Mahalo… and I agree w/ others that $3.00 is not enough.

Quick answer: Yes. As you say, there was an over abundance of self-certainty then. Whew. Thank goodness for “third person” cop-outs.

Seriously, though, I’ll try to follow up tomorrow.

I’ve skimmed through the first part of your book and am surprised to find I have some reservations about what you write and wonder if the “new and improved” Ian of today might not share my ambiguous feelings.

In a number of places, you raise a concern about “the appearance” of impropriety, of conflict of interest, of corruption. I have trouble with “appearance of impropriety” as a reasonable standard.

“Appearance” should give rise to an investigation to determine whether there is, indeed, “fire” where there is “smoke.”

Back in the day of the Big Five domination, they controlled everything through interlocking directorships and intermarriage. Not just the boards of the profitmaking corporations, but also the non-profit charitable organizations, the museums, the symphony, etc. The official view was that this was appropriate. After all, they were “more cultured,” better educated and had the connections and resources to make things happen.

Some of us in the rebel camp–the camp with which I identify, though am too young to have been there–saw this as a clear case of class domination.

OK, the Big Five were (partially) overthrown. The Democrats came in and worked to take over all the levers of power, appointing their people, which includes family, friends, and–i guess by definition–”cronies.” (To be fair, the corporate elite were not totally displaced. Accommodations were made and we entered a period of power-sharing, which CANNOT be said to have been true of the Big Five period).

SO when everyone is related or otherwise allied, how do we go beyond mere “appearance” and develop more accurate criteria for measuring impropriety? That’s my dilemma.

As I read your account of funds going to the Maritime Center, I find myself saying, “So?” Inouye directed funds to keep it afloat and to help fund the Hokulea. Again, so? I don’t see the problem.

As I sort through the writings on Himeno & Price, I cannot find in what you have shared enough information to form an opinion whether they did anything improper. How can we differentiate between proper and improper behavior when someone is both active in business and politics? Clear conflicts and improper diversion of contracts, etc., OK, that’s wrong. But if that was the case, I would prefer a narrative which arranges the facts in a fashion which leads me to a clear conclusion. Too much of the facts seem unfiltered. Lotsa “smoke,” but is there actual “fire”? Maybe so, but please lead me to it.

The most troubling section–and it is not your fault that this is troubling–is the discussion of Senator Inouye’s alleged assault on Lenore Kwok. Again, it is not your fault, but how SHOULD we resolve that matter? Do we go with our gut feeling or are there minimal standards of due process we have to observe?

When you mentioned Larry Mehau, you were very careful to avoid your own characterizations of his activities, conveniently using words from “Land and Power” and the insinuations of Rick Reed. I started reading the section with a blurred sense of Mehau’s activities and left no more capable of reaching any conclusions about the man. Though I did see some smoke.

I am not just raising these concerns as an reflexive “apologist” for the Democrats. I have done “opposition research” on Republicans (and on Democrats with which I have disagreed) and had the same problem trying to sift through unfounded allegations and credible evidence. I am not interested in making unfair insinuations without having confidence in the evidence. Especially when we are biased, how can we guard against unfairly besmirching someone reputation?

We need a higher standard than the “appearance of impropriety.”

I wonder if the older, wiser Ian Lind has any reflections along these lines as you read the writings of the younger, more self-certain author of the Hawaii Monitor?

aloha