|
|
|
|
I took a bit of criticism yesterday from a retired journalist whose opinions I respect. He wrote:For the first time, I voted Friday night in the Channel 4 poll on public issues. This one concerned the Campbell Estate's tax break and Rep. Neil Abercrombie's role in getting this into the tax law. The question was: "Did the Campbell Estate get a sweetheart deal?"I was astounded on how few viewers took part in this poll. By 6:30 p.m. 13 people cast votes; by 10:45 it was 26. There were 23 yeses; 2 noes; 1 don't know.
You were wrong in criticizing Jim Dooley's reporting on this issue. His stories were better than Advertiser's, particularly on the lobbyists' role and how one lobbyist supplied the wording for the loophole. I never saw a Star-Bulletin story on this important local issue.
It's usually a mistake to peek at email after midnight. I made the mistake last night during a very early cat call (all the food dishes were empty, so I couldn't be mad about the wakeup). I compounded the mistake by immediately replying to the criticism.
You make my point here.As far as reported, there was nothing unusual, and nothing illegal or untoward, with the lobbyist's role in this case. I would guess that this is the norm, or the at least the norm on a good many bills. This is what lobbyists do. I've done it. Your son has done it. Often its done because lobbyists have a better grasp of legal issues. Or its done during the give and take on the substance of bills.
Hell, here in Hawaii we take it further. We have institutionalized it with bills introduced "by request"--most authored by lobbyists or private citizens who would like to see their language passed into law.
And in a broader take, why shouldn't private citizens propose language? Isn't that something we should encourage? Forgot this lobbyist on this bill. Isn't participation in the legislative process something we should be encouraging? And doesn't that include offering language for legislation?
Isn't this ability to influence legislation, after all, a basic democratic process? You may not like the outcome on any particular bill, but that's a different thing than rejecting the process.
And what would be your remedy? Would we limit the right of private citizens to influence their legislators? Do away with the constitutional right to petition elected representatives for change? Bar all but elected officials from the halls of Congress or the Legislature? Institute a "look but don't touch" rule for observing the process? None of those make sense.
I haven't seen any allegation that this provision was secretly inserted, or that the legislative process was circumvented. Only that, as you say, a lobbyist supplied the wording that was ultimately accepted.
I don't dispute that there are cases where lobbyists ply their trade through questionable methods, but that hasn't been alleged in this case.
I don't have any problem with criticism of the substance of this bill. There's obviously something to be said on both sides. But by reporting this as if there were something wrong with the process used, Dooley did a disservice.
You're entitled to your opinion, although I think it is wrongheaded. And if you're going to take such a stance, I would expect you to muster a better argument in its defense.
Hopefully he'll take my reply in the proper spirit, and perhaps even take the bait and move the discussion forward another notch. We'll see.
A small landmark--the first bloom from one of the small, spindly native white hibiscus plants that we've been nurturing for a couple of months, part of an attempt to replace the mess of weeds and vines that had filled part of our property with some simple landscaping. I didn't see this first flower coming, and it seems almost as big as the thin little bush that produced it. But it's certainly a sign of progress.
One reaction to yesterday's comments on reporting of Campbell Estate's lobbying efforts came from a reader who pointed out differences between this and the controversial lobbying several years ago by Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, which tried to scuttle a plan allowing sanctions against trustees for breaches of IRS regulations rather than against the trust itself:I'm no admirer of Campbell Estate, but they are not a charitable trust, and it seems to me that what the Campbell Trustees were attempting to do was for the very benefit of the Trust beneficiaries--saving $millions in estate taxes. That's what good trustees are supposed to do. This is a far different story that the KSBE trustees lobbying against passage of intermediate sanctions legislation, an act of Congress that was solely in the interests of the KSBE beneficiaries, and affected the purely personal interests of the trustees. Plus, as I understand it, the federal legislation basically permits the Campbell estate to pay the tax bill on an installment payment plan, not avoid the payment of the taxes altogether (which might call into question the appropriateness of Congress' actions but not the trustees).
And now for something completely different.
This is for all you cat lovers--No, not you, Dave Donnelly--here's a great source of cat toys: All About Cats in Lincoln, Nebraska. Ms. Kili went digging into our cat toy basket the other night and reminded me how popular their items are. Teddy Mouse and Big Bucko are favorites in our household, along with the Nipstick combo. Your cats will love you even more when this order arrives in the mail! Tell them Ian Lind sent you when you place your order.
Ms. Kili and her favorites
I was bothered by a KITV News report last night by reporter Jim Dooley, who I consider one of the best in the business. The story described a successful lobbying effort by Campbell Estate to expand an existing provision in the tax code to allow the estate's heirs to soften the blow of inheritance taxes when the estate breaks up and its assets distributed in 2007. It's an interesting story that could stand on its own, as well as a revealing insight into why Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie, credited with introducing the provision for Campbell estate, broke ranks and voted for the Bush tax bill.The problem I have with the story is its accusatory tone which implies a level of scandal, perhaps wrongdoing, which is not supported by the facts presented. Some of that "tone" was in Jim's on camera delivery, while some remains in the text of the story as well.
What does the story actually say?
--Campbell estate spent a lot to have their longtime lobbyist, David Rae, shift his focus from the Legislature in Honolulu to the Congress in Washington. No scandal there.--Rae worked closely with Abercrombie to get the provision introduced, including contributing legal language that reportedly was included in the version passed into law. Well, that's what good lobbyists do, whether in Washington or in Honolulu. Lobbyists for the good guys do it too, whether the Sierra Club trying to strengthen environmental provisions or journalism lobbyists trying to strengthen sunshine laws. You find a sympathetic lawmaker and help them move your bill, or your provision, through the process. That's how laws are made. No scandal here either.
--Both Rae and others associated with the Estate contributed to Abercrombie's campaign. The amounts cited by Dooley are well within legal limits, and the amounts are relatively modest. No scandal here either.
--Abercrombie "admitted" being in "regular contact" with Rae about the legislation. That word, "admitted", again conveys a feeling of something being wrong, although the actual substance is routine.
The story is sheds interesting light on the political process, but it appeared tailored more as an exposé than a straight report.
My fear is that the story draws on and in turn feeds a public prejudice against the nitty gritty workings of government. As presented, it subtly encourages the viewer to accept the idea that lobbying is somehow evil, that being in touch with a legislator or member of Congress could carry the hint of scandal, and that making campaign contributions, even if legal, is somehow questionable.
But these are dangerous themes to promote in this age where the lack of public participation in government is a major concern, from low voting turnout, to inattention to public issues, to falling participation in civic organizations. Somehow the legitimate search for scandal and wrongdoing has to begin to show some respect for the political process itself, else we all risk contributing to the civic crisis.
The threat of more heavy rain was evident yesterday morning, but it never materialized.
We did, though, have a close encounter with a crab, which scurried up a seawall as we passed by, but stood bravely before the camera before retreating.
Morning crab.
Click for close-up.
This is an important day in our history. It's the anniversary of Ms. Kua's acquisition back in 1987. Kua was our second calico, and one of our favorite cats. We still mourn her loss and celebrate her life.
Weather disrupted life on Oahu yesterday.
At Century Center Condominium, where my little office is located, a normally dry stream that runs alongside the building quickly hit flood stage after a brief thunderstorm dropped heavy rain in the mountains just above the city. The weather service says 4-6 inches fell in a few hours.
The Century Center parking lot had some minor flooding as staff moved sandbags and makeshift barriers to divert water from the main lobby, while a pump returned water to the stream. Luckily, the rain didn't continue, but more flooding is possible today, according to forecasts.
Similar mini-dramas were repeated across the island. Everyone will have a rain story today.
Rising waters threaten.
Afternoon traffic was a disaster. It probably took us 45 minutes to crawl less than two miles from my office to Pali Highway, where we could finally escape to the other side of the island.Arriving home, though, one thing is clear. The plants loved the rain. You could almost feel the growth spurt fueled by the downpour. For the plants sake, I'm hoping for more of the same, although I'd just as soon skip the traffic gridlock.
I'm told there were moans in the Star-Bulletin newsroom over the Masini wedding coverage. One reporter told of marching over to a features editor, looking at their wrists, and commenting: "No slashes. I guess you haven't read Tim's story yet."
I received a couple of interesting reactions to my comments yesterday on the wedding coverage. First, the comments with the most bite (parental guidance advised):
We live in a backwater town, for sure. Gaga over these plastic opportunists who lack an ounce of class. These people wrote the book on tacky....Seems an inordinate amount of ink was used to try to convince us she isn't marrying him for his money, and he isn't marrying her for her tits. I, for one, don't buy it. Apollonia and Barbi Benton are high society? This is worse than a rapper's mansion, beyond yuppie scum like Bill Gates (let's take over an entire island to get married) -- it's the Playboy mentality meets too much money. Robin Leach? At least Hugh Hefner used to invite the occasional poet.And this thoughtful advice came from another quarter:
In fact, what they ought to be doing at the S-B is taking on the state film office and those connected with it.One question should be: Why does the state have so little control over how a film company represents Hawaii? As part of its sponsorship agreements with the PGA events here, the HTA can dictate cutaways and a certain number of references to Hawaii in conversation during the golf broadcasts.
But even though the state pumps money into helping movies like Pearl Harbor get made, there's no leverage on how the state should be represented. Bruckheimer seemed to be influenced by everyone else's sensitivities in making his movie except Hawaii's.
To this day, you can go to the east coast and find people who think nonwhites are a minority in this state. No one has a clue about Hawaii's real culture, and I have to believe the state film office - and the media - bear some responsibility.
It's like, "My God, we are so blessed to have Disney in our midst."
"Toadying" is the word that comes to mind after being subjected to two days of fawning Star-Bulletin coverage of the mating rituals of the rich and ridiculous. Reporter Tim Ryan was able to write at painful length despite slobbering like a jowly hound at each crass moment of this contrived spectacle, the wedding of television producer Al Masini (his 4th). First we had the preview on Thursday, complete with menu and sample guest list, reminding us how different our lives are from those who would be attending what Ryan pronounced "one of Hawaii's social events of the year".Yesterday came the feature article on the event itself, complete with a teaser at the top of the front page. I'm not sure what was more offensive, the lavish display of staged authenticity--where the real thing is supplanted by a totally contrived edifice meant to look real--or the image of Hawaii's social and political elite joining in the gluttony. Perhaps this $250,000 spectacle is the Hollywood version of what it means to "give back to the community?"
Congratulations to the Advertiser for walking past the whole event, at least so far.
Ryan must have a thing for Masini. A quick search for stories about "Al Masini" on StarBulletin.com turns up a number of Tim's stories on the producer. The stories, interestingly, fall into two categories--homage to the trappings of wealth, and on the other hand, oblique descriptions of Masini picking the public's pocket or complaining when blocked from doing so. Somehow the repeated image of these folks living the high life by risking other people's money offends me, especially realizing how many millions were taken from our limited public funds.
Yesterday would have been a most relaxing day except for Harriet's disappearing act.
It was just after lunch and I was starting an old T. Jefferson Parker mystery, purchased at the Kaneohe Friends of the Library bookroom for 25 cents, when I realized that I hadn't laid eyes on Harry all day. So I started watching for her. By mid-afternoon, I was out in the yard calling. No response. By late afternoon, I was checking all her favorite spots, and even walked down the street checking the neighbors' yards. Still no signs of Ms. Harry. Of course, I "know" that she's probably fine, but by this point I'm putting on my shoes and getting serious about the search.
I never did find where she spent the day, but after I tromped through the empty 4-acre property next door, and then walked back up the street alongside our house, I finally heard a faint cry in response to my calls, and Harry appeared as a blur of black & white, running through the overgrown area along the back of our yard. She was very happy to see me, and came bounding down to where I was standing, obviously no worse for wear.No newspaper news this morning.
I did update the photo gallery yesterday, although there are no blockbuster shots this time around.
We're waiting for a review of the durian candy, which Meda received as a gift and which we shared with a friend for his birthday last night.
So far, we haven't gotten around to tasting it, with all that we've heard about this strange fruit. Our neighbor once came over to seek our permission to plant a durian tree, but after hearing his description of the open sewer smell that would probably permeate this end of the street, we strongly discouraged the idea
But the candy is processed, and opening the bag didn't produce any rank smells, so perhaps they've found a way to present the best side of the fruit. Maybe we'll even take the taste plunge. Maybe.
I understand there are still some national accounts that are not aware of the breakup of the JOA between the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin, and are still paying Gannett the old, artificially high rates up to three times what local advertisers are now paying. Wait till they finally figure out what's going on!
Then there's the company that distributes those glossy Sunday inserts with all the coupons. According to someone familiar with the deal, Gannett drew its big guns when the Star-Bulletin was on the verge of getting part of this lucrative account. Gannett reportedly threatened to raise the company's insert rates nationwide unless they pulled their inserts from the Star-Bulletin. Gannett's anticompetitive action is the main reason you won't see those coupons in the Star-Bulletin for a while, although they're still searching for a solution.
If you're one of those who enjoy pictures of other people's cats, you can now easily get lost in our feline labyrinth. I've fixed some links, and you can now start with the "cat census" banner at the top, and work your way back through several generations of our cats. I'm not even sure just how far back these photos go. It isn't that long in human years, but it's quite a way in cat years.
Search this site,
courtesy of the folks at Atomz.com
Since November 2, 1999
\*/.
