get it wrong and people could die. There are in fact terrorists out there who mean to kill US citizens. So, you can be sure Homeland Security will probably err on the side of safety.

But that said, there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that deeply religious Muslim terrorists are looking to Mao for enlightenment. The man was an atheist and preached a godless government system antithetical to Islam. Communism is discredited as an economic failure that collapsed in Soviet Russian and is collapsing in China due to widespread government and business corruption. Why would extremist Muslims study Mao's teachings for anything - much less reasons to attack the US?

Secondly, how is it that the government is spying on what books are being borrowed? Was there a court order to allow this? Was there any prior, independent judicial review to ensure no rights were being trod upon by Big Brother Government intrusion into citizen's private lives? Or was all of this made legal by the so called Patriot Act or President Bush's signature on a piece of worthless paper?

Where's all this so called profiling that the security experts were going to use? Yes, Homeland Security may be looking at more that just Middle Eastern terrorists. But should they? Do we have so much time and money that we will monitor what Chinese communist books people borrow as proof that they are threats to the US? Shouldn't we be focusing more? Shouldn't we stop wasting time on wild goose chases and start tracking down real terrorists?

Heck, I'm more afraid that China will buy the US (since they are major holders of our debt instruments) than afraid that they would invade us. Yet, Mao's book is on some kind of terrorist watch list. Sigh. Your (Big) Republican Government at work. Or as Mark Twain is quoted as saying: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Right now, it's hard to see how it deserves it.

Aloha!

It was good advice during Watergate and it's good advice now. Follow the money trail and you will track the full meaning of any story. It is not for nothing that Congress has resisted any attempt at meaningful campaign reform. Including attempts to create blind trusts in which donors could contribute to whomever they wished but the receiving party would not know who donated what and how much.

Obviously, such a system would insulate our Congress critters from the intended bribes monetary influence so it will never happen. If donors can't pay off their employee, also known as the Congressman from Texas, why bother contributing?

As the Delay-Abramoff money trail begins to be followed, it becomes clearer just how corrupt both are. From tunneling a million dollars from Russian oil and gas executives to millions from gambling groups. Money flowed to those in power and bought legislation to support their goals.

Whether this distorts our democratic form of government and, as a result, endangers our freedom, I will leave to you to decide. But to the extent our democracy works, it is because of the consent of those who are governed. Loose that consent and you loose what little legitimacy you may have.

Aloha!

There is a political truism that says if you need to announce news that you don't want people to know about, do it on a Friday afternoon/evening or Saturday morning. That way it will get "lost" in the Saturday newspaper editions, which few people read. Although there may be a large measure of cynacism in the saying, there is also, I believe, a kernel of truth.

Whether this is what happened I am not sure, but the most politically damaging report (so far) relating to President Bush's assertion that he can legally order secret wiretapping of US citizens without Congressional approval or judicial oversight was reported in this Saturday's editions .

The Congressional Research Service, issued a 44-page memorandum (380k PDF) that examines President Bush's claim that his secret order is fully supported by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I quote, in full, the concluding paragraph:

From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of "electronic surveillance" within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes. To the extent that the NSA activity is not permitted by some reading of Title III or FISA, it may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb, in which case exclusive presidential control is sustainable only by "disabling Congress from acting upon the subject." While courts have generally accepted that the President has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance,[142] and has not ruled on the extent to which Congress can act with respect to electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information. Given such uncertainty, the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests.

[142]United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 323-24 (1972).

The report is full of carefully chosen code words but the story between the lines is that, in the opinion of the report's authors, the President acted illegally and continues to act illegally. Indeed, that President Bush's acts are unconstitutional.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it appears President Bush has committed and continues to commit acts that rise to the level impeachment. Yet, because Congress appears unwilling to hold the President accountable, the President is free to wantonly disregard the Constitution, US citizens, and Congress itself, while Congress does nothing.

In my opinion, this action on the part of the President and inaction on the part of Congress diminishes us all. Citizens must not let this stand. Those in Congress who are unwilling to act must be removed in the coming elections. This is not a partisan issue. I don't care if other Republicans replace the present ones as long as the replacements uphold and support the Constitution of these United States.

Otherwise, the over 200 years of blood, sweat, and tears that have been shed since the founding of this country will have been in vain and what we now have is a king - not a President, and subjects - not free citizens. And if that is the depths to which we fallen to, then we truly live in dark times.

Aloha!

Warning: Political views below. Send the children, women, and small pets into the other room before reading. These are my own opinions. Insert disclaimer here.

Hawaii Congressman Ed Case dropped a bomb shell on local politics yesterday when he announced he would be running against incumbent Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka. In local politics, it is rare for one Democrat to run against an incumbent Democrat. Usually, if it occurs at all, it is because the incumbent has legal problems and the powers that be anoint someone else to run (usually a former public school teacher or principal). No such problems are known to exist for the beloved Senator Akaka.

And yet, Rep. Case announced his intention to do just that. Why? Blame the Republicans. First, I must note that I am very distantly related to Rep. Case's children and have provided some small financial support to his campaigns (nowhere near the legal maximum allowed). That said, and I'm not providing any insider information - just my idle speculation - I think Rep. Case has planned his run for some time and he assumed that Senator Akaka would retire this year - thus leaving the way clear for his run.

I further believe Senator Akaka did plan to retire this year. That is, until the Republican's went back on their word to hear the proposed measure commonly referred to as the Akaka Bill . This legislation would start the process to organize native Hawaiians in order to provide a voice in our own governance. Had such hearings and votes occurred, I think the bill could very well have passed and then become law. But, due to behind the scenes arm twisting by certain conservative Republicans, the hearings were put on hold. Some would say permanently.

To have come so close, after so many years, must have been heart wrenching to Senator Akaka. So, his decision to run for one more term to try to get this bill back on track is understandable. And that, dear friends, may turn out to be the highest mountain Representative Case will have to overcome.

Yes, it is time for a change. Yes, both of our incumbent Senators are in their 80s and there is a need to transition to the next generation so that at least one of the new Senators can begin to accumulate seniority. Yes, Representative Case may better represent the current generation of Hawaii's more moderate citizens. But can he carry forward the Akaka Bill? Does he want to? And if he does, would it make any difference to the Republicans opposed to the bill?

As we have seen in the past, fear is sometimes a strong force in resisting change. Even if that change is in your own best interest, fear can make it difficult to implement such change. So, I can see the Akaka forces saying we must stay the course. We must not change senators in the middle of getting the Akaka Bill passed. We must not change.

All I can say for sure is that Representative Case has just made things a lot more interesting during the run up to the election primaries in September. Whether he succeeds in his bid no one can foretell. But I support Ed Case and I know he will overcome these challenges. If not this year, then maybe the next time around because, in my opinion, he is the right man for the job.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

These are my personal opinions. Insert disclaimer here.

Sometimes, I hate being right. A long time ago, in galaxy not so far away, I wrote a post about the possible security/privacy concerns of using an external search engine on your website. I noted that the search phrases were no doubt logged by such engines and a profile probably created. Said profile would likely be used for commercial purposes and I questioned whether that was appropriate. At the time, some criticised the post as not being realistic.

However, my concerns appear to be becoming true. But in a way I had not foreseen - namely, political.

Recently, Republican President Bush's administration subpoenaed search engine data from at least Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft . Except for Google, everyone immediately caved in under the pressure and submitted at least some of the data without even trying to quash the subpoenas.

Although reports indicate no personal information was requested or released, search queries can be mined in ways that can lead back to an individual. For example, databases can be cross referenced such that information that appears safe when viewed in each database can be combined to point to an individual.

Even single, aggrate databases that don't have names can be queried in ways that can lead to an individual. That is, even if the database doesn't have a name field, but does include items such as, but not limited to, race; age; city or zip code, queries can be constructed that slice the data down to one person. I've seen it done and it's almost trivial to do.

Please note: I'm not saying this has occurred in this or any other instance. But since it is theoretically possible, it comes down to - who do you trust?

This time, no names were apparently requested. But I'll be taking odds as to when the proverbial nose of this camel is soon followed into the tent by the tail.

Aloha!

As if it wasn't bad enough that President Bush agreed to and supports the apparent illegal electronic surveillance of phone/data communications, did you know some of the surveillance is sub-contracted out to private companies?

This startling claim is buried in a larger story written by PBS columnist Robert X. Cringely in his January 19, 2006 post . In it, he says that the so called pen/traps that record call identifying information (i.e., the outgoing and incoming phone numbers) is sub-contracted out by the phone companies. Cringely speculates that they (the telcos) do this to isolate themselves from legal liability concerns (like the ones that will be coming their way when all of this hits the courts).

It's bad enough that the NSA may be doing illegal surveillance - at least they are government employees and are therefore accountable to elected officials (theoretically, if not in practice). But who is a private business accountable to? The frightening answer is - no one. And to shield themselves even more, the telcos are sub-contracting out this very serious work.

But this whole story keeps getting worse.

Cringely also, in an earlier post, talks about the technology used to make the phone taps:

The typical CALEA installation on a Siemens ESWD or a Lucent 5E or a Nortel DMS 500 runs on a Sun workstation sitting in the machine room down at the phone company. The workstation is password protected, but it typically doesn't run Secure Solaris. It often does not lie behind a firewall. Heck, it usually doesn't even lie behind a door. It has a direct connection to the Internet because, believe it or not, that is how the wiretap data is collected and transmitted. And by just about any measure, that workstation doesn't meet federal standards for evidence integrity.

And it can be hacked.

And it has been.

He goes on to say:

This vulnerability is never discussed in public because it is an embarrassment to law enforcement and because the agencies that pay for CALEA don't want its vulnerability to be known. That might compromise national security. Alas, national security is already compromised by the system itself, and the people who might take advantage of the vulnerability have known about it for years. Only we are kept in the dark.

To these people President Bush's administration has entrusted the private communications of its citizens.

End note: Please be aware I am not saying we don't need intelligence. The US does have enemies. These enemies are trying to kill us. However, the point is not whether we should have intelligence gathering. The point is, how to do we go about in a way that preserves our freedoms? How do we go about in a way that preserves the checks and balances that the founding fathers felt were critical to our very survival as a republic? These are the questions that I am concerned about.

Insert disclaimer and disclosures here. YMMV. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. No confidential information is disclosed nor none used to write this post.

It was a dark time for the Rebellion. Imperial Storm Troopers have driven the Rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy. The Princess knew her time was short, but was determined to leave a legacy that would ultimately triumph. Little did she know that those to follow would themselves depart from her path - and turn towards the darkness...

Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop was the largest landowner and richest woman in the Hawaiian kingdom. Upon her death in 1884, she entrusted her property--known as Bishop Estate--to five trustees in order to create and maintain an institution that would benefit the children of Hawai'i: Kamehameha Schools. A century later, Bishop Estate controlled nearly one out of every nine acres in the state, a concentration of private land ownership rarely seen anywhere in the world. Then in August 1997 the unthinkable happened: Four revered kupuna (native Hawaiian elders) and a professor of trust-law publicly charged Bishop Estate trustees with gross incompetence and massive trust abuse. Entitled " Broken Trust," the statement provided devastating details of rigged appointments, violated trusts, cynical manipulation of the trust's beneficiaries, and the shameful involvement of many of Hawaii's powerful.

This book brings to light information that has never before been made public, including accounts of secret meetings involving Supreme Court justices, and ways the judiciary avoided a public airing of its dirty laundry. "Broken Trust" also throws a spotlight on the legislature, the legal profession, the native Hawaiian community, and the media, showing how each functioned-or failed to function-during the two-year crisis and its aftermath. This book offers readers the opportunity to reexamine fundamental questions about unchecked power and civic responsibility that resonate far beyond the shores of America's 50th State.

The Honolulu Star Bulletin is running a series of extended excerpts from this extraordinary soon to be released book ( available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble). The story it paints reflects what may be some of the worst instances of abuse of power this state, or this nation, has seen. It was as if the Bishop Estate trustees had created a new kingdom. A kingdom where they ruled and no one could, or dared, challenge their absolute rule.

The Bishop Estate seems to mirror all that was/is wrong in Hawaiian politics. Rather than operate openly and transparently, it ruled in secret. Manipulating people and institutions from behind the scenes. At the most, the Estate appeared to put on a show of being open but, if the author's are correct, that's all it was -- a show.

The Chapter 7 passage hits especially close to home. This chapter purports to chronicle the workings of the Hawaii Supreme Court during a time of choosing a new Bishop Estate trustee (which was chosen by the Court). It alleges that the "fix" was in to nominate former Governor John Waihee III (the first US governor of Hawaiian descent) and the man who, perhaps or perhaps not coincidentally, nominated the justices on the Court. According to the book, the Court, to its credit, created a relatively open process whereby a citizen committee would create a list of nominees from which the justices would choose the new trustee. However, the list the committee ultimately submitted did not include the Governor. At that point, the authors say, things began to change. The list was rejected and another candidate put forth. Why the Court changed the process I don't know because not only wasn't I there, but I wasn't even with the Judiciary until several years after these events (not to say that had I been there I would necessarily know now).

But whatever happened, it seems trustee avarice and hubris versus the steadfast courage of the five individuals involved brought needed reforms that to this day are still reverberating through our islands.

Aloha!

When things go horribly wrong, the standard bureaucratic response is to say "How could anyone have anticipated this? It is unprecedented. We did everything that a prudent person would do." But my warning to this is that there is always someone who not only could predict it, they did.

As a Democrat, I'm no fan of many policies supported by President Bush (insert disclaimer and disclosures here). But I have to say that the video clip released yesterday that shows the warnings the President received before hurricane Katrina hit confirms why I feel that way in a particularly stark and devastating way.

The President is told that the hurricane could breach "top" the levees (which it did); that there would be wide spread, severe damage that would overwhelm resources (which it did); and that the New Orleans Superdome, the site used to house evacuees, would be inadequate (which it was). To this, President Bush reassuringly responded "We are fully prepared." He promised federal help not only during the hurricane, but also immediately after.

As events actually unfolded, it became clear that all of the worst case predictions were coming true. Tragically, the federal response fell far short of being "fully prepared." Not only wasn't assistance provided during the hurricane, there was none immediately after (except for the magnificent and courageous services of the US Coast Guard).

In this case, the people who should have been providing the warnings did so. Clearly. Directly to the President. But rather than attending to the timely warnings and putting all resources on the alert, the Bush Administration apparently did nothing.

Aloha!

I don't think this is a new idea but the great state of Oklahoma's legislative House of Represenatives passed a billthat allows judges to carry guns in the courtroom. There are many ways of looking at this question, but I'll only ask what kind, if any, of court security do they have. By that I mean security screening to get into the court house and security in each courtroom that may need it.

Whatever Oklahoma decides to do, what message are we sending to those that must go to court? If we are saying the judge is so concerned about his or her safety that they must carry a gun, how should, for example, witnesses react? Would you, should you, feel safe in such an environment? What other solutions are there to increase safety?

I dunno, this is not an easy question to answer. All I can say is we sure appear to be living in dark times. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here. These are my personal views.

Disclosure: I own several target rifles and used to be, but am no longer, a member of the National Rifle Association.

Aloha!

Insert disclaimer here. These are my personal views. YMMV.

One of the Republican memes is what they call the "liberal press" (they also use other terms to refer to the press but this is a family friendly site). If this were true, I wonder what happened to the coverage of recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's speech this past weekend.

I can't find a transcript of the speech, but a transcript of an NPR broadcast is quoting Justice O'Connor as saying

It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

As you may remember, Justice O'Connor is an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. Hence, a flaming liberal she is not. That said, what Justice O'Connor was referring to, and is raising the alarm about, is Republican politician attacks on the Judiciary that "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms." The Justice went on to say:

The nation's founders wrote repeatedly that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, as the founding fathers knew, statutes and constitutions don't protect judicial independence, people do.

What is so astounding to me is that a former Supreme Court Justice is saying the the US is becoming a dictatorship, but the only national coverage (other than NPR) is from the United Kingdom's The Guardian. Where's the left leaning liberal press coverage? Heck, why isn't there any national media coverage of this speech?

I'm getting awfully tired of being the lone voice in the wilderness crying out warnings that our freedoms are being taken away. Now. That the Constitution is being shredded. Now. That is occurring because of the Republican President and Republican Congress so full of frenzy and self-righteousness that they believe they are above the law and the Constitution. Now.

You can debate whether the US is on the road to dictatorship (I've been saying it's becoming a monarchy), but if a Supreme Court Justice says it is, shouldn't this make the national evening news? Shouldn't there be a national conversation on whether her statements are true? Or was it because she was referring to attacks on the Court, and the press doesn't care if the Court is attacked, unless it is the one doing the attacking?

All I can say if you take away the freedom of the one, you take it away from the many. Down that road lays tyranny and, yes, dictatorship.

Aloha!

Insert disclaimer here. WARNING: Political content.

US News and World Report has uncovered evidence that the Bush Administration has not only conducted what may be illegal warrantless surveillance of US citizens, but may have also have executed so called "black-bag" jobs. That is, government agents may have, and may be continuing to do, illegal break-ins (see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and case law pursuant to 407 U.S. 297 (1972)) of US citizen's homes and offices.

Please bear with me as I make a comparison that may, at first, seem to be far fetched. Be clear, however, that the Bush Administration would like to spin the choice as security or freedom. They are wrong. The choice is freedom or dictatorship. The choice is living under an emperor or as a republic. And if we choose dictatorship, rather than republic, then, we deserve what we will get.

In 2003, a poll of the Iraqi people found them optimistic about the future after the fall of Saddam. When asked: "Do you think that Iraq will be a much better country, somewhat better, somewhat worse or a lot worse five years from now?" Almost 70 percent responded somewhat better or much better.

Two years later, in 2005, a similar poll found the numbers shifting. When asked: "Is Iraq much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the U.S. invasion?" Only 42 percent said somewhat better or much better.

I can't find a more recent poll of the Iraqi people, but I would be surprised if the numbers haven't dropped even farther.

The question is, why is post Saddam life less than Iraqis thought it would be? For many, I would guess the answer is lack of security. People seem to be living in fear. Random car bombs slaughter innocent people. Terrorist's bullets fly through the air indiscriminately killing those unlucky enough to be hit. Even life's necessities like access to clean, running water; reliable electricity; and gas to run their cars appear less available than before the war.

But even under these dire circumstances, in their recent elections, the Iraqis chose not to elect another Saddam. Yes, they may fear for their lives. But in so choosing, they were saying that whatever they have now is better than Saddam's security. This, even though their personal security suffers, they are living as a free people. Free of the secret police raids that came in the middle of night. Free of the kangaroo legal system where people simply disappeared. Free of a ruler who ruled absolutely.

If the Iraqi people can sacrifice so much, and stand so courageously against dictatorship and terrorism, why is it we seem to cower in fear? Why is it we support a ruler who feels he is empowered to repeal the Constitution? Why is that we meekly act like cattle to the slaughter?

The choice is republic and freedom or dictatorship and tyranny. The Iraqis have made their choice. What's yours?

This is a follow-up to an earlier post on the Bush Administration's expansionist views on federal power over the Constitution. JHR agreed that there seems to be a problem but wanted to know what the solution is. My response to him was we needed to vote for people who uphold the Constitution.

Before any person shall become President, he or she shall take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

These 35 words, which are stipulated pursuant to the Constitution (Article II, Section 1), are the sum total of what the President is chartered to do. To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Nothing more. Nothing less. Congress has a similar oath that they too shall take.

I say people should observe how the President and elected representatives (regardless of political affiliation) act in relation to this solemn oath. If they are not following it, then others must be found who will. It's just that simple.

Insert Disclaimer here. I don't have any insider information and I have absolutely no idea whether any laws were broken. This is an editorial comment. They are my own views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Hawaii Democratic Party, my employer, or anyone else or organization.

For a short time, I was a member of the Hawaii Democratic Party State Central Committee. During that admittedly brief period, it seemed to me that various forces were straining to take or keep control of the party. Such factions are not unusual, indeed, I would be surprised if there weren't such differing groups in most parties, the Republican included.

In any case, although it may be an over simplification, I seemed to see two major competing factions. I saw people who worked to reform the party by making it more open, transparent, and responsive to people's needs. On the other hand, there were some who seemed to reflect what is derisively framed and referred to as the "Old Boys."

First, let me reframe these people and refer to them as the First Guard. These were the people who, in some cases, literally fought the political wars that overthrew the deeply corrupt Republican administrations that ran Hawaii up through the 1950s. They opened opportunities to everyone that had been, up to then, controlled by a few Republican, if I may use the phrase, "Old Boys."

The First Guard dealt with very real threats on their lives while courageously moving forward with reforms to, among other areas, education, civil service, and social services. Entire groups of people, who had been denied opportunities due solely to the color of their skin or slant of their eyes now had an open playing field.

However, these very experiences may have formed a world view that, while accurate at the time, appears contrary to the one we currently exist in.

For example, at that time, revealing our weaknesses to the opposition was tantamount to treason. You never revealed anything to anyone outside of your trusted circle. To do so could very well result in people being killed or injured.

But, and I could be wrong, I think we live in different times. It appears the First Guard has become the Old Guard. I think there is a place and time to be open, to admit our mistakes, and to seek the guidance of all who can help so that we can remove the cancer that is eating away at the core of our party.

Yes, there are those outside who oppose the party and will try to use information to do harm. So there will be times when openness is not the best policy (and Lord knows the Hawaii Republican Party certainly isn't totally open). But, I believe, the greater harm is to try to cover up or deny all of our problems in the mistaken hope that they will just go away.

We live in an era of instant communications and fact checking bloggers. Yes, everyone makes innocent mistakes and if that is all it is people will generally see it as that and forgive and forget. And yes, we all have things in our past that we wouldn't want plastered across the Internet (see Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh). But if a mistake is discovered, innocent or not, and we then try to deny, spin, or cover it up, I would contend that it creates the opportunity for even worse damage then if we just admitted the mistake, promised never to do it again, and could show we never did.

Such may be the developing context relating to a national and local situation regarding the movement of money between the states of Rhode Island and Hawai'i.

While there is much smoke, what seems to be clear is the Hawaii Democratic Party donated $5,000 to a primary candidate in Rhode Island. Although I have done no research into this, two things seem to be unusual. First, why is the Hawaii party donating funds to a candidate in Rhode Island? Secondly, if we are to provide funds, why provide it only to one candidate and not other Democrats running for the same office? It would seem at least unethical to choose sides before someone wins the primary election and then goes on to challenge the Republican candidate.

If that's all there was to this story, that's probably where it would have ended.

But what is even curiouser is that, according to the article, a few weeks later, a $6,000 donation came to the Hawaii party from a "mainland donor." This donor seems to be a supporter of the Rhode Island candidate that first received the Hawaii donation and has already given the maximum allowed by law to the candidate. Whether a prosecutor can make the connection between the two donations only a judge and/or jury can say. But it at least raises serious questions as to the timing of the two payments. But instead of dealing with this question head on, the party seems to be giving multiple and perhaps conflicting statements. And the more the party attempts to spin a response, the deeper the hole it seems to dig.

Some Republicans are good at making things appear to be one way when they are actually the opposite. Democrats are not so skilled. In summary, there is at least the appearance of unusual transactions and, I think, as long as the party refuses to get ahead of the story the party will suffer for it. And to me, that is the greater harm - First Guard notwithstanding.

Aloha!

Aloha!

Insert disclaimer here. WARNING: Political discussion follows. These are my own views.

It can be argued that taking any GoodThing, to an extreme, can transform it into a BadThing. For example, in the tension between states and federal rights, finding the appropriate balance may shift from time to time. But our republic, and the freedom we enjoy, depends on finding an acceptable balance, rather than going to either extreme.

Our Founding Fathers wisely created a national government in tension with its states. In concept, this is much the same as the three separate, but equal branches of government. Each would have its individual powers that the others would not, under the grand experiment that by doing so, each would check and balance the others so that tyranny would not reign over our land.

This balance is, in some cases, a dynamic one. In other cases, we may have established certain areas where one takes dominance over the other. But Madison, writing in The Federalist No. 45 said "Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale."

In The Federalist No. 46, Madison goes on to say

The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

Much has changed since these words were in written in 1788. But the central truth remains the same, we are one nation.

It may now seem quaint, but at one time states printed their own currency. While this certainly decentralized currency powers, it also acted as barrier to internal and external trade (few companies or countries would wish to deal with 50 different currencies when it could deal with one).

Secondly, at one time, the individual states were responsible for their own security. By that I mean there wasn't a federal army, navy, or air force. Clearly, this presented a very weak front to any large power that wished to pick off individual states, one at a time. Eventually, the common defense required the creation of a central command and structure. However, to this day, not wanting to cede all military powers to the federal government, states continue to fund their own local militias.

Yet, we are one nation.

With this background, there is a recent essay in the Weekly Standard entitled "Back to Federalism" by David Gelernter.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the publication nor the author. No doubt, this is because I'm just a poor, unwashed country boy from Palolo Valley and surely I don't have the education that Mr. Gelernter has. So, what few cogent thoughts I can string together will, probably, not rise to his level. That said, I will try, anyway.

The essay begins by referring to an earlier article by James Q. Wilson in which, apparently, Wilson maintains, as Gelernter puts it, that our country is "polarized to an unprecedented extent; bitterly divided". Gelernter goes on to say that conservatives must "confront this problem and show the country how to solve it. Not to solve it is to invite catastrophe."

I think most polls indicate that on some, but not all issues, our country is divided. But to say there would be catastrophic results if we don't, somehow, change this is, in my opinion, at least over reaching.

Why? Because we are not divided on all issues. In fact, I would guess, there are but a few in which there is such polarization and for those, it is unclear why something must immediately be done or catastrophe will surely befall us.

Yes, the far left and the far right have done their best, for its own reasons, to frame differences as polar opposites - with no room for compromise. But that doesn't mean the majority has to blindly follow either side over a cliff of doom. Common ground can and should be found. Extremism, on either side, does not serve the country well and is, in my opinion, leading to catastrophe.

But even if we accept that polarization is a problem that must immediately be solved, and forget that extremists are the ones creating, aiding, and abetting such polarization, what are his solutions?

Gelernter puts forth two proposals to limit the constitutional powers of the courts: "a constitutional amendment, and congressional legislation limiting the federal courts' jurisdiction."

In explaining his choice of solutions, Gelernter seems to backhandedly acknowledge that getting a constitutional amendment passed would take a long time and perhaps, and I'm speculating here, reflecting a world view of the general public that tends to hold the middle ground that is counter to his ultra conservative views, could fail.

So, I presume, since the author apparently feels that not only is polarization a problem, but that time is of the essence, he focuses on his second solution.

The essay takes the Judiciary to task and says it (the federal courts, in general and the Supreme Court, in particular) is the source of what the author terms "the collapse of federalism." The author goes on to say that the "collapse gathered momentum with the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion..."

It is curious how some conservatives keep bringing Roe v. Wade back. Its been over 30 years. I realize, to this day, that there are those who sympathize with the South in the war between the States but the majority have long since moved on. Why can't these anti-abortion people do the same?

Then the author drops this line: "And of course it's true that, when unelected judges override elected legislatures, democracy loses." This appears to be an aside, so perhaps the author did not give the statement sufficient thought before committing it to paper. I know I've done the same more than once and lived to regret it. Or, perhaps I misunderstand what he is saying.

But he seems to be saying one of two things: either judges should be elected or the judiciary is not part of the Constitutionally mandated democratic process of checks and balances. I doubt he is referring to the electing of judges, since in some jurisdictions, some judges are elected. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps he is calling for the election of federal judges. As to his second point, I will not reiterate what he surely knows the Constitution says about the judiciary and its place among the three branches of government.

However, rather than usurping the powers of the states or other branches of federal government, I note that the very Federalist Papers that he quotes in his essay, to the contrary say in Federalist No. 78, written by Hamilton, the following:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Hamilton further writes:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [Emphasis added.]

Rather than the pointing to the judiciary as the source of their problems, extremists should look in the mirror and realize that they are the source error. Rather, these extremists should come to understand that democracy depends on a judiciary that is independent from the other branches of government. Rather, these extremists must come to accept that democracy depends on this delicate balance and to ham handedly upset this balance invites or even incites catastrophe down onto everyone.

In summary, the case, in my mind, is not made that a clear and present danger exists. The case is not made that if there is a present danger, that the solution is to chop down the third branch of government.

I know of no public good that can come from instituting Gelernter's one-sided solutions and, I would claim, that to do so could bring about the very dissolution of democracy that he is saying he wishes to protect.

Aloha!

Insert disclaimer here. WARNING: Political discussion follows. These are my own views.

When it comes to future events, I believe nothing is set in stone. We make our own destiny through the choices we make.

Paradoxically, I also believe that decisions made now can have effects felt well into the future. Having made these decisions, our future options may be altered or reduced. If that happens, possible positive outcomes can likewise be altered or reduced.

According to this article in the New Yorker, President Bush and his administration seem to have made a decision that may channel our nation into a path with very negative consequences. Namely, a war with Iran.

According to the article, President Bush says there needs to be a regime change in Iran. But unlike Iraq, the way to do this is through the use of air power. That is, a prolonged campaign of bombs and missiles. In other words, the so called surgical, remote controlled war. The war where everything is neat, clean, cheap, and quick. A campaign where the Iranian people rise up and joyously overthrow their hated over lords (stop me when this sounds vaguely familiar).

As the article clearly lays out, the lesson, to everyone except, apparently, President Bush and his administration, is that if you are a dictator and wish to continue to rule, you must obtain nuclear weapons. Now. Reach that goal, and the US will back down and leave you alone. Conversely, for President Bush, the lesson is - attack before your enemy can get the bomb.

Hence, we have two goals that cannot simultaneously exist. Yet, by choosing these goals, the inevitable path to war is taken.

Even now, if the article is correct, small US military units have invaded Iran. Even now, the President and his administration is preparing the campaign to, once again, fool Congress and the American people with flimsy, made up "proof". Even now, people who should know better and actively oppose this effort are strangely silent.

But as I said in this post in January of last year, we don't have to be fooled again. A policy of containment can work. We can avoid the coming war. We have the choice.

But if we choose unwisely, I believe that the positive paths into the future are substantially reduced, leaving us only with negative ones.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

It's Friday! Lots of stuff to do. The legislature is winding down to its scheduled adjournment next week Thursday. As the deadline approaches, decisions are finally being made. Unfortunately, not all of them addressed our concerns.

Reviewing, understanding, and making wise decisions on the many bills legislators review every year is not an easy job. Indeed, it is probably impossible for any individual legislator to really know what each bill does. I don't know how many bills are introduced each year, but of those that are, about 300 become law. How can anyone understand even just the ones that pass is beyond me.

But part of the legislative process that can make things clearer is the hearing. Each bill must be come before each house of our two-part legislature at least three times. Usually, it ends up being considered more than that if it is referred to more than one committee for their review.

Each time a bill is heard is an opportunity for legislators to learn about what a bill does and, perhaps, some of the consequences or implications it may have. While many bills have no more than a minute or two to be heard, at least the opportunity exists to get a better understanding of a bill. Within those few minutes, is where we (citizens as a whole and our branch of government in particular) try to communicate to our representatives.

Unfortunately, sometimes, it seems like our message isn't getting through. Sometimes, we wonder if anyone even reads the testimony being submitted because there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment by legislators. Yes, it's possible that the legislators have read the testimony and have made a policy decision contrary to our recommendation, but that is not always made clear by their actions. Thus, sometimes, leaving us with the feeling that no one is listening.

Hopefully, two examples will suffice. Our capital improvements budget took a hit when $48 million USD in funding for a new courthouse was deleted. Through no fault of our own, the cost of construction has skyrocketed. This, if you can even get anyone to work on your project because so much construction is going on right now. As I understand it, as soon as we became aware of the higher than originally projected costs, we notified the respective legislators involved with our budget. Yet, sometime much later, when the costs hit the papers, it seemed like at least some of the legislators were acting as if this was news to them and we, somehow, had either hoodwinked them or had tried to hide the true cost of the project (neither of which is true).

In amy case, this may mean the size of the yet to be built buildings will be substantially smaller than originally designed and will therefore mean fewer services to the people in that area. Further, it will mean the overcrowding in our existing courthouses will continue. While it is possible next year's legislature may provide some funding, who knows what may happen.

Secondly, a bill to consolidate the Executive and Judicial salary commissions (the independent bodies assigned to set salaries for Executive department directors and judges) along with legislative salaries, passed yesterday. However, we believe the bills (one to amend the state Constitution passed earlier, and the other to amend statutes) may be seriously flawed. In written testimony before five legislative committees and a letter to the conference committee, we noted these concerns. However, for whatever reason(s), the legislature chose to ignore some of our very serious and strong concerns (to be fair, they did address some, but not all) . The results of which may cloud the implementation of these bills. Sigh.

After 20 years of observing lawmakers, I have to wonder if there isn't a better way. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

Many people seem to have forgotten or, perhaps, are actively ignoring the fact that the public airwaves, in the US, are held in trust by the federal government. Business are allowed (i.e., licensed) to use parts of the airwaves for a public purpose.

As, perhaps, evidence of this problem, your local TV news programs may be more of an excuse for marketing products than a service to citizens. According to this report that says 77 TV stations in the US broadcasted what amounts to commercials created by companies or government agencies but aired as is they were regular news stories.

Indeed, according to the report, not only didn't the TV stations disclose that the segments were created by what may have been, in some cases, marketing companies but, in many cases, the stations actively tried to disguise this fact.

Even more distressing is that some of these stations are in major markets such as Los Angeles, New York, and Boston. In addition, the affiliates of all three major networks are included.

I don't know how many stations each of the following networks have, nor do I know how many were monitored to gather these numbers. Hence, I can't normalize or give context to this information. That said, here are the data :

Although there weren't any Hawaii stations listed, that doesn't mean they haven't used such segments. I seem to remember seeing several what would appear to be canned segments that looked suspiciously like what is being described in this article.

I've also posted before how some local stations use file footage but don't disclose this fact. Indeed, by not disclosing this, they are trying to mislead people into thinking the footage was taken specifically and recently for the story being reported.

In other cases, one local TV station used to go outside their back door to report "live" on the weather. Then they would go "live" outside their front door for traffic conditions. But in no case would they identify the fact that they were literally within feet of their station. This station still does these kinds of reports, but at least they now disclose where they are (at least the few times I watched their "news" program).

Then there are the stations that take news reports from the wire services or press releases from businesses or government agencies and literally just read it, verbatim. In no case do they make any effort whatsoever to investigate whether the report is accurate nor do they make any effort to find out if there is more to the story than the one-side account they just read to the public.

Aloha!

As I am sure you know, certain U.S. phone companies allegedly gave and, perhaps, continue to give, private phone records to the US government, without a court order (for which the phone companies are being being sued).

But some of the companies are denying such acts. While I don't wish to be distrustful of these companies, you need to carefully read what they are denying. Essentially, some are saying they did not turn over to the government any phone records.

However, this does not mean your private data were not monitored nor turned over to the National Security Agency (NSA). As Robert X. Cringely said earlier in several columns, and Wired News is saying now, the phone companies have installed hardware and software that monitors all traffic coming through their systems. Some of the hardware and some of the applications are allegedly from or for the NSA. Hence, the information could be gathered by these applications and transmitted directly to the NSA without the phone companies having to do anything (like turn over hard copy records).

Be clear I'm not saying this is necessarily what is happening. I have no insider information. But I have learned that is well to carefully review what is done because, well, some companies (and governments) have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Which is an extremely sad state of affairs. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

Diversity. Some pundits seem to use the word as if it were something dirty, to be spat out of the mouth like some disagreeable food. But is it? Let's take a look at some examples.

Nature loves diversity. Why? Because diversity improves the chances of survival. As soon as a species enters a new environment, nature begins to adapt and change the species. If the species could not or does not adapt, it becomes extinct. In addition, the more species there are, the lower the chance that a single disease will make extinct all life.

Through many years of famine and pestilence, many farmers now know this. Clear cutting the existing diverse vegetation and planting only one crop, year after year, brought a bountiful harvest. For awhile, anyway. But wise farmers found that rotating crops to something else or inter-planting other crops (i.e., increasing diversity) could reduce or prevent the probability that the land would turn fallow.  The Irish potato famine is an example of what happens when only one strain or species is planted and disease wipes out the entire crop. If multiple species were planted, some might be killed by disease, but the chances that all would be is reduced. Hence, it seems critical to our very survival to ensure diversity.

Through many years of using Microsoft Windows, many users now know this. Having only one operating system brought many benefits. One could become well versed in one system and transfer this knowledge from job to job. Developers could concentrate on one system, rather than many, when creating applications. But this lack of diversity makes it easier for viruses to wipe out huge numbers of PCs, all at once. Some even envision a coming perfect storm where entire industries or even countries could be felled in one swoop. Hospitals, air traffic control, navigation, communications, among others could come to a halt. But having multiple operating systems, some that are substantially different from Windows, can prevent problems such as this. Again, it may be  critical to our very survival to ensure diversity.

Through many years of political correctness (from both the extreme left and the extreme right), many in society now know this. A society locked into one way of thinking, acting, or being is a society ripe for disease. Whether mental, spiritual, or even physical, disease will always, in time, rip though such a culture laying waste to entire regions. Again, it may be critical to our very survival to ensure diversity.

That said, it would be just asincorrect to go to the other extreme. For example, a community that cannot communicate amongst its members, because there is no common language, cannot survive. But even then, here in Hawai'i, as the various ethnic groups came here to work, a kind of mishmash of Hawaiian, English, and Asian languages sprung up so that everyone could communicate the basics. There was no need for a law to mandate a common language, it just naturally sprang into being through pure necessity. But it was made richer by incorporating the words from these regions into one.

To me, extremism, whether for or against diversity, is not consistent with nature. Wise men do not fool with Mother Nature because bad things happen when you do.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

No, that isn't the half-time score of game one of the National Basketball Association finals. It is the number of US Senators who voted against and for the bill commonly referred to as the Akaka bill.

As I predicted months earlier, it did not pass. The fate of this bill, intended to begin a conversation over the governance of the Hawaiian peoples, was sealed when conservative Republicans took power years ago. To be fair, even with Democrats, this would have been a difficult road to travel, but with Republicans in Washington, there is no hope that Hawaiians will receive justice from Congress.

Some say it may be foolish to believe we will ever receive justice through a ha'ole (literally, those without "ha", the breath of life or spirit foreign) system. I don't know if I would go that far, but the MorningPaper rightly, I believe, opines that the bill was but a pawn to be sacrificed by the Republicans in their campaign to get their ultra-conservative base solidly behind them for the coming elections.

For example, it was over the last few days that Republicans forced a vote on a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and a bill to repeal the estate tax. Two issues near and dear to Republicans. The Republican leadership knew what the outcome of the votes would be but wanted everyone on record so they could make political points with their base. So the timing of the Akaka bill vote was probably not a coincidence.

Having made their choice, it at least finally puts to rest the fallacy that our Republican governor, because she is a Republican, has the ear of  Congress and the President (who also came out against the bill). Clearly, she has been duped by the Republicans in Washington and has now been thrown in the trash like yesterday's newspaper. Clearly, her selling out to the President by hiring his fellow Texas Republicans as tax payer funded "consultants", at extremely high pay and perks (in one case, I understand tax payers are paying for a consultant to fly to and from her home on one side of the island while she chooses to live on the other side, and by doing so, depleted funds for official travel for all employees), in pork barrel numbers never seen during any Democrat Party administration, has not and will not result in consideration of Hawaiian needs.

I have no idea what Hawaiians should now do. I do believe that if we do nothing, Republican ha'oles will continue to make it their mission to hurt us economically and spiritually to ensure we are never able to govern ourselves. I also believe, whatever we do, looking to Republicans, here in Washington Place or in Washington, D.C. is not the answer. Hence, we may need to, as some are saying, make this a state's rights issue by acting locally and beginning the process of self-governance without the approval of those currently in Washington.

In responding to the comment made earlier, I was reminded of the list of charges made against King George III, then the king of England, in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It seemed all too familiar in light of current events. Read them for yourselves and decide.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Certain Republicans have tried to make the case that it was okay for the White House to leak the identity of a CIA operative, during time of war, because it may have been generally known before and, in any case they say, she was no longer undercover. Hence, there was no need to investigate nor prosecute anyone, including the Vice President of the United States who, allegedly authorized the leak.

Hence, it is interesting to see some of these same Republicans reacting to the recent NY Times story about how the US has been monitoring financial transactions as a way to track terrorists.

These Republicans are calling for the prosecution of those at the Times as well as any individuals who may have leaked the information. The problem is, according to this Boston Globe article, the information was already widely disseminated by, now wait for it, the White House and others in the Bush administration. In fact, the administration has been crowing about how it was doing all these great things, including the specific operation reported in the Times, seemingly without care as to who might be listening.

Can you say Rush Limbaugh-level hypocrites? I knew that you could.

Aloha!

This item is for Hawaii residents and those interested in long-range planning.

This is not the place nor time to debate the role of planning. It seems to be me that there needs to be a balance between long-range plans and immediate needs.

Contrarily, some in Washington seem to say there is no need for planning. That is, even if you have a plan, you have to change it as soon as you begin implementation. So, why plan at all?

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that if you don't know where you are, where you want to go, nor how to best get there, all you will do is stumble blindly as you try various paths - most of which will not lead to your goal.

Here in Hawaii, we are traditionally described as being, for good or ill, relatively centralized and full of plans to do everything. That is, power tends to be concentrated in one place. For example, Hawaii's governor is said to be one of the most powerful state executives in the US in that she controls who sits on boards, commissions, various agencies, and even picks judges. Another example, our public school system, apparently unlike any other state in the union, is controlled by one board (albeit an elected one) and funded entirely through state tax revenues (rather than local taxes, which typically are property taxes). Hence, according to some, our state tends to be top down in management style.

Soon after the building boom that followed statehood and the coming of modern jet transportation in 1959/1960 began, consensus was reached that the state was growing too fast. Or, at least, we were growing in ways and in places that many did not wish to see such growth. Out of this realization came the Land Use Law (the first such plan in the nation), Hawaii State Plan (the first such plan in the nation), the State's Quality Growth Policy, and the State Functional Plans.

Since that time, at least the State Plan and State Functional Plans seem to have been relegated to the book shelf where they have collected dust, but not much else. But recently, our Legislature decided it was time to update the plans with an eye towards the year 2050. Towards that end, the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Task Force Report warning, PDF) lays out a time table and task list to reach what is called a "more sustainable Hawai'i..."

For those who are interested, the kick-off event is next month on Saturday, August 26, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Dole Ballrooms, 735 Iwilei Road, Honolulu. If you would like to attend, please call the Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs at (808) 585-7931, ext. 101. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

In local politics, I heard an attack ad on the radio recently. I admit, I only listen to the radio to and from work so my hearing this one, versus the possibility of any other ad is rather limited. But to my knowledge, it is the first of the political season.

What, at first glance, is the surprising thing is that it came from incumbent US Senator Daniel Akaka. Before I go farther, I need to disclose that I will be voting for Senator Akaka's opponent, US Congressman Ed Case (even though I don't agree with him on all issues), so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

Usually, the person lagging in the polls is the one that comes out attacking. Thus, it seems logical when Congressman Case is the one calling for a debate with Senator Akaka. But it seems illogical, to me, for Senator Akaka to attack Congressman Case.

At least, it seemed illogical until a recent Survey USA tracking poll (note: I have never heard of these people and have no idea how accurate, precise, or reliable the survey is) shows Senator Akaka's approval rating plummeting 10 percent in one month while his disapproval ratings jumped from 29 percent to 41 percent during that same period.

Some are speculating that the abrupt change came as a result of the Time magazine article that called Senator Akaka one of the five least effective people in Congress. The article said:

By all accounts, Daniel Akaka is an affectionate and earnest man. As a legislator, though, Akaka is living proof that experience does not necessarily yield expertise. After 16 years on the job, the junior senator from Hawaii is a master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee...

I don't know if this speculation is true, but regardless of the reason for the change in approval ratings (assuming here the change is reflective of reality), this could be the reason Senator Akaka has come out attacking. It does seem to make some sense that he would try to show that he is a man of action, fire, and daring (rather than inactive, somniferous, and timid) if his approval ratings were falling.

Whatever is going on, all I can say for sure is what I've said in the past; the fact that Congressman Case is challenging the incumbent senator makes for an interesting political season. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here

Aloha!

It is said that no government program is simple. That is, anytime you involve government you end up with a complex program that tries to meet the needs of all. However, by doing so, sometimes it seems it meets the needs of none.

The latest local story is the commission that is working on designing the Hawaii commemorative state quarter of the national program that will, over time, mint a distinctive coin for each of the 50 states.

However, given some of the comments of people who have been viewing some of the proposed drawings (sorry, I can't find an online source of the designs released yesterday), this is not going to be an easy decision. One example - a couple of the designs feature a likeness of King Kamehameha. Some people are saying that King Kamehameha should not be on the coin because it might be disrespectful to some Hawaiians.

I make no comment whether it would or wouldn't. But is it any wonder why government tends to produce what it does based on the lowest common denominator rather than the best (however best is defined)?

Aloha!

Over the last few years, I've made it a policy not to comment on political charges or complaints that occur within the last week of a campaign. This is because, it seems invariably that these charges or complaints end up having no merit and seem intended by those who make the allegations to smear sway voters away from a candidate.

The timing of the charges appear carefully calculated to produce the maximum impact and minimum time for the target to defend him or herself. However, once the charge or complaint works its way through the system, said charge is almost always found to be without merit and dismissed. But by then, months after the election, no one cares.

I see no reason to change my policy. However, I do feel compelled to note some thoughts regarding several charges brought against Congressman Ed Case (who I support) over the last few days.

Recently, Congressman Case sent out an email that quoted a passage from a book by former Hawaii Governor George Ariyoshi (who supports opponent Senator Daniel Akaka but who I otherwise respect as being one of the more fiscally conservative of Hawaii's governors). The entire text of the email follows:

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Dear Friend:

Please consider the following insights by ex-Gov. George Ariyoshi from With Obligation to All (1997): "Loyalty is a strong traditional value of people generally, and this is so with those of Japanese ancestry. I had my own definition of loyalty, which I construed as loyalty not only to individuals but to principles, and our foremost principle was openness and fairness. "I wish I could find the speech I gave to the 1972 Democratic Party Convention, in which I called for genuinely opening up the ranks to newcomers. I talked with Governor Burns beforehand about that speech. I told him I was going to say we had to change. ... "The Democratic Party was at a critical stage, and it had to change. "A few years earlier, Bob Oshiro had made a chart that showed the ages of all the people in the Legislature. It showed how they had all started off young but their average ages had gone up and up. We were in danger of being an aged party unless we brought in new people with new blood and new ideas. I believed we could not just tell new people to come in on the condition that they listen to us. There were other people who were giving lip service to the theme of openness, but I was saying, 'The difference between you and me is you still want to retain complete control. You don't want to let these people have any real influence.' "We were saying to these new people, 'Come in. The party belongs to you.' And then we were treating them almost like robots. ... "If you really wanted people to come in, you had to tell them, 'Come, use your best energy and judgment, and do what you feel has to be done.' ... "The speech was coldly received by some old-time Democrats. ... The issue always was what we do with our so-called power."

Mahalo and aloha,

CASE FOR SENATE

Governor Ariyoshi immediately went on TV and alleged that the quote was taken out of context, did not mean what it says, and in any case, Congressman Case should have called the Governor first. Unfortunately for the Governor, the quote was not taken out of context (as confirmed by the newspaper that endorses Senator Akaka), it in fact means exactly what it says, and no one needs Governor Ariyoshi's permission to quote this passage under Fair Use laws.

The Democratic party then and now, tends to be a very closed organization. The alarm that Governor Ariyoshi so clearly rang, lo those many years ago, rings especially true today. Perhaps more so as the party continues to age, but those in power refuse to allow new comers with new ideas to guide the party in new directions.

The second of three allegations involves a TV campaign ad. I have to admit, I don't recall seeing this ad. But from what I understand, in it you see, among other people, what appears to be a fireman in uniform shaking Congressman Case's hand. Someone has charged that this is a campaign violation because, they say, the Fire Department has a policy of prohibiting members of their organization from using the uniform to endorse any candidate. This policy is, if it exists, a wise one. I think the police, and perhaps other uniformed public organizations such as the military probably have similar policies prohibiting their members from doing similar things. The problem is, although the fireman may be in trouble for being in the ad, I know of no violation on the part of the candidate.

The third complaint appears even stranger. The US Chamber of Commerce is doing a series of get out the vote phone messages. Under our Constitution, the Chamber has a First Amendment right to speak out and ask people to be good citizens and vote. As in the TV ad, I have not heard the phone message but I understand it does not endorse or ask that you vote for anyone in particular. However, Congressman Case is apparently mentioned as supporting small businesses. As above, if there is a violation, and I do not believe there is one, it would be against the US Chamber of Commerce, not the candidate.

It has been said, more than once, that politics is a dirty business. But to the extent that it is, I suggest it is so only because people of goodwill allow this to happen by not speaking against it.

At this point in the campaign, I'm not going to ask you to vote for Congressman Case (although I hope you will consider him), but I do ask that you actively work against those who use smear unethical tactics during campaigns. And I ask that you carefully examine whether, in the wise words of Governor Ariyoshi, the Democratic Party is "at a critical stage and it ha[s] to change.. .We [are] in danger of being an aged party unless we br[ing] in new people with new blood and new ideas."

Come this Saturday, you decide.

YMMV, insert disclaimer here.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. But in ourselves..." - Act I, Scene II of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Some pundits are saying the breaking story regarding US Representative Mark Foley and his troubling views on what is appropriate behavior between adults and children was somehow orchestrated by certain unnamed "others" for political gain. Although some may agree, I point out an alternative explanation that frames the situation in terms of personal responsibility. Something the Republicans love to trumpet about unless, it seems, it applies to them.

Although others may have ultimately been involved, and be clear I have no evidence that this is true, the timing of the story was under the direct control of Representative Foley and his fellow traveling Republicans.

It seems the US House Clerk's Office was warning pages about Congressman Foley five years ago. If this is true, and if the warnings were related to Foley's alleged misconduct, then at least some in the House leadership knew of his deeds. If so, then the leadership could have controlled the story by forcing the issue with Foley. Instead, it appears the Republicans tried to cover up his reprehensible deeds.

In addition, Congressman Foley knew what he was doing was morally, ethically, and perhaps legally wrong and could have stopped at any time. He could have controlled the story himself by taking the initiative and disclosing his problems and what he planned to do to correct them. Instead, he too tried to cover up the story. Instead, he has tried to shift blame away from himself to (choose one): alcoholism, prior abuse, Democrats, and/or gays/lesbians.

As I said before about my own Democratic Party: in order to regain the public trust, the Party must reform itself. The Party must provide internal discipline. The Party must take responsibility for policing itself and showing to the people that it has its house in order.

Likewise, I think it disingenuous to say that the timing of this sad story is somehow blamable on others. It appears the Republican leadership and Representative Foley himself had ample opportunity to come clean at the time of their choosing years before now. Instead, they instituted a cover up. It was this decision that may have created the opportunity for others to take control (if that is what indeed happened).

But whichever the case, to try to blame others for Representative Foley's own actions appears to be a political act intended to spin the story, rather than to tell the truth. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

It seems there was a lot of anecdotal evidence that local counties increased the number of traffic citations as a form of revenue enhancement (i.e., tax increase). But if this article is true, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis did a landmark study of North Carolina data that confirmed that as county revenues decreased, the number of citations issued increased.

I guess here in Hawaii we are fortunate that all revenue from traffic citations, which are issued by county police, go directly to the state. It was done that way for two reasons. First, because the revenue is intended to fund the state courts that adjudicate the citations (From what I understand, this was central to the agreement when the county courts were transferred to the state). And secondly, because it removes the conflict of interest that is reflected in the Reserve Bank study.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!

As we come to the close of the political season, we enter into the most despicable, vile, and evil part. The last one to two weeks of the campaign season is where the puppet masters begin pulling their strings.

It is during this time that the innuendo, whispering campaigns, anonymous charges, and downright slander occur. Why? Because it leaves your opponent with insufficient time to respond. The opponent is kept on the defensive while he/she tries to prove the things being charged are not true or, even worse in my opinion, tries to ignore the charges in the hope that people will not believe them.

I especially fear the last two weeks this year because the Republicans are realizing that their time in power may be coming to a close. Over the last six or so years, the Republican Congress and Republican president have done more to rip the Constitution to shreds and eviscerate US democracy than any other group over the previous 200 years, combined. The Republicans have proved once again that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Knowing this, and knowing a Democrat controlled Congress could begin long over due investigations into who did what and when, the Republicans are highly motivated to use any and all dirty tricks that they can come up with.

Hence, I fully expect the Republicans will not go down without a fight and this may be the most destructive campaign season since, well, ever.

To read more about what the Republicans have done, follow this link to this Rolling Stone article.

Aloha!

Sorry! I wrote this last night for scheduled publishing this morning but forgot to reset the drop down choice from "unpublished" to "scheduled." Sorry about that.

Insert disclaimer here. I work at the state Judiciary but these are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. Further, this site is completely independent of my work and is in no way connected to it. YMMV.

The old saying is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And, in my opinion, when I see an opinion that I disagree with, I usually let it go. I mean, just because someone has a different opinion from me doesn't mean I have to respond to it (nor give it a wider audience by linking to it). But sometimes, some opinions are just so outrageous that I have to respond, regardless.

Such is the case regarding a local newspaper editorialist who described Chief Justice Ronald Moon's tenure thusly: "Ronald Moon has had a 13-year run as chief justice — 17 years by time he'd hit mandatory retirement — and the court's performance has not been particularly distinguished under his guidance."

Obviously, how you define "distinguished" is open to debate but this site gives a good synopsis of decisions that made a difference. Add to that the recent landmark case regarding public versus private beach property that I wrote about earlier and, in my opinion, you have a distinguished body of work to be proud. Can this court do better? Of course, all courts can. But to dismiss the impact that this court has made as a way of deciding a debate on mandatory judicial retirement does not, in my opinion, lead to more thoughtful debate.

In addition, I guess the writer makes the assumption that Chief Justice Moon is a Democrat. Maybe he made this assumption because the Chief Justice was appointed by a Democrat. In any case, having made the assumption, he seems to jump to the conclusion that our Democrat majority legislature wants to protect one of their own by assuming that our Republican governor will not be able to replace the Chief Justice.

The problem is, the Chief Justice is, now wait for it, a Republican. In fact, our Republican lt. governor was also a judge.So our Republican governor, Republican lt. governor, and her Republican attorney general (the party affiliation of the editorialist, if any, I do not know) are all trying to get rid of a member of their own Republican party. Oh the irony!

In one feel swoop, their argument goes flying out the window as so much hot air...Life is like that sometimes. In the words of another old saying: I'm glad its them and not me!

Aloha!

I had planned on doing a get out the vote post yesterday. You know, the one about how each vote counts so do your civic duty and vote (early, and often...). But actually, if you want to influence legislation, that's usually not the most effective way of doing it.

The best way is to get to know and financially support your representatives. Once you have started a conversation with him or her, you can then try to persuade your representative to come around to your way of thinking. Access doesn't mean you will always get your way, but it helps.

That said, conversations are two way streets. That is, it takes two to converse. Yet, President Bush and many fellow traveling Republicans made it easy on voters yesterday by not listening to them.

In no way did I anticipate the Republicans imploding so quickly. But, I guess, I underestimated the hubris of the certain Republicans who ruled, rather than led our country. I underestimated the Imperial Presidency and his compliant, fellow Republican controlled Congress. In turn, the Republicans underestimated the voters.

As it became clear to the majority of US citizens, (which, apparently, does not include the President and these Republicans) that the war in Iraq was not going as planned and that a new strategy was required, the President refused to deal with reality and refused to listen to the people.

These Republicans, having refused to listen, left the voters with only one choice: vote for a change.

Looking forward, I have four words for Democrats: "Don't screw it up." The voters have given you an opportunity to listen to them. If you do, many good things are possible. If you don't, you will be turned out of office just as surely as the Republicans were.

Aloha!

According to this article in Forbes, outgoing Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (Republican) is shocked, SHOCKED that anyone would question the ethics of he and his wife receiving gifts through wedding registries at two department stores.

Yes, they were married in 1974. But, apparently, gifts over $100 given to public servants are prohibited by ethics rules unless given by relatives or for an engagement or wedding. So, what does it matter that the wedding was over 30 years ago? And in any case, the governor and his wife are leaving office so surely no one would think the gifts are unethical. Right?

Other articles quote State Sen. Gilbert Baker (Republican), the state Republican Party chairman, saying he was not aware of the registries but saw no problem with them. "I'm glad you let me know about it so I can get online and buy him something,"

To be fair, incoming Democrat Mike Beebe may (or may not) have a few of his own ethics problems. But I am glad that these situations get aired in public so the citizens can make their own determinations.

Aloha!

Continuing on the theme of "Top 10" lists I started yesterday, the Washington Post has an article on the ranking of US Presidents. Now, before I say more, you need to keep some things in mind. First, consider the source. Secondly, know that the ranking of Presidents depends on the criteria used to judge them and who does the ranking. In some cases, the first may be last, and vice versa. Lastly, they say time heals all wounds and that, over time, the relative ranking of a President may change.

That all said, the article states that, based on leadership, policies, and use of power, President Bush is the worst President in US history.

Conservatism is the philosophy of consolation for those who used to control Congress.

As our Republican governor gets ready to start her second and last term, she announced yesterday some changes in her administration. The big shocker, at least to me, was her firing of the head of the Hawaii Transportation Department, Rod Haraga.

Obviously, being a Democrat, I don't necessarily hold in high regard some of her appointments. In my opinion, there are those in her administration that are not qualified to fill the posts they are in. But I don't include Mr. Haraga among those.

As far as I could see, he was doing a good job in a very difficult position. But perhaps, that was his problem. I'm speculating here but I wonder if he didn't commit the most heinous of all political crimes. He appeared to me smarter, more in control, and a better leader than his boss, the Governor. I can't think of any other situation that is so hated by politicians. As an appointed official, you must never take credit for what you do. Rather, you must always say you are doing what the Governor wants and to refer all reporters to the Governor's office.

Mr. Haraga didn't do that. When the bridges came tumbling down, it was Mr. Haraga that was in front directing operations. When the hills came sliding over the freeway, it was Mr. Haraga assuring the public that he had things under control (which he did) and that everything would be alright (which it was). When the droppings hit the fan, it was Mr. Haraga who cleaned things up.

He appeared to be one of those very rare individuals in government that actually was highly qualified to do the job. Haraga is a civil and structural engineer with 32-years of experience in Los Angeles. His undergraduate degree is from Purdue University and has two advanced degrees -a Masters in Business Administration from the University of California at Los Angeles and a masters in Public Administration from California State University. He is also a graduate of Honolulu's St. Louis High School.

But with all that experience and education, he may have forgotten that it's about his boss, not the people he served. It's about making his boss look good, not doing the people's work. And in the Lingle administration, it is better to look good, than to be good.

As I said at the top, I'm just speculating here so I could be completely wrong. But you have to wonder.

So long to Mr. Haraga. Thank you for a job well done. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

Aloha!

Conservative commentator William F. Buckley, over at the National Review, asks himself five questions regarding President Bush's new Iraq tactic:

1. Is it a strain to send more troops to Iraq?
2. Is our Iraqi enterprise worth a corporate commitment by America?
3. How does the Iraq question bear on the Iran question?
4. Then doesn't it follow that the American role in Iraq is indeed critical?
5. The sectarian character of the Iraqi population, which is the source of divisiveness extending beyond any dislike or resentment of America.

He answers his questions by just saying "No" to the President.

To his questions I would ask the same questions I asked four years before this conflict began:

1. What does victory look like?
2. What are the criteria that will tell us that victory has been achieved?

To my list I would add, "What do the majority of the Iraqi people want?"

To me, although the President's tactics may have changed, I don't see signs that he has altered what he apparently sees as the end point. Namely, an Iraq that is Western in outlook and a government based on U.S. style democracy. Although he makes dark allusion to what may happen if we fail to remake Iraq in our image, no one is asking him if his goal is possible, and if so, why it is in the best interests of the US, and the best way to achieve this goal.

For example, North Korea is probably trying to become a nuclear power. Few would say North Korea is a friend of the United States. Yet, as far as I know, the Marines will not soon be invading North Korea as an effort towards regime change to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Is it in our best interests to pursue other means towards our goals (such as containment)? If so, why can't we use similar means towards Iraq/Iran/insert the name of the Middle Eastern nation of the day?

Further, even if a military solution in Iraq is not successful, does this inevitably lead to the end of the U.S. (which is what he and his Vice President seemed to infer, pre-invasion)? We payed a price for being in Vietnam and we paid a price for leaving when we did in the way we did. Which was more costly?

In conclusion, can we not come to the realization that not all problems can be solved by war? Could we not have realized that a policy of containment, much in the same way that was successfully used against the Soviet Union, could have worked against Iraq/Iran/insert the name of the Middle Eastern Nation of the day?

Even now, is it too late to try a truly different strategy by pulling back and then containing Iraq/Iran/insert the name of the Middle Eastern Nation of the day? YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!

Things are getting busy over at the Hawaii Commission on Salaries. Local folks may remember they voted for a state constitution change that combined the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salary Commissions. The new commission will recommend the salary levels for all legislators, the Governor and all her appointees, and all justices and judges.

What with having to wait for the results of the elections and having to organize a new commission, the members don't have a lot of time to figure out what to recommend. Hence, they are having to adsorb a lot of information in a very short time.

I do not envy what they are going through and wish them the best as they do their important task.

Aloha!

The Chief Justice (CJ) of the Hawaii Supreme Court gave his State of the Judiciary speech before the Legislature yesterday. CJ Ronald T.Y. Moon covered several critical issues facing our courts. For example, fair and impartial courts/access to justice, intermediate sanctions and problem-solving courts, increased costs for the new Kapolei Court Complex, additional Family Court Judges, and Attorneys and Guardians Ad Litem fees.

To me, the most long range and most critical is the first issue. By fair and impartial courts he is referring to the attacks on the independence of the courts. CJ Moon said:

I am concerned about some of the initiatives that appeared on other state ballots in the most recent elections -- some of which were proposed and promoted as a way to fix our justice system. For example: The citizens of South Dakota voted on a radical constitutional amendment, entitled Judicial Accountability Initiative Law -- commonly referred to as "JAIL for Judges" -- that proposed, among other things, the creation of a new grand jury that would allow citizens to sue judges for decisions they did not like. Although the amendment did not pass, the fact that it was even proposed underscores fundamental misunderstandings of the duties of legislators and judges and how judges are held accountable.

Legislators, as you well know, enact laws in accordance with what they understand to be the popular will and in the public interest. Judges, however, apply the law that is the result of longstanding common law traditions and legislative processes to the evidence in individual cases; judges do so even when the loudest voices at the time may have other conceptions about what the law or result should be in a particular case. In short, a judge's first and foremost duty is to fairly and impartially apply the constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge's personal feelings about what the law "should be" has no place in his or her deliberations. The determination of such broad policy matters as to what the law should be is your kuleana, and you are in a much better position to make that assessment than is a judge hearing the evidence in an individual case.

Nevertheless, as evinced by initiatives like South Dakota's JAIL for Judges, an alarming number of our citizens continue to believe that the role of the courts is to bend to the whims of the press or, at least, those who have the money to mount advertising campaigns and get press attention. Thus, when some of our citizens disagree with a judge's decision because it is not in conformity with what they perceive as the "popular will," they often cry out for reforms, like the election of judges. Indeed, rumor has it that this legislature may be asked to consider proposals calling for the election of judges. And, although such a proposal is not "new," it seems rather ironic since many other jurisdictions are attempting to repeal the election process in their respective states because of the effect judicial elections have on preserving a fair and impartial justice system. Under an elective system for judges, there is the constant threat that an unpopular decision could result in the loss of popular votes -- a consideration that has no place in a judge's decision-making process. And, sadly, judges in elective jurisdictions who have adhered to the high standards of fair and impartial judicial decision-making have paid the ultimate price at the polls -- that is, they have lost their jobs. But, a decision that is made fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the constitution and the law -- even though unpopular -- is, in the words of the late United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the crown jewels of our democracy. Those who favor electing judges often do because they believe judges are not held accountable for their actions or decisions. They are wrong.

Hawai`i judges are held accountable in more ways than any other public officer. First, each judge's legal decision is subject to review and reversal by Hawaii's appellate courts and, depending on the issues, by the United States Supreme Court. Each judge's performance, demeanor, and competence are subject to review and sanction by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which may recommend a judge's removal from office. A judge seeking retention is also subject to review and sanction by the Judicial Selection Commission, which may -- and does -- refuse to retain judges. In addition, the supreme court's Rule 19 committee administers the Judicial Performance Evaluation program under which each judge's performance is evaluated one or more times during the judge's term of office. A Judicial Performance Review Panel -- composed of a retired judge, a retired attorney, and a member of our lay community -- discusses the evaluation results with the judge so that the judge may improve his or her performance for the benefit of the public. In addition, the Hawai`i State Bar Association conducts its own judicial evaluation program and provides the results of its surveys to our judges.

Judges are, to the best of my knowledge, the only public officers in Hawai`i whose decisions, performance, competence, and demeanor are subject to probing, professional, and systematic scrutiny. In short, judges are held accountable by mechanisms that assure accountability, without undermining the impartiality of our courts. Fair and impartial courts provide the balance that is essential to the workings of our government and not only makes our democracy the envy of many of our foreign neighbors, but ensures equal access to justice for all. Undermining the impartiality of the courts jeopardizes the very access our citizens expect. Indeed, without access to the courts, there can be no justice for our citizenry.

Of the issues laid out in the CJ's address, which do you think the press focused on? Surely, the attacks on your right to a fair trial should be foremost to citizens. Because, if you can't get a fair trial, where the rule of law, not the passing passions of the day hold sway, then whatever you have, it isn't a republic or a democracy. But no, that wasn't it. Then surely it must have been the work of Hawaii's pioneering, and wildly successful probation revocation program (Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) where if you violate the terms of your probation in the morning, you go to jail in the afternoon. But no, it wasn't that either.

Yes, that's right, the cost of the new court complex in Kapolei was the lone issue of every news broadcast and newspaper article I saw. This is very disappointing. Why? Because, of all the things that are critical to Hawaii's citizens, providing $15.5 million to cover the skyrocketing cost of construction for the new complex should not be the focus. Yes, it needs to be done so that the citizens of the Second City and Oahu, as a whole, will have access to facilities conducive to the types of cases that Family Courts routinely hear. And no, I am not suggesting it is not important. But I am suggesting that this should not be the only issue discussed. In my opinion, it is what happens within the walls of the courtroom that is critical - not the building itself. The courts are more than mere buildings, they are people implementing programs, interpreting laws, and settling disputes in a calm and rational setting.

It was James Madison who said "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Perhaps our press could better serve the aims of freedom by spending a little more time shining light on such gradual and silent attacks rather than the surface issues like increased construction costs.

Sigh. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha

I have a Hawaii Commission on Salaries meeting this afternoon. The Commission is set to announce today its preliminary recommendations for elected/appointed officers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Obviously, everyone is eager to see what the Commission recommends for the Governor, Lt. Governor, Executive Branch Directors/Deputies, Legislators, and judges.

This is the first year for this new commission that combines the former Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch commissions into one. Last year, the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment, and the voters endorsed the change in the November election.

But, the amendment left out the salaries for the Director and Deputy Director of the Courts. These two positions used to be included in the old salary commission but were left out in the new. It appears this was a mistake. But, so far, our bills to correct the mistake, if that is what is was, in the current legislative session, have been met with silence. That is, neither the House nor the Senate have schedule to hear the bills. Further, the House referred the bill to three committees. A triple referral is sometimes seen as the kiss of death since it takes so long for three committee to hear a bill that the bill usually misses the critical deadline (called cross-over). Any bill missing this deadline cannot move forward and is considered dead for that year (or as dead as any bill can be in the marvelous world of politics where bills have been known to appear again in other forms).

In any case, we will see what the recommendation for the judges salaries will be this afternoon.

Aloha!

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or bases on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America. - US Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, as quoted in Amy's Knowledge Tree.

Aloha!

I've long felt that extremists, on the right or the left, tend to be the biggest violators of the cause they say they support. I've talked before about people like Rush Limbaugh, who are all law and order and throw them in jail. Until, that is, they get arrested. Then all of a sudden it's about treatment not punishment. It's about understanding and compassion, not the rule of law.

Well, yet another extremist admits his deeds. This article here quotes Newt Gingrich admitting that he was having an affair while, at the same time, he was rabidly pursuing former President Clinton for, you guessed it, having an affair. When people talk about being prosecuted for lying about something that is not illegal, you can trace that back to this incident. The Republicans even impeached the President for not telling the truth about his affair.

Yet, Mr. Gingrich feels what he did was okay because, he didn't lie about it under oath. Oh, he did lie about it. Probably many times. But, for some strange reason, the Republican controlled Congress didn't investigate his misdeeds so that was alright. Indeed, he's lied about multiple affairs, reportedly including one that he had while his then wife was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Such a nice, upstanding, moral guy.

In future, when you see someone rabidly pursuing someone else for alleged misdeeds, start taking a look at the accuser's background because he or she, is most likely secretly doing the same thing as the accused.

In a totally unrelated article, the headline is "Public faith in leaders may be ebbing." Guess who was quoted saying there is a crisis of leadership? Yup, Newt Gingrich. Do I smell a run for the presidency?

Oh, the answer to the old joke that is the headline for this post: Whenever his or her lips are moving.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha

Although State Senator Clayton Hee [Disclosure: Senator Hee's parents were friends of my parents from a long time ago] has been described as less than magnanimous in his dealings with people, I seem to be hearing similar rumblings about his counterpart in the House.

At least one site has noted State House of Representatives Tommy Waters [Disclosure: His mother-in-law works in the same office I do] appears to be behaving in, how shall I phrase it, less than a forthright manner with the public. Although if true, and I have no idea if it is, this is certainly not limited to Rep. Waters. Whether it goes further than that I can't say. But combine this with a need to come up to speed on issues Waters is not familiar with and you can end up with a politically fatal combination. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

I wish both legislators the best of luck but wonder if being the chairs of the respective judiciary committees makes each lighting rods for some of the more contentious issues facing our state.

Aloha

This past weekend, I attended the most recent public meeting of the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Task Force. The Task Force reported out draft definitions, guiding principles, and its vision.

Definition of Sustainability

Sustainability in Hawai'i means achieving a quality of life that:

• strikes a balance between economic prosperity, social and community well-being, and environmental stewardship.

• meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

• respects the culture, character, beauty and history of our states' island communities.

Guiding Principles of Sustainability

Our sustainability goals, actions and measurements are guided by balancing economic prosperity, community and social well-being and environmental stewardship.

Sustainability cannot occur without a strong, diversified and dynamic economy.

We respect and live within the natural resources and limits of our islands.

Our cultural traditions, history and sense of place are honored.

We make decisions based on meeting the present needs without compromising the needs of future generations.

The traditional Native Hawaiian practices of the Ahupua'a system guides how we manage our resources and behaviors.

Everyone  -- individuals, families, communities, businesses and government -- has a responsibility for achieving a sustainable Hawai'i.

Vision of Sustainability

In 2050, Hawai'i is a sustainable community. Living responsibly and within our own means is top-of-mind for all individuals and organizations. We learn about the virtues and values of a sustainable Hawai'i. As a result, our goals of economic prosperity, social and community well-being, and environmental stewardship are met.

Our Native Hawaiian and island values and culture are perpetuated. We have a vibrant, clean, locally-based and diversified economy that supports a living wage for island residents, and affords economic and career opportunities for our children. Our land, water and natural resources are used responsibility, and are replenished and preserved for future generations.

In 2050, we have also embraced and achieved island self-sufficiency. The energy we use is clean, renewable and produced in Hawaii. Most of the food we consume is grown locally. We minimize waste by recycling and waste-to-energy processes. We are a strong and healthy community with access to affordable housing, transportation and healthcare. Our public education system prepares our people for productive, meaningful and fulfilled lives.

Hawai'i is where our hopes and aspirations as individuals, families and as a community are realized now and in the future.

Aloha!

During the most recent legislative session, which adjourned last week Thursday, I went to all of the 2006-2007 Hawaii Commission on Salaries (Commission) meetings. The Commission is charged with setting the salaries for appointed or elected officials from the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government.

All meetings were open to the public and where announced by submitting timely notice with the appropriate governmental office (the Lt. Governor) who in turn posted the schedule on the Internet.

In addition, once the Commission completed its work (link to 29MB, 500-page PDF report), it met with the House and Senate members (in the Majority and Minority Caucus) to brief them on the recommendations. If a legislator is not aware of the recommendations, it is because he or she failed to attend one of these four legislative meetings or did not speak to any colleague who did.

As expected, there have been concerns expressed about the level of the recommendations. But I will note several critical and revealing factors that you may not be aware of:

Since 1990, all of the positions have had long periods of time where no salary increases were made (between nine and thirteen years). At the same time, those covered under collective bargaining contracts, Unit 13 for example, have received raises averaging about 3.5% per year. If you take that average and total it over that period it would be about 66% in collective bargaining increases. In addition, during that time, inflation has decreased the dollar's buying power by about 54%. So, these position have seen no or few increases while, at the same time, what they had was seriously eroded by inflation.

In fact, whether you take the Unit 13 collective bargaining increases and adjust the 1990 salaries for these positions forward, or take the inflation rate and adjust likewise, the Commission's recommendations would still be lower than either of those metrics. In other words, these positions are still trying to "catch-up" to what other state employees have gotten or just trying to stay even with inflation, but are failing to do either even with these increases.

Further, there are over 100 state employees who are paid more than the heads of certain departments. It is my understanding that 43% of the Department of Transportation's excluded managerial employees are paid more than the directors of the "Tier 4" departments (presently, the Executive branch salaries are separated into tiers). This makes for low morale among directors and makes it difficult to fill such positions (especially from within a department since the employee may have to take a pay cut to become director or deputy director).

The number of positions affected and the total cost of the increase for these positions is small (about $2.3 million for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, including the increases already approved in 2004, $1.7 million if the 2004 increases are not included), relative to the $9.8 billion state budget. To put this in perspective, this is about 23 hundredths of one percent of the state budget or about what the Department of Education spends in less than two days.

That said, the individuals in these positions and the Commission are sensitive to the perceptions of our hard working, tax paying citizens and, I believe, the Commission was respectful of that. Hence, even though these people would be justified in receiving more, to at least reach parity with other Hawaii state employees or to keep up with inflation,they have refrained from doing so.

Does this mean no one will feel these positions are still receiving too much? No. I fully expect some will continue to have concerns regarding the recommendations regardless of the facts. But, I believe the majority who take the time to read the report will come to the conclusion that the recommendations are reasonable and long over due if we are to attract and retain the best individuals to public service. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.