If one thinks of Hawaii's environment as a child that needs protection, then the action's of the lawmaking majority at the special legislative session simply changed the Hawaii age of consent law from sixteen years old to ten years old while a study on how it affects the child is completed.
Anyone got a problem with that? Malama the Aina.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Governor Lingle a class act compared to President Musharraf
According to Reuters;
Musharraf has sacked most of the country's judges, put senior ones under house arrest, and ordered police to round up most of the opposition leadership and anyone else deemed troublesome.
Lucky we live Hawaii.
Lucky we live Kauai.Governor Lingle just calls a special session and with the help of the legislative majority simply changes the environmental laws her administration violated. She comes over here to Kauai and just threatens people deemed troublesome with arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and having child protection services take their children.
What a class act!
I'm sure the state's judges also appreciate not being sacked and/or thrown in prison.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Aloha is a two way street
The latest ("Sagum stood tall", TGI, A4, 10-5-2007) of Peter Antonson wrongheaded letters to the forum caught my attention and compelled me to respond.
From his uninformed call urging others to waste their time launch a recall petition of county council members (because he is "to busy" to do it himself and despite any legal authority in the county charter to do so) to his evident willingness to substitute majority mob rule (as determined by pollsters) in place of the law, his advice is consistently misguided. Now he claims to "speak for many'"without a fact or even a poll to back him up. If we took his advice and relied on majority mob rule instead of the rule of law we would all still be living in racially segregated housing, and going to segregated schools.
I frequently attend public forums and far from seeing what Antonson characterizes as a vocal minority I see actively engaged citizens that care enough to take time out of their busy lives to exercise their democratic franchise regardless of their positions on any specific issue.
Those that do not exercise their franchise are disengaged from the public process and most likely hold an opinion about as robust as an unenlightened passerby. Opinions not strongly held enough to be expressed in a public forum where they can be critiqued by others are probably not well thought out either. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt as the old adage goes.
Regarding Antonson's negative characterizations of citizens opposed to the Superferry operating without following environmental laws as "hysterical nostalgic protesters" I would remind Peter Antonson that aloha is a two way street. Invited guests are welcome, but a home invasion is another matter altogether and necessity knows no law.
From his uninformed call urging others to waste their time launch a recall petition of county council members (because he is "to busy" to do it himself and despite any legal authority in the county charter to do so) to his evident willingness to substitute majority mob rule (as determined by pollsters) in place of the law, his advice is consistently misguided. Now he claims to "speak for many'"without a fact or even a poll to back him up. If we took his advice and relied on majority mob rule instead of the rule of law we would all still be living in racially segregated housing, and going to segregated schools.
I frequently attend public forums and far from seeing what Antonson characterizes as a vocal minority I see actively engaged citizens that care enough to take time out of their busy lives to exercise their democratic franchise regardless of their positions on any specific issue.
Those that do not exercise their franchise are disengaged from the public process and most likely hold an opinion about as robust as an unenlightened passerby. Opinions not strongly held enough to be expressed in a public forum where they can be critiqued by others are probably not well thought out either. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt as the old adage goes.
Regarding Antonson's negative characterizations of citizens opposed to the Superferry operating without following environmental laws as "hysterical nostalgic protesters" I would remind Peter Antonson that aloha is a two way street. Invited guests are welcome, but a home invasion is another matter altogether and necessity knows no law.
Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody knows the dice are loaded I thought as I read County lawsuits reveal open records realities in the The Garden Island newspaper this morning. Inaccessible public records is not a reality but an ongoing nightmare for the citizens of Kaua`i, and only a philanthropist with money flowing out their nose, or a legion of pro bono attorneys with a sense of social justice will wake the people up and stop this abuse of process.
The article by Amanda Gregg recounted the tale of former Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer who was "allegedly" fired for making a "threat" when requesting County of Kaua`i 2002 executives session minutes. The article failed to mention the charge of terroristic threatening was made by a county attorney and although it got Tony "allegdly" fired the charge never proceeded to court.
Reporter Amanda Gregg writes "some plaintiffs wonder whether officials have been advised to hold out, banking on the chances that most residents have less of a bankroll the county to keep the fight ongoing in court" while attorney Dan Hempy notes that "he really hasn't seen an aggressive push for government records in county court." Could there be a nexus between a lack of money and taking the county to court? Ya think!
The ultra-secretive County of Kauai has never been shy about spending vast amount of the public's money keeping information about their doings out of the public eye. Kauai County has even sued the State Office of Information Practices to keep the public in the dark, and it is a safe bet that with rare exceptions the county can outspend the average citizen (if lawsuit money is short they simple raise taxes).
Combine a secretive spendthrift county with the apparent lack of pro-bono lawyers willing to delay their payday working for the public good (perhaps working as outside council for the county is more lucrative), and you have a neutered state open records law -- on the books, but like county public records are inaccessible to members of the public lacking the county's deep pockets.
Even Tony Sommer's case described in the article as having the "potential to set a precedent" settled for a document with sixteen paragraphs redacted (no doubt the most important parts). Unfortunately Tony "didn't have the financial stamina to keep the case going to the appellate level". Kudos to Tony for putting his financial foot forward, but his case is just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally hundreds of potential open records cases that never see the light of a courtroom due to the counties endless stream of public money and equal lack of prob bono lawyers willing to work in the public interest.
If anyone knows or is a rich philanthropist or a pro bono attorney with a sense of social justice give me a call. I need help clearing out a humongous backlog of open records requests but regrettably lack the financial stamina to avail myself of the judicial process.
The article by Amanda Gregg recounted the tale of former Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer who was "allegedly" fired for making a "threat" when requesting County of Kaua`i 2002 executives session minutes. The article failed to mention the charge of terroristic threatening was made by a county attorney and although it got Tony "allegdly" fired the charge never proceeded to court.
Reporter Amanda Gregg writes "some plaintiffs wonder whether officials have been advised to hold out, banking on the chances that most residents have less of a bankroll the county to keep the fight ongoing in court" while attorney Dan Hempy notes that "he really hasn't seen an aggressive push for government records in county court." Could there be a nexus between a lack of money and taking the county to court? Ya think!
The ultra-secretive County of Kauai has never been shy about spending vast amount of the public's money keeping information about their doings out of the public eye. Kauai County has even sued the State Office of Information Practices to keep the public in the dark, and it is a safe bet that with rare exceptions the county can outspend the average citizen (if lawsuit money is short they simple raise taxes).
Combine a secretive spendthrift county with the apparent lack of pro-bono lawyers willing to delay their payday working for the public good (perhaps working as outside council for the county is more lucrative), and you have a neutered state open records law -- on the books, but like county public records are inaccessible to members of the public lacking the county's deep pockets.
Even Tony Sommer's case described in the article as having the "potential to set a precedent" settled for a document with sixteen paragraphs redacted (no doubt the most important parts). Unfortunately Tony "didn't have the financial stamina to keep the case going to the appellate level". Kudos to Tony for putting his financial foot forward, but his case is just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally hundreds of potential open records cases that never see the light of a courtroom due to the counties endless stream of public money and equal lack of prob bono lawyers willing to work in the public interest.
If anyone knows or is a rich philanthropist or a pro bono attorney with a sense of social justice give me a call. I need help clearing out a humongous backlog of open records requests but regrettably lack the financial stamina to avail myself of the judicial process.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap
State Rep. Hermina Morita, D-14th (Hanalei, Anahola, Kapa'a), said the House was emasculating the courts and the rule of law. She said it was appropriate that the vote was taken on Halloween. The bill, she said, "dressed in the facade of the toothless conditions, is still one ugly bill that reeks the horrors of political favors gone awry and should be haunting this Legislature on how cheap we sold the credibility and respectability of this institution and our moral compass." http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS01/711010371
Unchained passion begins at home
"When tyranny is law revolution is order" popped into my head as I witnessed the Hawaii State legislature shamelessly betray themselves, the people, and the environment to corporate/military power. Such a sycophantic rush to bad judgment by the Governor and the legislative majority to put the Superferry above the law makes moot the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling and shreds any lingering delusions that we live under a rule of law.
The saying "when tyranny is law revolution is order" can be traced back to the the 1897 "Handbook of American Constitutional Law" by Campbell Black author of Black's Law Dictionary often cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is what Black wrote about the right of revolution in his "Handbook of American Constitutional Law."
The saying "when tyranny is law revolution is order" can be traced back to the the 1897 "Handbook of American Constitutional Law" by Campbell Black author of Black's Law Dictionary often cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is what Black wrote about the right of revolution in his "Handbook of American Constitutional Law."
RIGHT OF REVOLUTION.The Constitution Black points out is not the origin of our freedom but the consequence of our power.
8. The right of revolution is the inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their polity, or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions, by force or a general uprising, when the legal and constitutional methods of making such changes have proved inadequate, or are so obstructed as to be unavailable.
This right is a fundamental, natural right of the whole people, not existing in virtue of the constitution, but in spite of it. It belongs to the people as a necessary inference from the freedom and independence of the nation. But revolution is entirely outside the pale of law. "Inter armes silent leges." Circumstances alone can justify a resort to the extreme measure of a revolution. In general, this right may be said to exist when tyranny or a corrupt and vicious government is intrenched in power, so that it cannot be dislodged by legal means; or when the system of government has become intolerable for other causes, and the [Page 11] evils to be expected from a revolutionary rising are not so great as those which must be endured under the existing order of things; when the attempt is reasonably certain to succeed; and when the new order proposed to be introduced will be more satisfactory to the people in general than that which is to be displaced. "Revolution is either a forcible breach of the established constitution or a violation of its principles. Thus, as a rule, revolutions are not matters of right, although they are mighty natural phenomena, which alter public law. Where the powers which are passionately stirred in the people are unchained, and produce a revolutionary eruption, the regular operation of constitutional law is disturbed. In the presence of revolution, law is impotent. It is, indeed, a great task of practical politics to bring back revolutionary movements as soon as possible into the regular channels of constitutional reform. There can be no right of revolution, unless exceptionally; it can only be justified by that necessity which compels a nation to save its existence or to secure its growth where the ways of reform are closed. The constitution is only the external organization of the people, and if, by means of it, the state itself is in danger of perishing, or if vital interests of the public weal are threatened, necessity knows no law."[7]
A constitution "is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but the consequence, of personal and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but, is the creature of their power, -- the instrument of their convenience.Aloha is a two way street. Invited guests are more than welcome, but when we are threatened by a home invasion "necessity knows no law."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
How Public Access TV controls public speech
The original mission of Public Access TV was to provide "first-come nondiscriminatory (FCND) access to the medium of television". This was the mission because it was believed that FCND would guarantee uncensored free speech which the pioneers of public access television believed was essential for the wide dissemination of a diversity of ideas throughout society. This widespread diversity of ideas, it was also believed, was essential for a viable democracy.
That pipedream of course was before corruption and mission creep subverted public access into a tool of the government to control public speech through a more subtle form of structural discrimination to prevent the widespread diversity of ideas.
Sure anyone can go down to their local public access station (mine is Ho`ike on the island of Kauai Hawaii) and "put something on TV and say anything you want." After this bold declaration and some other pompous blather about "promoting free speech" the institutionalized structural discrimination kicks in.
One soon learns onerous "operating procedures" have been put in place. For starters one learns about the two week delay between the time a program is submitted and the time it will be broadcast. Say goodbye to anything that needs to be said in a timely manner.
Next you learn that the program will be broadcast no more than four times in one year. This falls short of the well known advertising truism that a message must be received at least six times before it sticks. The public access gatekeepers can of course make exceptions or what they call "an executive decision on a case-by-case basis', i.e. standard less discretion, i.e. discrimination. If the gatekeepers like you or your message they will play the program until the cows come home. If they don't like you or your message expect to see a two week delay, four plays a year, and the door.
That in a nutshell is a sample of a just a few of the many institutionalized tools of discrimination used by public access at the behest of government to control what ideas are (and are not) spread diversely throughout the community.
To compare and highlight the inequitable treatment the public receives it is worth noting that government access gets their programs (county council meetings for instance) captioned for the hard of hearing, broadcast within 24 hours and repeated seven times in a week. These Kauai County Council meeting programs typically run four to six hours long.
The bottom line is that this public access structural discrimination and special facilitation of government entities robs the public speaker of resources, drowns the public voice, and limits the diversity of ideas to those ideas the government and their public access gatekeepers find acceptable.
That pipedream of course was before corruption and mission creep subverted public access into a tool of the government to control public speech through a more subtle form of structural discrimination to prevent the widespread diversity of ideas.
Sure anyone can go down to their local public access station (mine is Ho`ike on the island of Kauai Hawaii) and "put something on TV and say anything you want." After this bold declaration and some other pompous blather about "promoting free speech" the institutionalized structural discrimination kicks in.
One soon learns onerous "operating procedures" have been put in place. For starters one learns about the two week delay between the time a program is submitted and the time it will be broadcast. Say goodbye to anything that needs to be said in a timely manner.
Next you learn that the program will be broadcast no more than four times in one year. This falls short of the well known advertising truism that a message must be received at least six times before it sticks. The public access gatekeepers can of course make exceptions or what they call "an executive decision on a case-by-case basis', i.e. standard less discretion, i.e. discrimination. If the gatekeepers like you or your message they will play the program until the cows come home. If they don't like you or your message expect to see a two week delay, four plays a year, and the door.
That in a nutshell is a sample of a just a few of the many institutionalized tools of discrimination used by public access at the behest of government to control what ideas are (and are not) spread diversely throughout the community.
To compare and highlight the inequitable treatment the public receives it is worth noting that government access gets their programs (county council meetings for instance) captioned for the hard of hearing, broadcast within 24 hours and repeated seven times in a week. These Kauai County Council meeting programs typically run four to six hours long.
The bottom line is that this public access structural discrimination and special facilitation of government entities robs the public speaker of resources, drowns the public voice, and limits the diversity of ideas to those ideas the government and their public access gatekeepers find acceptable.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Hypocrisy gone wild!
"Lingle calls Superferry special session" blurted todays front page above-the-fold headline in Kaua`i's The Garden Island Newspaper. This headline proved to be totally misleading if one is to believe Governor Lingle's own guest viewpoint, "Special session won't be all Superferry" on page A8 of the same paper.
According to Lingle the special session will deal with 103 items who's importance "goes far beyond resolving the current Superferry situation." That was the Governor's only mention of the Superferry in her entire viewpoint! This would lead one to conclude that the Governor really called the special session because she believes there are 103 items whose importance goes far beyond the Superferry.
The Governor's belief is either the height of hypocrisy, or a sign of delusional thought processes that fails to hear the overwhelming opinions of the thousands of citizens who cared enough to exercise their franchise and speak in opposition to the Superferry operating prior to and environmental assessment at public informational meetings held on Kaua`i, Maui, and Hawai`i. Citizens with opposing views do not hold those viewpoints strongly enough to exercise their franchise and express themselves in a public forum.
The media reports the Governor called the special session because of the Superferry issue. The people believe the Governor called the special session because of the Superferry issue, but the Governor believes she is calling a special session because there are 103 more important issues that "goes far beyond" resolving the Superferry issue. Can you say "out of touch with reality?"
Pardon my analysis but I don't believe Governor Lingle. I have not heard any public outcry on any of these other 103 issues, nor have I seen any comparable coverage in any of the mass media outlets on these 103 vital issues.
Even the most causal observer would correctly conclude the Governor is a hypocrite, delusional or both.
Confront the war president
RALLY TO END WAR
AND STOP GLOBAL WARMING
Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:00-5:30 PM
At the Kapaa Public Library
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
BRING THEM HOME NOW!
Organized by the Kauai Peace 'Ohana
in Solidarity with United for Peace and Justice
Planned Speakers and open mic
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Standardless Discretion
Years of standardless discretion (formerly known as "an executive decision made on a case by case basis") by State of Hawaii Government bureaucrats are coming home to roost on the shores of Kauai and in a Maui Courtrooms.
From the illegal Superferry exemptions granted by the Department of Transportation, to the Department of Commerces and Consumer Affairs multi-year violation of state procurement laws by granting sole source no-bid contracts to non-profit corporations they created (`Olelo, Ho`ike, Naleo, and Akaku) it is obvious to the most casual observer that an entity that watches itself tends to be short-sighted when it comes to approving their own actions.
Lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight allow self interested parties to do their deeds in the dark, and out of public sight. Sure Hawaii has Open Records and Sunshine laws, but as anyone who has appealed to the Office of Information Practices will tell you, OIP is a toothless tiger that can opine all it want about government entities violating the law, but OIP lacks the enforcement authority to do anything about it.
Scofflaw rogue subdivisions of the state like the County of Kaua`i would rather take the OIP to court rather than disclose minutes from long past executive sessions. Ironically the state legislature created the OIP to prevent subdivisions of the state from suing each other with the unintended consequence of being sued itself.
From the illegal Superferry exemptions granted by the Department of Transportation, to the Department of Commerces and Consumer Affairs multi-year violation of state procurement laws by granting sole source no-bid contracts to non-profit corporations they created (`Olelo, Ho`ike, Naleo, and Akaku) it is obvious to the most casual observer that an entity that watches itself tends to be short-sighted when it comes to approving their own actions.
Lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight allow self interested parties to do their deeds in the dark, and out of public sight. Sure Hawaii has Open Records and Sunshine laws, but as anyone who has appealed to the Office of Information Practices will tell you, OIP is a toothless tiger that can opine all it want about government entities violating the law, but OIP lacks the enforcement authority to do anything about it.
Scofflaw rogue subdivisions of the state like the County of Kaua`i would rather take the OIP to court rather than disclose minutes from long past executive sessions. Ironically the state legislature created the OIP to prevent subdivisions of the state from suing each other with the unintended consequence of being sued itself.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
What the Superferry?
Hawai`i Governor Linda Lingle advised residents to obey the laws as they now exist.
Easy for her to say.
She can just call for a special legislative session to have the law changed if it's not to her liking. Lingle asserted any proposed legislation must be agreed to by the Superferry.
The legislature is there to lend support. Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said Superferry environmental law compliance will be left to Lingle.
But Wait! Lingle has already said the Superferry must agree to any proposed legislation. This puts the Superferry in the catbird seat with the power to essentially write laws using their ultimate power of agreement.
The Superferry saga is a shining example of a corporations writing our environmental laws based on their corporate interests. Our elected Governor and legislature have been reduced to an advisory role to the corporate "Decider".
Who elected these guys?
Easy for her to say.
She can just call for a special legislative session to have the law changed if it's not to her liking. Lingle asserted any proposed legislation must be agreed to by the Superferry.
The legislature is there to lend support. Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said Superferry environmental law compliance will be left to Lingle.
But Wait! Lingle has already said the Superferry must agree to any proposed legislation. This puts the Superferry in the catbird seat with the power to essentially write laws using their ultimate power of agreement.
The Superferry saga is a shining example of a corporations writing our environmental laws based on their corporate interests. Our elected Governor and legislature have been reduced to an advisory role to the corporate "Decider".
Who elected these guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)