You may not get to read Lee Cataluna’s column today, since it’s tucked safely behind the newspaper’s paywall, although there’s a chance this link will work (“Governor shows no aloha for island tourism industry“).
Basically, it’s a nasty jab at Gov. Neil Abercrombie and his wife, Nancie, for winging off to Paris to celebrate their 30th anniversary.
Cataluna writes:
In general, it isn’t anybody’s business where a couple goes on vacation. But when you’re governor, everything you do is heavy with symbolism. The governor of Hawaii flying off to a romantic vacation in Paris is like the governor of Michigan driving a Hyundai.
Cataluna follows with a somewhat gratuitous reference to the always-campaigning Mufi Hannemann, Governor Abercrombie’s long time personal rival, now once again a candidate (is anyone surprised?).
If Hannemann had become governor, you can bet he wouldn’t have blown town to take Gail on a romantic European vacation. Hannemann would more likely island-hop from Koele Lodge to Hyatt Poipu to Disney Aulani and tweet about the great service and aloha spirit he encountered at every stop, posing for pictures with Unite Here! members and joining the lobby pianist for a medley of Don Ho tunes.
That’s the problem. For the relentlessly ambitious Hannemann, absolutely every occasion is a campaign stop, even, if Cataluna is correct, his anniversary. Cataluna seems to think that’s a positive. I don’t share that view. Insisting on making everything political isn’t a virtue, it’s an affliction.
For the governor, there is no privacy in Hawaii, whether it’s in a high priced resort or walking through downtown Kahului. Cataluna recognizes this, noting that when you’re the state’s chief executive, “people take note of everything.” But apparently she’s unable to empathize, or perhaps just unwilling to empathize with the governor.
Call me old fashioned, but to celebrate a deeply personal occasion–and I think a couple’s 30th anniversary makes the cut–a modicum of privacy isn’t unreasonable, even for the governor and his wife. If that’s not possible to find in Hawaii, and I doubt it is, then take that romantic trip to Paris. Shouldn’t we also celebrating that there’s still romance to share in Nancy & Neil’s relationship?
So to Neil and Nancie, congratulations! Enjoy your trip. Get out of the political bubble for a couple of weeks, and come back ready to roll.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I totally agree with you. It was a cheap shot. Anniversary or no anniversary, we all need to get out of town and have a real vacation once in a while.
By the way, I greatly appreciate your scrutinizing the Governor’s work and providing us such excellent critical commentary.
“Insisting on making everything political isn’t a virtue, it’s an afflication.”
This bears repeating. I have no access to any bears, but I will repeat it anyway.
its also a very narrow view of tourism in light of the fact that all of the places she named were transnationals (Disney, Hyatt and Four Seasons). tourism is a function of global exchange and her underlying premise is the opposite.
Cataluna hasn’t really lived in Hawaii in years, but lives in California with her husband. Her still writing about Hawaii but not understanding the day-to-day nuances and subtle changes is exposed by her writing. She is not one of those “people you meet at Longs” anymore, so her claims of superior insight are quite diminished.
This is also like Debbie Aoki’s cartoons from the mainland. She hasn’t lived in Hawaii for more than five years, but still trying to think they can understand what locals deal with every day. This is like locals writing about inside Los Angeles political baseball just because we visit there on vacations and have friends who still live there.
I usually like Cataluna’s writing but she is way out of line on this one.
I don’t know, Ian. You’ve sure taken your share of cheap shots at Mufi over the years, and continue today. In doing so, you’ve pretty much yielded the moral high ground. It’s almost funny, but mostly just sad, that you seem incapable of seeing it.
For the record, Lee moved to California in January and spent June through August on Kauai with her family and teaching at Island School. So to say she hasn’t lived in Hawaii “in years” is incorrect.
Taking the time and effort to knock Cataluna seems rather petty and a waste of time. No matter what anyone says, the First Amendment permits all persons to express their views, whether we agree with them or not.
If I remember correctly, the only time free speech is subject to question is to yell “FIRE” in a theater without justification. As far as I can tell, Cataluna did not cross that line and should be free to express her views, as you do yours.
And, as for Yobo’s concern that Cataluna lives in Hawaii or not, the fact that she grew up here and only recently moved should have no bearing as to whether she has anything worth writing about.
Russel, unknot your knickers.
“No matter what anyone says, the First Amendment permits all persons to express their views, whether we agree with them or not.”
“anyone else says”: who is anyone?
It also seems you wish to grant Cataluna First Amendment rights but not Lind. The First Amendment applies to the press. Lind is free to take cheap or otherwise shots at her except under narrow circumstances that I won’t disturb you with.
Read the Bill of Rights. It may save people like you from themselves.
Sorry, this is not a First Amendment issue. No one disagrees that Cataluna and any other person — journalist, blogger, private citizen, whatevahs — CAN write what they on any particular issue. The issue is whether they SHOULD. And I an is expressing his First Amendment opinion — with which I agree — that she should NOT have. It was petty.
And a tad hypocritical; it’s OK for Lee to move — at least part time — to California to attend a writing program there that she believes is better than what is available in Hawaii but the Governor can’t take a vacation — a 30th anniversary celebration vacation — elsewhere that he thinks is better than what he could do here? His marriage and annoiversary a personal matter and he should be able to spend it how he wants, regardless of what we think he should do as Governor. Just like her choice to go mainland for school is hers; should her performance as a S-A employee be discounted for that reason alone?
Can’t have it both ways.
“Right to free speech” does not mean “right to be free from criticism.” It has nothing to do with that old saw about yelling “FIRE!” in a theater.
Why don’t some people understand this?
Just to clarify–I do enjoy Lee’s writing. I just happen to disagree with today’s column for the reasons I stated. No more, no less.
No boss (including us voters) has any right telling folks where and how to vacation so long as it is legal. Last I noted Paris is not on any anyone’s no-fly list.
I have traveled widely and a a lot more so since my retirement. I would have been miffed which rhymes with a another word) if a supervisor had told me where to go on MY vacation.
My family visited France seven years ago and loved Paris, some aspects more than others. It was expensive, quaint and delightful. I hope Neil and Nancy enjoy checking it out as much we did. (And the waiters did not live up to their snooty reputation.)
All this is very reminiscent of Cookie Roberts, anther female columnist scolding Barack for coming home after his grandma died. As if his family’s travel were her business
This was a cheap shot today as much as I enjoy most of Lee’s columns, which are generally well written, accurate and often with splendid humor.
She also is a fine playwright and we share many mutual friends for that reason. But she blew it this time, wherever she may be residing at the moment. (That point also may be irrelevant.)
If we wish to crack Neil on the noggin, check out his persistently bizarre behavior on openness. Now, that is a public matter.
The link you provided only allows the reader to see the first couple paragraphs. I’m a subscriber so I can read the rest of it logged in, but don’t think anyone else can. Anyone know why the SA was taken out of the google search engines?
Anyways, I find it odd to think that a person who grew up in Hawaii and only recently moved to the mainland can be considered out of touch. I would like to think she takes some of the Aloha spirit with her and shares it with others on the mainland. Of course we all can do that too. I’m surprised nothing has been mention of Neil’s aide being arrested yet.
Lee Cataluna no longer being a resident of Hawaii is relevant because her “shtick” her whole career has always been about living the local life, and how people that don’t live here don’t really understand it.
That’s why it’s relevant when Lee never mentioned before that she no longer lives here, and only comes back to Hawaii for summer vacations. Even if Lee thought it wasn’t significant, isn’t it at least worth a mention or a footnote? Her non-residence is glaring in her omission of it in her stories about locals. Shouldn’t that have been at least one of her column stories?
Also relevant is Jim Kelly’s comments not mentioning that he is Lee Cataluna’s husband, and the reason she doesn’t live in Hawaii anymore, don’t you think?
I would also add that there’s valuable perspective to be gained from being outside of Hawaii. Some things are done better elsewhere, and we can learn from them. Some things are done better here, and we can appreciate them more after seeing the difference. “Local,” however we might define that, isn’t always “better.” So argue things on their merits, not whether the proponent is or is not local enough to be listened to.
Not arguing that Lee shouldn’t be listened to. Just that someone who writes about locals doesn’t herself reveal that she no longer lives in Hawaii.
If someone wrote about the Los Angeles scene for many years and considered themself a Los Angeleno, wouldn’t it be at least relevant for readers to know if the writer suddenly moved away and no longer lived in L.A., but continued to write day-to-day as if they were?
Moving away after a long time as a resident, and the different perspective actually would be an interesting article if she had written it, but by not doing so, it is as if she is trying to fool people that she still lives here. Lee’s omission is like ignoring the pink elephant in the room, and would have been reasonable to expect her to disclose.
I was somewhat discomfitted with Lee’s comments today. What is the world is wrong with taking time off to celebrate a wedding anniversary?
Sigoth and I have never been able to afford an out-of-state vacation even though we’ve been married since 1978 – and the last time we took any time off together to one of the other islands was back when George The First was running for re-election in 1992. We watched one of the debates while staying in a time-share on Maui. That’s 19 years ago!!
It’s nice that they can afford to spend the time & money to travel.
Was it The Grinch who had a heart “two sizes too small”?
I was sorry to read Lee Cataluna’s article today in the print edition, having enjoyed her work in the past.
It seems like open season on Neil, and I’m personally saddened by it. Whoever loses the election gets off the hook immediately. I don’t agree with some of Neil’s decisions but am discouraged at the pile-on.
Neil and Nancie have every right to vacation wherever they want to.
Not that it matters but Mufi was out of town constantly when he was mayor…remember Lee’s article after the tsunami, when Mufi was stuck on the mainland and Kirk Caldwell was running the city?
Thanks, Ian, for bringing it up where we can discuss it, unlike the S-A.