Disclosure: I declined to approve two comments that launched political attacks on the contributors to “The Value of Hawaii” book, attempting to dismiss the entire effort through the use of broad political labels. Both from a very conservative viewpoint. One comment was signed, one anonymous. Both relied wholly on ad hominem logic.
I don’t really have a policy on such things, but I’m inclined to edit or reject comments that simply rant about the character of another person without dealing with the substance of issues involved. In this case, rather than edit, I simply hit the “trash” button. In other cases, when I’ve edited parts of a comment, I’ll include a note to that effect.
Actually, those commenting here are generally very responsible, despite the fact that anonymity is allowed. I thank you all for that.
And don’t worry, the editors of “The Value of Hawaii” are doing a tremendous job of using the book to create public discussion of the issues it raises.
There’s already a fledgling blog, which includes a listing of public events, and a discussion group set up on Facebook.
Chaminade University will be hosting a monthly series focusing on selected issues from the book, featuring the author(s), a respondent, and moderated by Chaminade faculty. The first program is tentatively set for Thursday, September 16, on the topic of “the economy”.
Civil Beat is also weighing in with its own plan to publish substantial excerpts from fourteen of the book’s essays. CB then will be hosting online discussions of the topics with the authors and CB subscribers. These are set to launch on July 26. In addition, CB is also planning open discussions with some of the authors on Thursday evenings, beginning on August 5. I’ll watch for more news about these sessions.
Oh–the book? It’s priced at $19.99 from the UH Press, but will also be available from Amazon.com for $13.59.
I have just completed ordering on line from Amazon of 4 books, “The Value of Hawaii”. Shipment date is Sept. 7th. I am looking forward to the read.
ad hominem logic can be found in all parties. You shed ‘conservative’ in a bad light. Would you do the same to ‘liberal’?
I’m all for lots of robust discussions. Hawaii needs more discussion, not less.
Yes, I have edited “liberal” comments and rejected several for similar reasons.
Robust discussions, yes. Robust name calling? Not so much.
While it is found in all areas of the political spectrum, it is disingenuous to try to pin the label on the left equally with the right. The left by its very nature is based less on ad hominem, emotional appeals and outright falsehoods. The left seeks rational, people-centric approaches, while the right very literally seeks to maintain the status quo of the powerful ruling over the masses. In order to keep said masses in line, tools of manipulation such as those listed above must be employed.
It’s an undisputable fact of modern conservative political commentary that facts are marginalized and often invented. This is a TERRIBLE development for our country and I applaud Ian for both fighting it and talking about the fight.
I haven’t read the essays so this is not a comment on the essays but on the issue of taxation and State support of various institutions. I think a good case can be made that the issue of accountability is often ignored, yet this is what angers many who pay a lot of tax: where is the accountability for how the government spends the tax revenue? Unfortunately, in times of “prosperity” i.e. the previous 25 years, if not the previous 60, then oversight gets lax, and various politically powerful players protect their turf by reducing accountability. When those who game the system are in essence rewarded then trust in the State’s institutions is fatally eroded.
It’s an often-missed point when discussing Hawaii politics that erosion of faith in government is a conservative goal — and unfortunately an accomplishment. The country has taken a marked right turn in the period you mentioned, and though conservatives (of both parties) hide their rhetoric behind the big Democratic majorities, Hawaii is no exception.
This meme becomes self-fulfilling by the “Two Santa Claus” theory practiced by conservatives under the tutelage of Jude Wanniski: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
Hmm seems to be quite self-assured that the “left” is on the side of humanity and the “right” is aligned with the selfishness and greed.
I might suggest to Hmm that such thinking results in the rubber-stamping of unjustified wars and business and Wall Street excesses — that is when the so-called “left” is in power and not called into question.
Real intelligent thinking goes well beyond such a dichotomy of left or right — but questions government and political action equally regardless of party.
You’ll have to refresh my memory when the left did either of those things, let alone when they were in power.
I think Bill is pretending Obama’s administration is “on the left.” if we ignore party labels and symbolic flourishes of rhetoric, I think the Obama group would be judged as “centrist” in any other “industrialized” nation. Perhaps even “center-right.”
it is (almost) amusing how the right can portray the Dems as “pro-Wall Street” while simultaneously voting against any regulation of Wall Street. What is sad is how the Obama group does so little to regulate Wall Street and has earned such scorn.
I suspect he’s referring to the TARP/bailout vote and the Iraq vote, and has forgotten that TARP/bailout was Bush’s politically ramrodded legislation that Democrats added the only oversight to, and that the Iraq vote, another ramrodded piece of legislation, saw a majority of Democrats voting against.
At least I hope so, it’s one thing to just have a short memory and forget the inception of things, another to deliberately deceive and distort (not that that is a rare thing these days).
Ian – Any word on whether the book will be available on iBooks or Kindle? Gov. Cayetano’s book was the last physical book I bought – and I hope to keep it that way.
I would hope that accountability is viewed as a pragmatic issue rather than belittled or marginalized in some false ideological slam. Is money being spent wisely and are the residents of the State and county getting the good value for their taxes? If that question is threatening, then we have to ask cui bono–who is benefitting from the lack of oversight?
The very concept of tax money accountability is a conservative boogeyman to a large degree. Sure there are some legitimate issues of malfeasance (which often cross the line into criminally prosecutable), but by and large the concept of accountability is used to push the idea of taxing less to avoid giving money to a hopelessly corrupt government machine.
One MUST acknowledge that in any discussion of the issue.
Hmm — may I suggest that no one MUST acknowledge your viewpoints.
Further, you and quite few others that sit religiously on the “left”, often appear to be just as narrow-minded as those sitting firmly on the “right”.
and I suppose when someone like Pat Buchanan opposes the war in Iraq — you must really be stuck in unadjustable cognitive dissonance.
Im going to move my response to Kolea up to this related post because I think we’ve all moved on from Ian’s previous post on this.
When last we met, we were discussing the influence of unions in Hawaii. I contended they had ‘complete control’. Ok, ‘complete’ may be a big word, but lets examine for a moment a quote in todays paper by none other than one of our Gov nominees, as he begs for the Carpenters Union endorsement:
“Anybody can come down here and tell you that they want your vote and that they take up your cause,” Abercrombie thundered. “The only person that’s running for governor today is standing in front of you, who’s been with you, who’s been out there and organized a labor union, negotiated for a labor union, and (has) always been on the side of labor when it came to management. The other guys have always been on the side of management.”
Excuse me? But what the heck? One of the primary roles of being Governor is to be THE manager, is it not? Now, Neil’s only saying exactly what every one of those politicians say and do when it comes to unions. They so heavily seek and rely on union endorsements, that they pimp themselves – and us and our tax dollars out – give up the baby and the bathwater along the way – and the rest of us get to pay for the bill. But they get in and back in to office, now dont they?
I know, I know. Im sounding awfully Republican. But I do think we’ve given just too much to the unions, at least in terms of being able to efficiently manage our workforce. Again, I refer primarily to public unions and our public employees. The controls to be able to manage – to be able to actually fire a person who should be fired – are virtually gone. And we all sorta just shrug and say ‘thats the unions for you’. Really? Whats the number? Isnt it something like 40% of Hawaii is employed by the State of Hawaii. It just keeps growing and growing, even in the face of RIFs, which to me was nothing but a targeted hit squad by management, especially in the case of DHS. There, then, Unions had its definitive value and its place- though there, then, we saw the unions certain vulnerability and weakness too. There we witnessed the real power of the Governor to be a manager, for better or in this case for worse.
Its all a balancing game, I believe. In as much that I think Lillian Koller totally abused her powers, I too believe HGEA, UPW, and HSTA abuse theirs when defending and putting back people in jobs that they deserve to be fired from. Perhaps we need to identify the specific problems – the loopholes, if you will, on both ends of the spectrum, and take them off the table.
So when Neil writes that he’s always been on the side of labor – not management – frankly that concerns me. I want a manager in that seat. I want a person who can look broadly over Hawaii State Government and understand what it means that he/she is the manager of the largest single employer in the State and the impact that has not just on that workforce, but on all of us. I am just not hearing anything ‘managerial’ come out of Neil – and I really do want to. Where’s Charlie when you need him, Neil?
I’ll just sneak this in here because I cant see another place to address this point raised by Jim Loomis, I believe. As I recall, HSTA was the first union to get on board to Furlough Fridays, just so we know exactly who signed on to that disaster, real fast. In fact, as I understand it, that was the only deal they were going to take. If I were Governor, you know what I would have said and done in the face of that huge financial crisis? That we start with the premise that the kids will not be affected. That when I say education first, I mean it, even if that means the rest of state government gets cut up, because thats exactly what would have had to happen – more than it did. But that means we would never seen the embarrassment of furlough fridays. Hows that for having some balls?
Moving on. Ron Taketa and his 50% unemployed construction workers are a problem, certainly, but to me of the larger problem of new job creation. By new – I mean a different industry altogether to employ human beings. To me, Ron – and by extension – all the unions – simply have so many mouths to feed on his rolls. We need a new industry, gang. 221 is failure, in terms of employing our people. But shouldnt we be all actively thinking of a new 221 for a new industry. This would take people off of Ron’s hands – as well as the state employment rolls, too. Quickly, please? Im just not seeing it. Or if its happening, Im not seeing it being actively communicated or, more importantly, the results.
Sounds totally Republican of me, I know. I do think there should be a fiscal conservative and a planner in all of us. The real reality is we simply cannot sustain Hawaii if we are all State employees, hotel workers, or Carpenters.
I want to see these great minds come together. I mean that seriously because I do have great respect for people like Ron and Randy, men I know who are dedicated to their unions and their members. I would hope that the collective unions see themselves as part of a solution and be far more proactive to get Hawaii to a place where there is a broader base of broader employment opportunities.
That takes leadership and management by our next Governor, whoever that will be.
Thats enough for a Sunday morning, I think. I havent written this much in a long time. Too much, really, right Scott?
Time for some coffee.
I’d have thought the coffee came before that post
Hipoli,
If he was in the private sector, Mufi the (faux) Manager would have been booted from his bully pulpit a long time ago given the way he’s managed rail (exploding costs due to the airport fiasco, choice of steel-on-steel, etc.), sewers (spending $10 million fighting the EPA only to succumb to their demands), and his inability to take responsibility for his own actions.
Wow.
I’m not sure who is advocating we all be “State employees, hotel workers, or Carpenters.” But I do know people who advocate that state employees, hotel workers and carpenters are entitled to a decent standard of living in exchange for their work.
Hipoli, you cite Neil’s effort to win an endorsement from the Carpenters’ Union as if that is convincing evidence of the disproportionat power of unions.Neil is “pro-Labor” and I think that is a legitimate argument to make to union members. They know they can’t get everything they want from a Governor, but they’d rather have someone who understands their point of view and the needs of their members than someone indifferent or hostile.
Let’s look t why Neil might think the Carpenter’s might think of him as a friend and see if he placed their needs above that of the rest of Hawaii’s people before we jump to conclusions.
Neil was the main House architect for a program to build housing in Hawaii for military families, using local, union workers. I had written above that building trade workers need jobs and would prefer building housing for Hawaii’s families instead of only the rich. Well, the market and public policy do not support building low cost housing for civilians, but by building housing for military families, it relieves pressure on the overall rental housing market, slowing rent increases. So, in a round-about, socailly acceptable way, both military AND civilian housing needs are addressed. And, this program ensured years of union-scale wages for local companies and local workers, pumping money into the economy.
I see it as a creative, socially beneficial program. Our construction workers do need jobs and, hopefully, if we are going to build things, they will take care of the needs of our people and not just the wealthy. This particular program was a much more creative approach than the normal situation whereby the building trade unions are held hostage to supporting massive developments which overbuild Hawaii. Or large projects where the jobs go to out of state contracting firms.
So, yeah. let’s judge Neil on the basis of how he worked with the Carpenters (and the other building unions) to create a “win-win” situation.
I really see no problem with what Neil did. Nor with his hope his leadership on this might cause the Carpenters’ Union to endorse him for Governor.
Does this mean they have “too much power”? This example you have proffered doesn’t seem to support such a claim.
Here’s my hunch. If any politician appears before any organization, the message is tailored to that audience. I suspect Abercrombie would change the message if he appeared before, say, the Boy’s and Girl’s Club or the Sierra Club.
Otherwise, the premise is that all candidates should gush the same pablum no matter who the audience. In the words of a former prez, that would not be prudent.
Lastly, this whole paradigm about labor vs. management is a valid one, in my opinion.
Oh, of course, it’s blurred and at times difficult to discern but there are fundamental contradictions.
In a very real sense, it comes down to whose side are you on? This is not to say that differences of opinion or perspectives have to be confrontational or adversarial. But it does mean that in the battleground of competing legitimate interests, who will you side with?
Should we have the freedom to work little kids in factories, the freedom to pollute the environment, the freedom to hire and fire anyone at anytime?
One, I would think, chooses a side in this war of ideas, no?