July 1, 2006 - Saturday

I took a beating yesterday (a "bashing", perhaps) from a former S-B colleague who seems a bit upset at my comments here on Thursday about the paper's latest Iraq editorial. Here's what she had to say:

You wrote: Today's editorial begins with the bashing headline (" Timetable for withdrawal would risk Iraqi collapse ") ...

What's with the inappropriate use of the word "bashing"? That just doesn't make any kind of sense. Who is being "bashed"? Or is that just another example of an extremist using scare-terminology when intelligent commentary fails him?

I'm surprised you didn't manage to throw in the word "mean-spirited," another fun phrase for the ignorati. Or "hateful." How about this: "The Star-Bulletin's mean-spirited, hateful editorial bashed ... um, somebody ... wait, let me look it up ..."

How can you stand yourself like this? And to think ... you used to call yourself a journalist. You must have had good editors.

I suppose I could have provided more dots to connect. What I probably should have said is that the headline made full use of a politically loaded phraseology which, in the current political context and in current political usage, is meant to bash those critical of the president's Iraq policies and imply critics are indifferent to what happens to Iraqi citizens.

There's no need to fret about a timetable raising the "risk" of collapse. Iraq is already there. Our reckless policies have already fomented a civil war (no risk of one, it's been happening), destroyed the country's infrastructure, killed tens of thousands, undermined our own international standing, weakened our own economy by diverting hundreds of billions of dollars that could have met other needs, and left Iraq at the edge of collapse.

And the point of my comment was that while dismissing any timetable as supposedly dangerous, the editorial ends by referring to just such a timetable in favorable terms. So it puts down (was "bash" too strong?) those pressing for a timetable while relying on a timetable to make its own case.

And, by the way, in case you're really worried, I can stand myself just fine. Now and then I just express opinions on such matters, sort of like an editorial writer and not as a reporter. No problem.

June 30, 2006 - Friday

We were driving home yesterday afternoon when National Public Radio broadcast a sleeper of an interview with retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, formerly the Navy's top Judge Advocate General. At the end of the interview discussing yesterday's Supreme Court decision on so-called military tribunals, Guter expressed his opinion that the damage done to U.S. prestige and interests around the world by Bush's unlawful treatment of detainees will last for generations. He said this quietly and if you weren't paying attention you might have missed the impact of his words. You can listen to the interview which is still available at the NPR web site.

State and local officials who take official action while failing to disclose conflicts of interest can face federal charges because they have deprived the public of "honest services", according to a ruling of the Third Circuit Court cited on the White Collar Crime blog. That's a ruling with potential local reverberations.

A friend in Hilo sent this observation yesterday:

Following up on your story about U.H.'s Kaakaako complex, here's a news story about U.H. Hilo's new venture, the Imiloa astronomy education center, apparently another [potential] fiasco. I don't know whether Honolulu papers reported on this, but below is a quote from their archives about a recent article in Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Unfortunately, I did not save the article when it was available for free.

'Imiloa's dose of reality'Hilo's new $28 million astronomy center has struggled to attract visitors and finish an on-site restaurant, the facility's spokeswoman said Thursday. Limited marketing and the lack of public transportation
are factors for the low attendance figures a...
(Hawaii Tribune-Herald - Jun. 2, 2006)

The earlier spin was reported by the Star-Bulletin (Wow! They even used the word "spin" in the headline!) :

And here's one for Feline Friday, another of Happy Harriet enjoying the painting paraphernalia. After a few days at another job, they finished the ceiling yesterday and today hopefully get through the kitchen and assorted touchup, leaving us the task of reassembling all of our stuff.

June 29, 2006 - Thursday

With the Republican attacks on the New York Times, it's worth checking this story at ConsortiumNews.com which puts the attacks in context (The neocon battle for media).

The Star-Bulletin's editorial policy continues it's rightward tilt today, displaying the same disingenuous strategy being widely pursued by the GOP--bash those calling for a timetable for ending our military involvement in Iraq while in the same breath citing their own timetables as justification for current policies.

Today's editorial begins with the bashing headline ("Timetable for withdrawal would risk Iraqi collapse"), and ends by referencing and implicitly advocating adoption of an Iraqi proposal for a full U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2007. Ah, it's called a "roadmap" rather than a "timetable".

In any case, the Star-Bulletin case is dishonest in it's two-faced approach to the timetable issue and flawed as a matter of history, ignoring the neocon push for war and instead preferring to believe that all the mistakes were just a matter of "faulty intelligence" rather than faulty intentions.

And here's an update from Cindy Newburg, who was arrested for feeding a cat colony at St. Francis School in Manoa:

I thought you might be interested in the following reply from Sister Grace Anne Dillenschneider that someone forwarded to me today.

Dear Ms. Z....,

Thank you for your letter of concern.

Due to the complexity of this situation and the concerns we have that this matter be settled peacefully, fairly and humanely, with the good of all as our common concern, we have referred all matters to the lawyers retained by St. Francis School. Please contact them with additional concerns you may have.

They are:
Bonnie L. Moore and Stephen Reinke 
Lyons, Brandt, Cook and Hiramatsu
841 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-524-7030
bmoore@lbchlaw.com

thank you for your concerns,
Sister Grace Anne Dillenschneider

It seems to me that if the nuns really felt that they were doing the right thing in starving the cats and having me arrested for kindness that they should be able to defend their actions themselves. They shouldn't have to pay an attorney to do it.

Normally, I wouldn't care that lawyers were being paid to answer the concerns of animal lovers everywhere except that in this case I'm sure it will be the students of St Francis School that will be picking up the tab.

It's one thing for the nuns to waste their own personal money on attorneys but alot of those parents struggle to pay the high " catholic " tuition and to see the school's  money spent so irresponsibly is disturbing.

But don't bother to complain to Bishop Larry Silva about it  - according to the Diocese - Bishop Silva does not oversee the Franciscans and has no authority at all when it comes to what's happening at St Francis School in Manoa. The Franciscans answer only to themselves.

And maybe to God.

June 28, 2006 - Wednesday

A reader sent out this alert yesterday concerning a bill now facing a veto by Gov. Lingle:

In conversation with staffers at YO!* this afternoon, I learned that Governor Lingle is set to veto measure 2166, which allows runaway and homeless teenagers 14+ in age to consent to their own primary medical care.

If you choose to join me in support of this measure, please email our governor.  

*YO! stands for Youth Outreach, which is a humble organization that provides solid meals, health care, laundry services, hot showers, counseling and more – to Waikiki’s homeless and runaway kids. They only play PG Movies. I’ve volunteered there a lot, and the folks who run it are awesome, as are the kids they help. YO! is part of the Waikiki Health Center.

It's disappointing that Hawaii's female governor would consider denying young women the right to medical care they need.

Ira Rohter, an advocate of publicly funded elections, recommended a summary of this week's Supreme Court election decision prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Rohter highlighted one sentence: "Most importantly, the Court’s decision does not impact the constitutionality of voluntary expenditure limitations contained in public financing systems."

But I wouldn't rely on this hasty conclusion. Although this decision didn't touch directly on the question of "voluntary" limits on expenditures, many justices appear likely to be sympathetic to arguments that "voluntary" expenditure limits rely on mechanisms that unconstitutionally impinge on the campaigns of those who believe their campaigns will be best served by continuing to rely on private contributions. It's an argument that remains to be settled, and it seems premature to conclude that "voluntary" constraints will pass scrutiny by this increasingly conservative court, where at least two members apparently believe there should be no government constraints on campaign contributions or expenditures.

Another reader questioned my earlier comments on consultants who offer up economic forecasts that turn out to be way off the mark:

I'm not sure that we, the people, are getting our money's worth from consultant reports prepared under contract to the state.

Unfortunately, experts' reports in Hawaii often reflect the views of the government agency contracting the report more than they should. If one could compare consultant's preliminary reports with the final (which is usually impossible to do because the preliminary reports are not available for inspection), I suspect that there would be some surprises.

Why is that? Contracts contain (or used to contain) a clause to the effect that the last payment is withheld pending review of the product to make sure it is satisfactory. This makes sense if the contract is for some construction, but not if it is for information. It's too easy to say, "your report doesn't make our point, so it's unsatisfactory."

I have seen how the process works. The preliminary report doesn't quite reflect the conclusions the agency would like it to, so it goes back to the consultants. The final report is different.

I'm convinced that Hawaii's "high-tech boom," for example, which keeps plenty of people employed in DBEDT and elsewhere, is a product in part of this ability to modify experts' reports.

I don't know if the same clauses are in the medical school contracts or were in contracts for the Convention Center or what influence may have been exerted on the supposedly neutral opinions because of those clauses, but if they are there, it could explain much.

An interesting story in the Los Angeles Times earlier this month looked at the problem of plagiarism in the classroom, akin in many ways to the same problem in journalism. Teaching strategies have had to change in response to the ease of downloading.

During this part of the summer, we still don't manage to get down to the beach before the sun rises, but it's still beautiful when we get to the water. Here's an example from a recent morning. Just click for a larger photo.

June 27, 2006 - Tuesday

I haven't yet read yesterday's Supreme Court decision(s) striking down Vermont's strict limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Some predict the decision will be a boost for groups backing plans for voluntary public financing of candidates. From what I've read about the decisions, it would appear that the majority of the court will be inclined to strictly scrutinize public financing laws to determine whether they impinge on candidates' rights. In yesterday's decision, the court struck down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutional restraints on candidates because they were considered too low. Whether public finance schemes that use a variety of mechanisms to restrict or discourage private contributions will survive such scrutiny remains to be seen. In any case, yesterday's decision is almost certain to raise the visibility of state experiments with innovative ways to control the influence of special interest money in campaigns here and across the country.

The worst part of the Supreme Court action was the position staked out by Justices Thomas and Scalia, who argued for overturning prior court decisions and abolishing all contribution limits. That appears to be a clear danger sign for the future.

Some interesting observations from a reader who attended yesterday's press conference by Rep. Ed Case at his new campaign headquarters:

(1) This was his major campaign announcement of his agenda and among tv stations, only KITV showed up. That's a pretty alarming sign. He held his news conference at 2 p.m., while most politicians seeking TV exposure do morning affairs so TV has lots of time to dig up cover video and work on a good script. KITV sent Dick Allgire, who is not a politics reporter.

(2) He has his campaign headquarters in a small, minor-candidate-looking, hard-to-find office on the 5th floor of a building with parking only accessible off mauka Cooke Street, pay parking, no front-of-street signs at all (Case says Kapiolani frontage space has become too expensive.) Is he having some fund-raising problems? No sodas, no water, no coffee offered.

(3) He may have improved in speaking technique since his State House days but still has a hard time engaging the cameras Abercrombie style; tends to look off to the side or here and there and ramble a bit too much.

Both the Star-Bulletin story by Richard Borreca and the Advertiser's by Derrick DePledge focused on the issue of Iraq policy, though with slightly different spins, although Case ends up way too supportive of the Bush administration policies for my taste. It would also have been interesting to hear Case's position on Lt. Ehren Watada's refusal to report for deployment to Iraq.

Public access advocate and populist gadfly Jeff Garland complained to new Democratic Party head Mike McCartney about a Sunday email sent out on behalf of Randy Iwase's campaign for governor:

Mike,

this guy is totally lame! Doesn't know enough to BCC (hiding email address of recipients), so has now shown how few email addresses the Dems have compiled. If that isn't bad enough, it appears his attorney friend doesn't know how to use Word as the document is 1 meg, when it should be as little as 1/10th the size, and why not post it online in HTML and then send it ! Much more user friendly, cutting edge, and akamai.

Obviously no thought of the less fortunate dialup folks or the wasted bandwidth. Obviously there was little thought of the mud you now have on the Party's face. If this is the best this party can do, we need to start a new one. Perhaps the Hawai'i Independence Party, are you HIP to that?

If this was all greek to you, then we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

jg

Jeff is caustic enough on his own. No further comment necessary.

Meanwhile, as Ms. Annie demonstrates here, painting hasn't been a total trauma for the displaced cats, who flee every time the painters arrive. But when the guys leave, the cats are immediately back and exploring the cat treats left around the house. Just click for more.

June 26, 2006 - Monday

The Los Angeles Times will likely make an impact with an op-ed yesterday by writer Anne Lamott describing a friend's quiet death, with a little help from his friends.

I'll start the week with a few more of my mother's old photos, this time from a trip to Maui in August 1960. The photo to the right is Highway 31, the road to Makena, somewhere in the area that is now Kihei and Wailea. Just click for a few more.

The road to Makena, 1960

Looking at familiar parts of Hawaii from a period not long past is both compelling and disturbing. I can't help feeling the ache of something lost forever, and wonder whether, in hindsight, there are things we could or should have done via public policy to allow more of that less developed Hawaii to survive. Will those looking back in another 50 years feel that same ache about the disappearance of things that exist today?

On the other hand, there's the Chicago Tribune story syndicated widely yesterday about the changes in household spending patterns over the last century. It reports on a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that Americans today have far more discretionary income than a century ago, where most money in the household was spent on the essentials of housing, food and clothing. That was true here in Hawaii as well. In a sense, we traded the Hawaii seen in these photos for the opportunity to own multiple cars, iPods, computers, cell phones, and the other "essential" trappings of our everyday lives. Ouch.

June 25, 2006 - Sunday

Why do we give consultants and their glowing financial projections a free ride? Now we're dealing with another failed economic projection for a major state project and it's time to raise issues of accountabilty.

PBN carried an excellent story last week by Kristen Consillio on the worsening financial condition of the new UH Medical School in Kakaako.

The school will end the year with a multimillion dollar loss and is facing the reality of declining federal support for research, forcing UH officials to think the unthinkable--abandoning all or part of the planned Kakaako complex.

So much for the "build it and they will come" philosophy of the Evan Dobelle era at UH.

Back in 2002, I questioned Dobelle's claims about the employment impact of the whole Kakaako project and they were quickly withdrawn by the university, which nonetheless continued to promise 550 new research jobs.

The PBN story now quotes UH vice chancellor for research and graduate education, Gary Ostrander:

"If there was a business plan, which was before my time, it didn't work or it was flawed," he said. "We need to rethink what we're doing and how we're doing business down there."

And isn't there still the lingering question of the $150 million in construction funds that Dobelle promised and never delivered?

I don't think it's just a matter of lawmakers becoming more skeptical of claims made in support of proposed major projects. Lawmakers and other decision makers, such as the Board of Regents, are really at the mercy of the expert consultants they must rely on. They need to act on the best advice available.

But there has to be some form of legal accountability when consultant reports offer economic projections that turn out to be fantasies. Perhaps consultants need to stand behind their work in some substantive way, with substantial penalties paid for being too far off the mark or failing to highlight critical assumptions and potential risks. Future contracts certainly need to take into account contractors' previous track record for accuracy and thoroughness.

Financial projections that accompany the issuance of government bonds are subject to legal requirements that produce more reliable results, perhaps offering a model for what's needed with these other types of financial predictions.

A way to start might be legislative hearings to assess how and why the predicted economic benefits were so far from reality in this case and perhaps others, like the convention center, another rosy future that failed to materialize.

Here's a picture I "found" on the walk home one morning this past week, a stack of discarded stuff waiting for pickup. I'm not sure why it appealed to me, perhaps the subtle colors reflecting off the old windows. In any case, just click for a larger version.