THE BEAT AND THE BEATEN: The "alleged" beating of Damon Tucker "allegedly" by a Hawai`i Island Police (HIPD) officer- the quotation marks because neither of those two "facts" seem to be in much dispute now- began to seep into the mainstream corporate media yesterday and today with the two articles taking two decidedly different views of the incident.>
The headlines alone presaged the coverage with Hawai`i News Now (HNN)- the name for the combined TV news programs on KGMB, KHNL and KFVE- reporting "Big Island blogger claims police brutality" and the Big Island's much reviled Hawai`i Tribune-Herald merely noting that "Man alleges police assault."
While the HNN coverage stresses that Tucker's blog "inform(s) Big Island residents and promotes Hawaii" and that he was taking photographs while covering an event, the HTH piece gets 634 words into the piece to merely note that Tucker "operates an Internet blog about the Big Island" and makes no connection between his presence at the scene and his work.
The HTH piece does identify the arresting officer- whom Tucker identified as the officer who allegedly beat him- as James Waiamau.
Both stories include a statement from Hawaii County Assistant Police Chief Henry Tavares refusing to make any "additional statement" other than to note that Tucker was arrested for obstructing government operations and, more importantly, that "(t)he Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance."
Tucker, by the way, claims he was across the street from the police action at the time he was taking the pictures.
While it should be noted that anyone can take photos of police from a safe distance in a public place, the issue that seems to have captivated the blogs is the twofold question of whether Tucker, in covering an event is, in fact a "reporter" and does it matter if he is when it comes to his right to photograph the police from a "safe distance"?
And, are bloggers who report on things as reporters... and, assuming the answer is yes, does than make the blogger who reports a journalist?
While there are professional journalist organizations no serious journalists suggest that there should be any official credentialing restriction of who is and isn't a journalist. Not only is it a question of what the requirements would be and who would set them but the first amendment pretty much guarantees the freedom from government interference in reporting.
The fact is that the act of reporting makes a reporter- something that more and more reporters' "shield laws" recognize, including ours in Hawai`i. And while some may quibble over whether someone who simply sits in their underwear and pontificates is reporting anything, Tucker, by going to an event, taking photos and writing it up for public consumption is certainly a reporter, even though he himself had at times seemed torn as to whether to call himself one.
Professional journalist Tiffany Edwards Hunt at her Big Island Chronicle site says it isn't as much whether Tucker was reporting as it was whether he was acting as a reporter should in a situation like that. She wrote that:
Damon’s greatest mistake in this story is not identifying himself as soon as the police officer told him to stop taking pictures.
At that point he should have said, “my name is Damon Tucker and I maintain a blog. Where can I stand to continue taking photographs?” (He didn’t identify himself until after he was hand-cuffed.)
Damon will likely monetarily gain from this, and hopefully us media professionals can asset some kind of protocol for journalists and residents who act like journalists. But it is definitely time for police and prosecutors to get more sophisticated about dealing with the public.
Slamming people to the ground when you don’t want them taking photographs?! Come on. The County of Hawaii will have to pay dearly for that sort of heavy handedness.
And Damon are you ready to refer to yourself as a media professional yet?
Hunt's queries may get to the crux of the matter- that one can be a reporter without being a journalist, especially in an age of the "new media" where "citizen journalists" abound.
The fact is that while many professional journalists point to the "responsibilities" that go with the "rights" conferred on journalists it's a matter of debate what those responsibilities are and whether in fact there are any at all.
Surely Julian Assange of Wikileaks would argue there are few if any responsibilities. That's why many professionals argue he is not a journalist.
But in the case of Tucker and others who engage in the act of reporting the question is what kind of responsibilities do they have if they are denied the special privileges that journalists are afforded by government officials, especially police.
Hunt argues that Tucker should have identified himself. But would that have made a difference? She also noted that:
I too agree that we the public have a right to take photographs. But we also need to speak up and assert that right when an officer tries to fell us to stop taking photos. We are to ask where police want us to stand in order to not hinder their operations.
If police were sophisticated they would have their officers trained on dealing with the media or media posers who post footage on their blogs, Facebook or YouTube. Next time the police officer will detect the photographer / picture taker to the “staging area” and call in the PIO… That’s how it is done elsewhere.
Well, maybe, in a perfect world but the problem is that there is a history of disrespect for "bloggers" and even reporters and journalists who aren't employed by the "right" media on the Big Island. Apparently, as on Kaua`i, the HIPD does not even issue "press passes" any more which, as we noted yesterday, are- or were- used to allow reporters behind police lines.
And if they did they probably wouldn't issue one to Tucker.
In addition, if "news" happens to "break out" unexpectedly and a reporter engaged in covering another event is standing there with a camera- as apparently happened Friday- should they have to stop and chance missing "the shot" to ask where to go to take a picture of it, especially if they are a safe distance from the disturbance?
The fact is that we would not capitulate to the protocol that Hunt described due to the potential for abuse on the part of the police. Because it is the police who are requesting a privilege in asking that someone voluntarily suspend their right to take photographs of police (in a public place from a safe distance). With the history of abuse of that privilege, both here and across the mainland, it makes that request one that can't be ethically granted by a journalist, reporter or anyone else.
It appears this story has legs. And, as Larry Geller at Disappeared News wrote Sunday, related stories are being repeated across the county with increasing frequency lately.
One more note- among the comments on Hunt's stories is a discussion of the fact that there are video cameras all over the town of Pahoa- where the incident took place- due to the police's "weed and seed" program there.
Unless and until the rights of not just reporters but all citizens are respected by authorities, credentialing journalists and burdening them with rules of engagement will have to wait for a mutual respect that, we predict, will be a long time coming.
Showing posts with label Larry Geller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Larry Geller. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
THERE''S NO BUSINESS LIKE NEWS BUSINESS
THERE''S NO BUSINESS LIKE NEWS BUSINESS: It's not as bad as we expected it to be to skip the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) when their paywall went up today because we realize now how little information we actually got from our morning perusals.
But that reality has spurred the realization that the one thing that the "newspaper of record" accomplished is to lose that status and throw itself into an all-out "NewsWar" with the nascent on-line news provider Civil Beat (CB).
Presumably the S-A started charging for their on-line version in an attempt to capitalize on what they thought was the fact that they are the 'real' newspaper. But, with the addition of their own "breaking news" section linked to the neighbor island papers and the AP feed, Civil Beat has positioned itself to go head to head with the S-A.
And, it's no contest. The group of young eager journos at CB actually like where they work and it shows in their work. But the old line "survivors" that populate the news desks at the S-A have all been to hell and back recently after the so-called "merger" made jobs in reporting scarce. They all no doubt resent the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads- the unspoken fact that "you can be replaced chickie-baby."
It shows in their work. It's rote and formulaic. There's very little depth and there's nary a link to any additional information. The S-A's coverage hit only the surface of the news like a flat stone skimmed across the water.
While over at CB the writing is lively and inventive and the reporters seem to have the attitude that even coverage of daily events should be treated as "enterprise" journalism that digs into the subject and provides the kind of full perspective that comes from writing for on-line consumption.
For CB reporters, space is unlimited and not just the result of a "news hole"- a term used for what is left over for content when the advertising is laid out in a print newspaper.
But the S-A isn't taking things lying down if yesterday's "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"- or at least do too- moment during the Sou trial in any indication,"
CB reporter Sara Lin, in the Annie Oakley role, had unsurprisingly taken the initiative weeks ago in making the enterprising move of asking Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway if she could "live blog" from the human trafficking trial of Aloun Farms owners Mike and Alec Sou.
Mollway okayed the request after a much published discussion and said that Lin could do it but would be the only one and had to share her information with the rest of the press in a "press pool" arrangement.
Then S-A courts reporter Ken Kobayashi in the Frank Butler role decided that, a week into the trial, he wanted "in" on the action in a seemingly day late and dollar short decision that reeks of a distinct "what exactly are we" through process from the S-A publisher, sent a letter to Mollway asking to join Lin in live blogging.
Mollway told Kobayashi that essentially that boat had sailed and that she would have to think about a fair way to do it again in the future should she or others in the federal court decide to do it at all.
That came with a caveat on Mollway's part as to whom she would consider in the future for such blogging, noting that requests would have to come from "authorized" or "credentialed" press because she didn't want, for instance, the defendant's "spouse (to) set up a blog to advocate the party's case."
She also noted that a "one blogger only" policy would likely be imposed so that the U.S. marshals could keep track to make sure that there were no recordings or pictures, which are forbidden by federal law.
That of course brings up the matter of who would be considered for this pool assignment.
Because while Lin and Kobayashi might think they are the only marksmen in town, "I'm just a blogger" Larry Geller of Disappeared News might just stake a claim as the new gun in town.
Apparently Geller has also been attending the trial and giving his account after he gets home every day. We're sure he would like to be considered to be part of that "pool"- if not THE live blogger.
But although Lin said that CB has emailed each blurb to various news outlets before she hit the "post" button we seriously doubt any bloggers were included.
The fact is that while the winner in the S-A's decision to charge for the on-line news is undoubtedly Civil Beat- which is now a direct competitor whereas yesterday they weren't- it also opens up the field for other news providers, even if they are "just bloggers."
When Blogger Geller comes to Chief Sitting Bull Mollway and says "I'm An Indian too," in light of today's leveling of the table, he's as entitled as anybody to be "Doin' What Come Naturally."
But that reality has spurred the realization that the one thing that the "newspaper of record" accomplished is to lose that status and throw itself into an all-out "NewsWar" with the nascent on-line news provider Civil Beat (CB).
Presumably the S-A started charging for their on-line version in an attempt to capitalize on what they thought was the fact that they are the 'real' newspaper. But, with the addition of their own "breaking news" section linked to the neighbor island papers and the AP feed, Civil Beat has positioned itself to go head to head with the S-A.
And, it's no contest. The group of young eager journos at CB actually like where they work and it shows in their work. But the old line "survivors" that populate the news desks at the S-A have all been to hell and back recently after the so-called "merger" made jobs in reporting scarce. They all no doubt resent the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads- the unspoken fact that "you can be replaced chickie-baby."
It shows in their work. It's rote and formulaic. There's very little depth and there's nary a link to any additional information. The S-A's coverage hit only the surface of the news like a flat stone skimmed across the water.
While over at CB the writing is lively and inventive and the reporters seem to have the attitude that even coverage of daily events should be treated as "enterprise" journalism that digs into the subject and provides the kind of full perspective that comes from writing for on-line consumption.
For CB reporters, space is unlimited and not just the result of a "news hole"- a term used for what is left over for content when the advertising is laid out in a print newspaper.
But the S-A isn't taking things lying down if yesterday's "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"- or at least do too- moment during the Sou trial in any indication,"
CB reporter Sara Lin, in the Annie Oakley role, had unsurprisingly taken the initiative weeks ago in making the enterprising move of asking Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway if she could "live blog" from the human trafficking trial of Aloun Farms owners Mike and Alec Sou.
Mollway okayed the request after a much published discussion and said that Lin could do it but would be the only one and had to share her information with the rest of the press in a "press pool" arrangement.
Then S-A courts reporter Ken Kobayashi in the Frank Butler role decided that, a week into the trial, he wanted "in" on the action in a seemingly day late and dollar short decision that reeks of a distinct "what exactly are we" through process from the S-A publisher, sent a letter to Mollway asking to join Lin in live blogging.
Mollway told Kobayashi that essentially that boat had sailed and that she would have to think about a fair way to do it again in the future should she or others in the federal court decide to do it at all.
That came with a caveat on Mollway's part as to whom she would consider in the future for such blogging, noting that requests would have to come from "authorized" or "credentialed" press because she didn't want, for instance, the defendant's "spouse (to) set up a blog to advocate the party's case."
She also noted that a "one blogger only" policy would likely be imposed so that the U.S. marshals could keep track to make sure that there were no recordings or pictures, which are forbidden by federal law.
That of course brings up the matter of who would be considered for this pool assignment.
Because while Lin and Kobayashi might think they are the only marksmen in town, "I'm just a blogger" Larry Geller of Disappeared News might just stake a claim as the new gun in town.
Apparently Geller has also been attending the trial and giving his account after he gets home every day. We're sure he would like to be considered to be part of that "pool"- if not THE live blogger.
But although Lin said that CB has emailed each blurb to various news outlets before she hit the "post" button we seriously doubt any bloggers were included.
The fact is that while the winner in the S-A's decision to charge for the on-line news is undoubtedly Civil Beat- which is now a direct competitor whereas yesterday they weren't- it also opens up the field for other news providers, even if they are "just bloggers."
When Blogger Geller comes to Chief Sitting Bull Mollway and says "I'm An Indian too," in light of today's leveling of the table, he's as entitled as anybody to be "Doin' What Come Naturally."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
FIND THE RED QUEEN
FIND THE RED QUEEN: You can set your watch- well, maybe your calendar- by it.
As the two minute warning for the first half of the legislature approaches, with “first decking” coming up on Friday, some wiseacre will try to use the old fumbleroosky play- called in the trade “the gut and replace.”
It’s a self explanatory way to get around the constitutional requirement that bills be introduced very early in the session and it tends to come up this week every year- usually this very day, the Tuesday before first decking, when almost every committee is doing “decision making” on all the bills that have been held up for one reason or another over the past month.
While everyone else- including the press- is busy watching their bill of choice, someone will inevitably try to slip in the worst piece of crap ever by gutting a good bill and inserting a horrific one.
This year's crook was Democratic Sen. Brickwood Galuteria, who has gutted SB 671- a bill introduced by Democratic Sen. Les Ihara to tighten up ethics rules on gift giving- and replacing it with another that would entirely blow up any semblance of ethics in gift giving.
But instead of it sneaking through, as has been the habit over the past decades, in the on-line age it dominated the on-line world late yesterday and this morning.
You can read the gory details at Civil Beat or almost any news and politics blog you choose- Dave Shapiro’s, Ian Lind’s and Larry Geller’s.
But only Geller figured out what the out the “rooski” part of the play was for anyone who discovered the fumble and wanted to testify.
He wrote:
Even if you wanted to testify against SB671 SD1, you can’t, because of the way it is set up. If you submit testimony it would be registered under SB671, not the amended version. Now, SB671, as originally written, appears to be a very fine bill. So if you testified in opposition, you’d be opposing that bill. It’s the way the computer is set up. The committee did not provide a way to testify against the new, evil amendment.
That’s right it's not even one of those “no means yes and yes means no” kind of dirty tricks. It’s more like the “head I win, tails you lose” swindle where the con man gets to interpret all the yeses and noes as whatever he wants them to mean.
Ordinarily this would be the part where we post the email address for the Senate Judiciary Committee but actually this time so many people know about the scam that it is apparently covered.
Instead cross your fingers that today’s decision making on moving oversight of medical marijuana from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Health goes smoothly. Then if this stuff continues to give you headaches you’ll be more likely to have the medicine to help it go away.
As the two minute warning for the first half of the legislature approaches, with “first decking” coming up on Friday, some wiseacre will try to use the old fumbleroosky play- called in the trade “the gut and replace.”
It’s a self explanatory way to get around the constitutional requirement that bills be introduced very early in the session and it tends to come up this week every year- usually this very day, the Tuesday before first decking, when almost every committee is doing “decision making” on all the bills that have been held up for one reason or another over the past month.
While everyone else- including the press- is busy watching their bill of choice, someone will inevitably try to slip in the worst piece of crap ever by gutting a good bill and inserting a horrific one.
This year's crook was Democratic Sen. Brickwood Galuteria, who has gutted SB 671- a bill introduced by Democratic Sen. Les Ihara to tighten up ethics rules on gift giving- and replacing it with another that would entirely blow up any semblance of ethics in gift giving.
But instead of it sneaking through, as has been the habit over the past decades, in the on-line age it dominated the on-line world late yesterday and this morning.
You can read the gory details at Civil Beat or almost any news and politics blog you choose- Dave Shapiro’s, Ian Lind’s and Larry Geller’s.
But only Geller figured out what the out the “rooski” part of the play was for anyone who discovered the fumble and wanted to testify.
He wrote:
Even if you wanted to testify against SB671 SD1, you can’t, because of the way it is set up. If you submit testimony it would be registered under SB671, not the amended version. Now, SB671, as originally written, appears to be a very fine bill. So if you testified in opposition, you’d be opposing that bill. It’s the way the computer is set up. The committee did not provide a way to testify against the new, evil amendment.
That’s right it's not even one of those “no means yes and yes means no” kind of dirty tricks. It’s more like the “head I win, tails you lose” swindle where the con man gets to interpret all the yeses and noes as whatever he wants them to mean.
Ordinarily this would be the part where we post the email address for the Senate Judiciary Committee but actually this time so many people know about the scam that it is apparently covered.
Instead cross your fingers that today’s decision making on moving oversight of medical marijuana from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Health goes smoothly. Then if this stuff continues to give you headaches you’ll be more likely to have the medicine to help it go away.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
AND THE WALLS CAME TUMBLIN’ DOWN
AND THE WALLS CAME TUMBLIN’ DOWN: It was a good news/really bad news moment when the Honolulu-based, on-line news venture Civil Beat launched a while back.
Many were excited over the prospect of whatever each envisioned was needed until we learned that it was going to be, in the words of Disappeared News’ Larry Geller, a “gated community” and would cost $240 a year to enter.
Worse yet, for Kaua`i at least, it meant losing ace reporter Big Mike Levine who moved on to become one of their “reporter-hosts”.
But we heard from Mike yesterday that there are going to be “some changes to civilbeat.com” and that “(e)verything we've been working on is now free for occasional readers.”
No telling what “occasional readers” means but we were able to read stories yesterday and again today.
We wonder what those who paid for a year are thinking... probably much the same thing we did when we got to Woodstock after having paid 18, 1969 dollars for tickets and found the fences on the ground.
Many have wondered how they were doing, especially since they’ve been tight-lipped about how many subscribers they have. And things might have gone from bad to worse recently with the blow back against CEO, Publisher and Co-founder Pierre Omidyar’s other venture, “Pay Pals,” after they banned Wikileaks from using the service- causing at least one notable cancelled subscription.
But really the prime subject of Mike’s letter was to point us to an article by one of his fellow “host-reporters” Adrienne LaFrance headlined “Obama's Winter White House an Illegal Rental”
According to her story:
Obama did not break the law by staying at the house, but the property owner who rented his house to the Obamas does not have the permit that would allow a stay of fewer than 30 days.
Although the owner claims he got around the law by leaving a 30-day window between rentals, the
explanation is one that's commonly offered, but that still represents an illegal renting practice...
"Maybe it's that the people are circumventing the law or thinking, 'Oh, I'll only rent it to one person in a (30-day) period," said Andrew Malahoff, a spokesman for Honolulu City Council member Ikaika Anderson, who chairs the city's Zoning Committee. "They say, 'Even though they're only going to stay there for seven days, I'll charge them for (30) days, and prorate that.' But as far as we know, that is also not legal. You will not rent for a period of less than 30 days. That's what's in the land-use ordinance. It's not just about multiple rental parties, it's the period of days."
It’s hard to see how, if the owner just rented it out for 30 days and the vacationer decided to stay there for only two weeks it could be illegal. But then again we’re not really familiar with all of the planning and zoning laws in Honolulu.
But one thing we are familiar with that LaFrance is apparently unaware of- something that occurred to us years ago when we first heard of the President’s beach house rental- is the fact that the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR) Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) has cracked down on vacation rentals in the state conservation district (CD) sending “cease and desist” letters to those operation in Wainiha on the North Shore of Kaua`i and in Kane`ohe on O`ahu- not far from the president’s rental.
According to an April 2007 article in the local Kaua`i newspaper
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources has issued notices to 16 property owners in Ha‘ena to halt alleged unauthorized use of multi-million-dollar homes as vacation rentals.
Most of the 16 homes are on makai, or on the ocean side, of Kuhio Highway, from the YMCA’s Camp Naue to Limahuli Stream. Most are clustered around Makua Beach, also known as Tunnels.
A condition in the state Conservation District Use Application, which a property owner secures before building in the state’s conservation area, stipulates a single-family home cannot be used for rental or any other commercial purposes, Peter Young, chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, said in a March 23 letter to alleged violators.
In one case, the cease-and-desist order could force the owner to sell a property worth millions, and may be the scenario facing other supposed violators as well, said Gary Stice, a Kaneohe, O`ahu resident who received one of the letters.
At the time of the letters many of the operators shut down their rentals but according to at least one anti-vacation rental activist many have reopened and DOCARE has apparently dropped the ball.
It also brings up the question of whether the house has a Shoreline Management Area (SMA) permit- which generally include use descriptions- for a vacation rental. But that would also be a City and County of Honolulu issue.
So far the report hasn’t gotten any press either statewide or nationally. But whenever the president is involved, stories including the word “illegal” tend to grow virally.
And the vacation rental issue could certainly use a little viral publicity considering the disease they cause in otherwise quiet residential neighborhoods.
Many were excited over the prospect of whatever each envisioned was needed until we learned that it was going to be, in the words of Disappeared News’ Larry Geller, a “gated community” and would cost $240 a year to enter.
Worse yet, for Kaua`i at least, it meant losing ace reporter Big Mike Levine who moved on to become one of their “reporter-hosts”.
But we heard from Mike yesterday that there are going to be “some changes to civilbeat.com” and that “(e)verything we've been working on is now free for occasional readers.”
No telling what “occasional readers” means but we were able to read stories yesterday and again today.
We wonder what those who paid for a year are thinking... probably much the same thing we did when we got to Woodstock after having paid 18, 1969 dollars for tickets and found the fences on the ground.
Many have wondered how they were doing, especially since they’ve been tight-lipped about how many subscribers they have. And things might have gone from bad to worse recently with the blow back against CEO, Publisher and Co-founder Pierre Omidyar’s other venture, “Pay Pals,” after they banned Wikileaks from using the service- causing at least one notable cancelled subscription.
But really the prime subject of Mike’s letter was to point us to an article by one of his fellow “host-reporters” Adrienne LaFrance headlined “Obama's Winter White House an Illegal Rental”
According to her story:
Obama did not break the law by staying at the house, but the property owner who rented his house to the Obamas does not have the permit that would allow a stay of fewer than 30 days.
Although the owner claims he got around the law by leaving a 30-day window between rentals, the
explanation is one that's commonly offered, but that still represents an illegal renting practice...
"Maybe it's that the people are circumventing the law or thinking, 'Oh, I'll only rent it to one person in a (30-day) period," said Andrew Malahoff, a spokesman for Honolulu City Council member Ikaika Anderson, who chairs the city's Zoning Committee. "They say, 'Even though they're only going to stay there for seven days, I'll charge them for (30) days, and prorate that.' But as far as we know, that is also not legal. You will not rent for a period of less than 30 days. That's what's in the land-use ordinance. It's not just about multiple rental parties, it's the period of days."
It’s hard to see how, if the owner just rented it out for 30 days and the vacationer decided to stay there for only two weeks it could be illegal. But then again we’re not really familiar with all of the planning and zoning laws in Honolulu.
But one thing we are familiar with that LaFrance is apparently unaware of- something that occurred to us years ago when we first heard of the President’s beach house rental- is the fact that the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR) Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) has cracked down on vacation rentals in the state conservation district (CD) sending “cease and desist” letters to those operation in Wainiha on the North Shore of Kaua`i and in Kane`ohe on O`ahu- not far from the president’s rental.
According to an April 2007 article in the local Kaua`i newspaper
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources has issued notices to 16 property owners in Ha‘ena to halt alleged unauthorized use of multi-million-dollar homes as vacation rentals.
Most of the 16 homes are on makai, or on the ocean side, of Kuhio Highway, from the YMCA’s Camp Naue to Limahuli Stream. Most are clustered around Makua Beach, also known as Tunnels.
A condition in the state Conservation District Use Application, which a property owner secures before building in the state’s conservation area, stipulates a single-family home cannot be used for rental or any other commercial purposes, Peter Young, chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, said in a March 23 letter to alleged violators.
In one case, the cease-and-desist order could force the owner to sell a property worth millions, and may be the scenario facing other supposed violators as well, said Gary Stice, a Kaneohe, O`ahu resident who received one of the letters.
At the time of the letters many of the operators shut down their rentals but according to at least one anti-vacation rental activist many have reopened and DOCARE has apparently dropped the ball.
It also brings up the question of whether the house has a Shoreline Management Area (SMA) permit- which generally include use descriptions- for a vacation rental. But that would also be a City and County of Honolulu issue.
So far the report hasn’t gotten any press either statewide or nationally. But whenever the president is involved, stories including the word “illegal” tend to grow virally.
And the vacation rental issue could certainly use a little viral publicity considering the disease they cause in otherwise quiet residential neighborhoods.
Monday, December 27, 2010
MY OH MY WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY
MY OH MY WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY: The oldest trick in the shyster book is the standard “cease and desist” letter.
So when Big Island blogger Damon Tucker emailed us over the weekend that he’d gotten one from Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt after he posted a story on December 8 quoting two co-owners of a “zip-line” company- replete with pictures of rusty cables- there saying that,
the (other) owner of The Umauma Experience (Cleo Carlile) installed substandard cable on the course and it started to fail…It has worn down from round to flat and then the tension broke the cable as it became too thin. I immediately closed down lines 1, 2, and 4. The owner will replace the cable that guests ride on, but has refused to replace the guy wires which hold the whole thing up, platforms etc.
We suggested that he
tell him to go f**k himself and take it up with the people who said it. All you did was quote them. These kinds of letters are bluffs. They don't want a lawsuit- all that would do is put the guy's quote in the mainstream media.
suggesting he send a reply to the effect that he would
"welcome a lawsuit where we can air the issue of the safety of your ziplines before the community and in the mainstream press."
The letter demanded that Damon essentially put the toothpaste back in the tube with retractions and deletions.
But while the mainstream press hasn’t picked up the story yet this morning journalist and blogger Ian Lind went to town on the story saying
Attorney Whitt also provided an official-looking “Certificate of Inspection” issued by “Zipline Canopy Creations” and signed by “Julianne Lester”, apparently certifying that the ziplines have recently passed a “safety inspection”.
According to state business registration records, Lester is the registered agent for Kauai-based Zipline Canopy Creations, which was registered to do business in August 2010, and the president of Just Live, Inc., a recreation company also based on Kauai.
Apparently safety of the unregulated zip line business is sort of like getting a “deal” at a car dealership with rotating salespersons playing the part “manager” for the others to give the illusion of a discount- in this case zipline companies signing “Certificates of Inspection" for each other.
Ian also noted that
(a) quick search yesterday left me with the impression that zipline engineering and safety are largely unregulated by the state or counties, beyond the need to get routine building permits, so the status of this “certificate of inspection” is seems questionable.
And it didn’t end there.
After Ian’s post Disappeared News’ Larry Geller picked up the ball and ran with it regarding how these ziplines
cry out for regulatory control. Anything with allegedly rusty cables that could be described by Wikipedia as a “death slide” ought to catch the interest of state or local government you’d think.
Larry also noted that
Damon and Ian have provided a public service by posting information on their findings. At least those who Google for information on ziplines in Hawaii will possibly hit one of the articles.
But more important than those who google “ziplines in Hawai`i” might be those who google “The Umauma Experience” or “Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt.”
Now they’ll get at least four “hits.”
With the advent of “bloggers” the question is whether, when they engage in the act of reporting, they are de facto journalists. While many of the more stogy practitioners may argue for all sorts of self-serving and exclusionary rules for what a journalist is or isn’t, there’s still “no license required. ”
In fact, after much debate our own Hawai`i state reporters’ “shield law” essentially defines a reporter by the act of reporting- something bloggers do every day whether, like Ian they consider themselves journalists or, like Damon and Larry, not.
In this case Damon simply reported on the situation, citing and naming his source. Whether or not “The Umauma Experience” is actually safe or not his report is true in that the story is that two co-owners are alleging they are not safe.
And in libel cases, truth is the ultimate defense.
But to compound the report, rather than try to show that his operation is safe, Carlile chose to try to put the Genie back into the bottle and squelch the information, leading people to believe that, despite the industry’s claims, safety may not be their primary concern.
Not only that but, should they proceed with the lawsuit it will the become open season for the corporate press whose lawyers normally have their hair on fire over reporting anything of this nature unless and until a suit is filed.
The two-fold lesson here is that 1) the best way to make sure that information you wish would just “go away” gets out to a wider audience than the original report could is to try to squelch it and 2) if you file a lawsuit, even more people will know of the claim and even of you win, all people will remember is the allegation.
The other lesson may be that, even if you’re from Texas, don’t mess with Hawai`i bloggers.
So when Big Island blogger Damon Tucker emailed us over the weekend that he’d gotten one from Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt after he posted a story on December 8 quoting two co-owners of a “zip-line” company- replete with pictures of rusty cables- there saying that,
the (other) owner of The Umauma Experience (Cleo Carlile) installed substandard cable on the course and it started to fail…It has worn down from round to flat and then the tension broke the cable as it became too thin. I immediately closed down lines 1, 2, and 4. The owner will replace the cable that guests ride on, but has refused to replace the guy wires which hold the whole thing up, platforms etc.
We suggested that he
tell him to go f**k himself and take it up with the people who said it. All you did was quote them. These kinds of letters are bluffs. They don't want a lawsuit- all that would do is put the guy's quote in the mainstream media.
suggesting he send a reply to the effect that he would
"welcome a lawsuit where we can air the issue of the safety of your ziplines before the community and in the mainstream press."
The letter demanded that Damon essentially put the toothpaste back in the tube with retractions and deletions.
But while the mainstream press hasn’t picked up the story yet this morning journalist and blogger Ian Lind went to town on the story saying
Attorney Whitt also provided an official-looking “Certificate of Inspection” issued by “Zipline Canopy Creations” and signed by “Julianne Lester”, apparently certifying that the ziplines have recently passed a “safety inspection”.
According to state business registration records, Lester is the registered agent for Kauai-based Zipline Canopy Creations, which was registered to do business in August 2010, and the president of Just Live, Inc., a recreation company also based on Kauai.
Apparently safety of the unregulated zip line business is sort of like getting a “deal” at a car dealership with rotating salespersons playing the part “manager” for the others to give the illusion of a discount- in this case zipline companies signing “Certificates of Inspection" for each other.
Ian also noted that
(a) quick search yesterday left me with the impression that zipline engineering and safety are largely unregulated by the state or counties, beyond the need to get routine building permits, so the status of this “certificate of inspection” is seems questionable.
And it didn’t end there.
After Ian’s post Disappeared News’ Larry Geller picked up the ball and ran with it regarding how these ziplines
cry out for regulatory control. Anything with allegedly rusty cables that could be described by Wikipedia as a “death slide” ought to catch the interest of state or local government you’d think.
Larry also noted that
Damon and Ian have provided a public service by posting information on their findings. At least those who Google for information on ziplines in Hawaii will possibly hit one of the articles.
But more important than those who google “ziplines in Hawai`i” might be those who google “The Umauma Experience” or “Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt.”
Now they’ll get at least four “hits.”
With the advent of “bloggers” the question is whether, when they engage in the act of reporting, they are de facto journalists. While many of the more stogy practitioners may argue for all sorts of self-serving and exclusionary rules for what a journalist is or isn’t, there’s still “no license required. ”
In fact, after much debate our own Hawai`i state reporters’ “shield law” essentially defines a reporter by the act of reporting- something bloggers do every day whether, like Ian they consider themselves journalists or, like Damon and Larry, not.
In this case Damon simply reported on the situation, citing and naming his source. Whether or not “The Umauma Experience” is actually safe or not his report is true in that the story is that two co-owners are alleging they are not safe.
And in libel cases, truth is the ultimate defense.
But to compound the report, rather than try to show that his operation is safe, Carlile chose to try to put the Genie back into the bottle and squelch the information, leading people to believe that, despite the industry’s claims, safety may not be their primary concern.
Not only that but, should they proceed with the lawsuit it will the become open season for the corporate press whose lawyers normally have their hair on fire over reporting anything of this nature unless and until a suit is filed.
The two-fold lesson here is that 1) the best way to make sure that information you wish would just “go away” gets out to a wider audience than the original report could is to try to squelch it and 2) if you file a lawsuit, even more people will know of the claim and even of you win, all people will remember is the allegation.
The other lesson may be that, even if you’re from Texas, don’t mess with Hawai`i bloggers.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
SHHHH
SHHHH: Another day another Hawai`i governmental travesty of justice, this time the red-queen-style “execution first, trial later” firing of Hawaii State Ethics Commission Executive Director Dan Mollway after 24 years on the job.
While we’ve criticized Mollway for his lack of aggression and tendency to seek slaps on the wrist in many cases, the way he was fired typifies the shady way many boards and commissions hire and fire their executives behind closed doors.
In response to the news today Disappeared News’ Larry Geller is questioning the firing and:
has faxed a request to the Chair of the Commission requesting copies of the minutes of its executive sessions that included discussion of the termination of Mr. Mollway.
The request is based on the strong public interest in the process by which the Ethics Commission carried out its action, a process that has been criticized in public testimony presented to the Commission. The Commission has declined to post the testimony on its website, but under Hawaii’s public records law it must provide copies to anyone who requests it.
But while Geller is rightfully asking the commission to provide the “secret sauce” there’s really only one person to blame for the surreptitious nature of the whole process- Mollway himself.
Under law, investigatory and/or disciplinary proceedings regarding “personnel matters” are to be closed to the pubic with one exception- the target may request that the matter is dealt with entirely in public.
But Mollway, like almost every other employee in his position, chose to keep the investigation and surrounding documents secret- a traditionally losing strategy.
That’s because the elephant in the room that no one is really mentioning is that these things are usually political in nature, in this case involving a board that has, over eight years, been stacked with appointees of Republican Linda Lingle and as the clock is running out, they’re going after someone that has been a target of partisan snipes for many years.
So why did Mollway choose to keep the investigation under wraps? It’s anyone’s guess but it was probably something he didn’t give much thought to, possibly related to the fact that a medical problem- identified for the first time today as a problem with “migraines”- was at the heart of the matter.
It’s hard to think of many examples of people who decided to make their matter public. But when they do they seem to be successful in turning the tables on the investigatory body because, as anyone whose dealt with governmental secrecy knows, it’s usually the body doing the investigation that has more to hide.
This was shown in archetype during the political persecution of two Kaua`i police commission members who were charged with unethical activities involved in the hiring of former Police Chief KC Lum.
Both Chair Michael Ching and Commissioners Carl Furtado were targets of a Kaua`i Board of Ethics investigation based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by Council Chair Kaipo Asing, at first on official stationary but later, after that was found to be improper and itself a violation of the ethics code, as a private citizen.
But the two chose divergent tactics in fighting the charges with Ching preferring to go the closed door route and Furtado demanding an open review.
The results? While the retired Maui judge appointed to hear Ching’s case didn’t really find a true violation and stated so in his report the ethics board revealed only sections of his report to make it seem like he did and presented those pages to the council to show guilt.
Despite the fact that the whole report surfaced - including the exculpatory portions- when a citizen claimed “ a little bird dropped it through my window”, when he tried to submit it as testimony before the council, they refused to accept it and the actual pages were physically thrown back at him during an open council session.
When he tried to go to the local newspaper with the full report he was equally thwarted by a reporter and editor of questionable intelligence and/or integrity who either couldn’t or didn’t want to figure out what the truth was.
Furtado on the other hand was cleared of charges because under the light of day it was apparent there was no real evidence of unethical activity- or, more importantly, no evidence that the county attorney’s office was willing to state in public and submit to cross-examination.
If Mollway had chosen the open session route it seems that the lack of evidence his attorney has alleged as well as the illegal nature of the firing (apparently based on a medical condition) might well have cause the charges to be dropped rather than expose the commission’s actions to the scrutiny of the press in the high profile case.
If nothing else it should serve as a precautionary tale for those who have the opportunity to open charges against them to public review, turning the intimidation tables on those who would use their office for political vendettas.
While we’ve criticized Mollway for his lack of aggression and tendency to seek slaps on the wrist in many cases, the way he was fired typifies the shady way many boards and commissions hire and fire their executives behind closed doors.
In response to the news today Disappeared News’ Larry Geller is questioning the firing and:
has faxed a request to the Chair of the Commission requesting copies of the minutes of its executive sessions that included discussion of the termination of Mr. Mollway.
The request is based on the strong public interest in the process by which the Ethics Commission carried out its action, a process that has been criticized in public testimony presented to the Commission. The Commission has declined to post the testimony on its website, but under Hawaii’s public records law it must provide copies to anyone who requests it.
But while Geller is rightfully asking the commission to provide the “secret sauce” there’s really only one person to blame for the surreptitious nature of the whole process- Mollway himself.
Under law, investigatory and/or disciplinary proceedings regarding “personnel matters” are to be closed to the pubic with one exception- the target may request that the matter is dealt with entirely in public.
But Mollway, like almost every other employee in his position, chose to keep the investigation and surrounding documents secret- a traditionally losing strategy.
That’s because the elephant in the room that no one is really mentioning is that these things are usually political in nature, in this case involving a board that has, over eight years, been stacked with appointees of Republican Linda Lingle and as the clock is running out, they’re going after someone that has been a target of partisan snipes for many years.
So why did Mollway choose to keep the investigation under wraps? It’s anyone’s guess but it was probably something he didn’t give much thought to, possibly related to the fact that a medical problem- identified for the first time today as a problem with “migraines”- was at the heart of the matter.
It’s hard to think of many examples of people who decided to make their matter public. But when they do they seem to be successful in turning the tables on the investigatory body because, as anyone whose dealt with governmental secrecy knows, it’s usually the body doing the investigation that has more to hide.
This was shown in archetype during the political persecution of two Kaua`i police commission members who were charged with unethical activities involved in the hiring of former Police Chief KC Lum.
Both Chair Michael Ching and Commissioners Carl Furtado were targets of a Kaua`i Board of Ethics investigation based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by Council Chair Kaipo Asing, at first on official stationary but later, after that was found to be improper and itself a violation of the ethics code, as a private citizen.
But the two chose divergent tactics in fighting the charges with Ching preferring to go the closed door route and Furtado demanding an open review.
The results? While the retired Maui judge appointed to hear Ching’s case didn’t really find a true violation and stated so in his report the ethics board revealed only sections of his report to make it seem like he did and presented those pages to the council to show guilt.
Despite the fact that the whole report surfaced - including the exculpatory portions- when a citizen claimed “ a little bird dropped it through my window”, when he tried to submit it as testimony before the council, they refused to accept it and the actual pages were physically thrown back at him during an open council session.
When he tried to go to the local newspaper with the full report he was equally thwarted by a reporter and editor of questionable intelligence and/or integrity who either couldn’t or didn’t want to figure out what the truth was.
Furtado on the other hand was cleared of charges because under the light of day it was apparent there was no real evidence of unethical activity- or, more importantly, no evidence that the county attorney’s office was willing to state in public and submit to cross-examination.
If Mollway had chosen the open session route it seems that the lack of evidence his attorney has alleged as well as the illegal nature of the firing (apparently based on a medical condition) might well have cause the charges to be dropped rather than expose the commission’s actions to the scrutiny of the press in the high profile case.
If nothing else it should serve as a precautionary tale for those who have the opportunity to open charges against them to public review, turning the intimidation tables on those who would use their office for political vendettas.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A GOOD RAP ON THE SNOUT SHOULD DO IT
A GOOD RAP ON THE SNOUT SHOULD DO IT: Our over the top tirade in defense of Larry Geller against a personal attack by Ian Lind- apparently because Ian thought Larry “personally attacked” someone- was met by an ”ouch” from Ian today, saying
Whew. I’ve got pretty thick skin, but that was pretty harsh.
We just wanted to show what a personal attack really is and obtusely question the prevalent practice of personally attacking humorous ridicule by calling it a personal attack.
Actually our attitude is that using the English language to its full descriptive potential is not a personal attack and the only sin in poking- or even stabbing- fun is if it’s not funny... even if an especially unconventional sense of humor is required to find it such..
Larry’s sin was presumably a chart showing money bags as check marks for those legislators who support more corporate money in politics and smiley faces on those who would kill the measures in HB 539
And yesterday, after excoriating House Judiciary Chair Jon Riki Karamtsu, the poster child for corporate cash and the author of the now dead, HB 539, for holding an apparent corporate fundraiser- in session, downtown (not in his blue-collar district), and for $150 a pop- Geller warns us that though HB 539 was killed on the floor of the house, some reps aren’t giving up on opening the spigot further instead of banning corporate contributions by inserting the meat of HB 539 in HB 215..
But this morning Lind continued to defend corporate cash still deriding those who would try to take advantage of the fact that the legislature is at present dealing with a flawed law that is currently in the courts. Depending on how you look at it, the law either limits corporate money to $1000 a corporation or takes the caps off entirely.
Lind describes the legal situation quite well but first he says:
To be honest, I don’t think I qualify as a reactionary corporate stooge for trying to deal with some of the complexities of the campaign law and for pointing out where the public debate has gone off track. Nor do I apologize for taking the position that an assessment of risks and rewards should be a natural part of political strategizing.
What is clear is that how people view the proposed “limits” on corporate campaign contributions that were part of HB 539 depends a great deal on how you understand the status quo.
In describing the “status quo” Lind only expounds on the judicial case and the Campaign Spending Commission ruling that caused the circuit court to put the kibosh on the commission’s interpretation until a higher court decides.
But the core of his contention is an argument of misdirection. The court case might be the only “status” that counts if the legislature made the ambiguous law and was refusing to do anything about it.
The real “status quo” is that the people who made the law are at this very moment trying to deal with any “flaw” in the current law and in dong so are deciding the future of corporate money in Hawai`i politics.
And whatever they decide during this session it’s highly unlikely to be changed again any time soon
The broad view shows that as we write some are trying to flood the system with a massive moolah infusion from special interests instead of serving the public interest and just banning it completely, as 22 other states have done.
Does it really matter what the law currently says when the actual status quo is that the legislature is in the process of changing it? And if they are changing it should we sit still for legitimizing what, as Geller points out, is the virtual lifting of all limits by allowing unlimited numbers of $25,000 chunks to go to any number of political action committees as HB 539 would have done?
We and Geller- and dare we say just about anyone not greasing or getting greased under the current system- think that even one corporate dollar to one corporate PAC is one dollar and one PAC too many. But Lind says any limit- apparently even if it’s a fake one- is better than none at all and for some reason he thinks that that precludes any attempt to fully ban corporate money because he seems to think we won’t ever get a ban.
Well, you certainly won’t if you don’t demand or even ask for one.
Even in the name of the political expediency Lind cites, supporting a certain amount of corporate cash instead of a ban makes no sense. You don’t start bargaining over the amount an armed mugger will take from you by offering him five dollars when he wants it all.
It reminds us of the old joke that ends with the punch line “we’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we’re just haggling over price”.
Corporate cash in elections- and corporate influence in general- is actually the result of a uniquely American concept that is cited by many as the root of the dysfunction of not just the US campaign finance system but that of democratic capitalism in general
Its called corporate personhood and can be traced back to a somewhat bizarre ruling - and some say corruptly-divined misinterpretation of the constitution- by the US Supreme Court in 1886 called , Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.whereby corporations were given the same full consttional rights as actual people whereas previously corporate rights were limited to those of “articifical persons”.
Check out the wilipedia entry linked above if you want to know what’s at the core of the corporate takeover of the country.
But in the absence of an unlikey reversal of the decisions (actually the infamous “Buckley v Vallejo” is based on it in part) or some sort of legislation or constitutional amendment one thing we can do is to eliminate the legalized bribery that is pervelnet in 28 states including Hawai`i.
As we tried to point out in our origianal piece if you start with a “we’re defeated already so we’d better get behind something that sucks” .attitude you may well be a “reactionary corporate stooge”- although we would never stoop to that kind of name calling since reactionary is much too strong to be accurate
No matter what the current law says you can help put a cork in corporate infuence by sending an email to reps@capitol.hawaii.gov telling them to stop the madness and chuck any bill, including HB 215, that doesn’t ban corporate cash in elections into the same trash can onto which they threw HB 539.
Whew. I’ve got pretty thick skin, but that was pretty harsh.
We just wanted to show what a personal attack really is and obtusely question the prevalent practice of personally attacking humorous ridicule by calling it a personal attack.
Actually our attitude is that using the English language to its full descriptive potential is not a personal attack and the only sin in poking- or even stabbing- fun is if it’s not funny... even if an especially unconventional sense of humor is required to find it such..
Larry’s sin was presumably a chart showing money bags as check marks for those legislators who support more corporate money in politics and smiley faces on those who would kill the measures in HB 539
And yesterday, after excoriating House Judiciary Chair Jon Riki Karamtsu, the poster child for corporate cash and the author of the now dead, HB 539, for holding an apparent corporate fundraiser- in session, downtown (not in his blue-collar district), and for $150 a pop- Geller warns us that though HB 539 was killed on the floor of the house, some reps aren’t giving up on opening the spigot further instead of banning corporate contributions by inserting the meat of HB 539 in HB 215..
But this morning Lind continued to defend corporate cash still deriding those who would try to take advantage of the fact that the legislature is at present dealing with a flawed law that is currently in the courts. Depending on how you look at it, the law either limits corporate money to $1000 a corporation or takes the caps off entirely.
Lind describes the legal situation quite well but first he says:
To be honest, I don’t think I qualify as a reactionary corporate stooge for trying to deal with some of the complexities of the campaign law and for pointing out where the public debate has gone off track. Nor do I apologize for taking the position that an assessment of risks and rewards should be a natural part of political strategizing.
What is clear is that how people view the proposed “limits” on corporate campaign contributions that were part of HB 539 depends a great deal on how you understand the status quo.
In describing the “status quo” Lind only expounds on the judicial case and the Campaign Spending Commission ruling that caused the circuit court to put the kibosh on the commission’s interpretation until a higher court decides.
But the core of his contention is an argument of misdirection. The court case might be the only “status” that counts if the legislature made the ambiguous law and was refusing to do anything about it.
The real “status quo” is that the people who made the law are at this very moment trying to deal with any “flaw” in the current law and in dong so are deciding the future of corporate money in Hawai`i politics.
And whatever they decide during this session it’s highly unlikely to be changed again any time soon
The broad view shows that as we write some are trying to flood the system with a massive moolah infusion from special interests instead of serving the public interest and just banning it completely, as 22 other states have done.
Does it really matter what the law currently says when the actual status quo is that the legislature is in the process of changing it? And if they are changing it should we sit still for legitimizing what, as Geller points out, is the virtual lifting of all limits by allowing unlimited numbers of $25,000 chunks to go to any number of political action committees as HB 539 would have done?
We and Geller- and dare we say just about anyone not greasing or getting greased under the current system- think that even one corporate dollar to one corporate PAC is one dollar and one PAC too many. But Lind says any limit- apparently even if it’s a fake one- is better than none at all and for some reason he thinks that that precludes any attempt to fully ban corporate money because he seems to think we won’t ever get a ban.
Well, you certainly won’t if you don’t demand or even ask for one.
Even in the name of the political expediency Lind cites, supporting a certain amount of corporate cash instead of a ban makes no sense. You don’t start bargaining over the amount an armed mugger will take from you by offering him five dollars when he wants it all.
It reminds us of the old joke that ends with the punch line “we’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we’re just haggling over price”.
Corporate cash in elections- and corporate influence in general- is actually the result of a uniquely American concept that is cited by many as the root of the dysfunction of not just the US campaign finance system but that of democratic capitalism in general
Its called corporate personhood and can be traced back to a somewhat bizarre ruling - and some say corruptly-divined misinterpretation of the constitution- by the US Supreme Court in 1886 called , Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.whereby corporations were given the same full consttional rights as actual people whereas previously corporate rights were limited to those of “articifical persons”.
Check out the wilipedia entry linked above if you want to know what’s at the core of the corporate takeover of the country.
But in the absence of an unlikey reversal of the decisions (actually the infamous “Buckley v Vallejo” is based on it in part) or some sort of legislation or constitutional amendment one thing we can do is to eliminate the legalized bribery that is pervelnet in 28 states including Hawai`i.
As we tried to point out in our origianal piece if you start with a “we’re defeated already so we’d better get behind something that sucks” .attitude you may well be a “reactionary corporate stooge”- although we would never stoop to that kind of name calling since reactionary is much too strong to be accurate
No matter what the current law says you can help put a cork in corporate infuence by sending an email to reps@capitol.hawaii.gov telling them to stop the madness and chuck any bill, including HB 215, that doesn’t ban corporate cash in elections into the same trash can onto which they threw HB 539.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
THE OLD SWITCH-A-ROO
THE OLD SWITCH-A-ROO: This is the time of year in Hawai`i when the mausoleum for dreams of social economic and environmental justice and good governance is open for business.
The legislature is in session and no good idea is too good to be tortured into a bizarro-world semblance of its original virtue.
Sometimes it’s because troglodytic pitchfork and torch-wielding bumpkins, whipped into a frenzy, descend on the decision makers- as they are doing as we write- because they don’t want to let others be as or more miserable than they are in their abusive and loveless marriages where they abuse their children by sending them to church to learn how to hate.
But most of the time it’s those “leaders” who sell the rest of us down the river by compromising away what both they and their followers wanted in the first place, selling us a “diamonelle” and calling it a gem..
Even though we spent yesterday ridiculing the bible-thumping bigots, we have to remember that the civil union bill HB 444 is already a mockery of the civil rights that those who support it really envisioned.
Before the red-shirted, wide-eyed handful of dogmatic hypocrites descended on the capitol we had already lost the battle because those who would protect the rights of same-gender couples had already given up on the true equality that only a repeal of the legislature’s ban on equal marriage rights for all can provide.
Now mind you we don’t really understand the need people have for obtaining paperwork to prove they love someone else- it’s a remnant of medieval society that really has no place in the 21st century.
If the government is going to grant licenses for anything the only important thing is that they be subject to equal protection under the law. Yet our own progressive leaders have already given up before we began by telling the rest of us to sit down shut up and support their poor substitution for social justice.
But this isn’t the only issue that’s had it’s heart torn out by our supposed allies.
A bloggers’ battle royal is brewing over Ian Lind’s usual bent toward losing the battle before it has begun- especially on issues like campaign finance reform- after Disappeared News’ Larry Geller dared to expose the shibai Lind has been promoting lately supporting a series of bills that would actually cause a flood of corporate money to fill politician coffers by repealing restrictions that are in place now.
The “that is better than this and we’ll never get that so we should settle for something else” pap has been a theme of Lind’s on this and many other issues for years but never more than in his apparent longstanding opposition to meaningful public financing of elections.
Recently he’s even not just been campaigning against fully eliminating corporate contributions to political campaigns he’s actually supporting a bill to increase corporate cash
Lind, the self professed progressive who actually headed Common Cause Hawai`i in the early 80’s, has somehow become a leading voice in whittling away at reforms before they even get started by accepting unacceptable compromises.
He’s been keeping up a cockamamie thread for over a year now about how the pilot program of full public financing of elections on the Big Island violates a somewhat unrelated U.S. Supreme Court ruling even after we pointed out the differences between the Big Island law and those that were struck down.
(The ones struck down all restrict the amounts non-participants can collect while the local measure only increases the amount publicly financed participants get based on what the others collect)
We finally gave up on challenging him- as we did last year- when he reinstated his bafflingly devoid-of-reality rant again recently but when Geller sort of called him out- without even mentioning his name or blog- Lind apparently blew a gasket.
Geller reiterated his stance today which somehow didn’t rise to Lind’s snooty Honolulu-kama`aina-family standards or bow to his usual mainstream corporate journalism embrace.
He attacked Geller for writing a “diatribe” that “abandoned any pretense of thoughtful analysis of campaign finance issues and instead waded into a swamp of name calling and crudely overstated political stereotypes.”
What the heck Lind is referring to is anyone’s guess. Geller’s original piece is well researched and simply rightly ridicules those in the legislature who want to pad their campaign coffers and increase corporate influence.
Lind’s personal and passive-aggressive attack on Geller was the only thing in all of it that could be called name calling but is typical of the lack of depth he exhibits every day, usually substituting a quick google search for substance and analysis.
Geller, as usual, beat us to the punch in his articulation of what kind of crap the legislature is pulling, calling it their “own stimulus bill” but apparently the somewhat prissy and proper Lind has some weird kind of axe to grind that causes him to be one of those who lose our battles before they commence.
And besides- if Ian’s characterization of Larry’s piece were accurate we’d be the first to complain...name calling, diatribes are our kuleana.
Another well known compromiser of rights- as usual the rights of the very people it purports to represent- the Office of Hawaiian affairs was also torn another new one today by Dave Shapiro
In his blog he asks what the heck OHA is doing supporting bills that are held out to stop the state’s “ceded land” grab but actually do so by acknowledging the very principle of ownership-by theft by giving the legislature the right to approve, by a 2/3 margin, the sale of the lands
Another bit of bitter baloney is how the anti-GMO groups have joined those with this kind of unfathomable need to abandon-the-war-to-fight-a-skirmish by dropping efforts to ban frankenfoods- or even restrict or label them- but rather jumping on the bandwagon to ban only GMO taro.
That leaves active measures in the legislature- like the bills that would not just protect corporate interests in despoiling what we eat but even possibly ban the counties from prohibiting them as some have contemplated- orphans that could stealthily slip through to passage.
We have met the enemy and he is, if not us certainly a close approximation.
The legislature is in session and no good idea is too good to be tortured into a bizarro-world semblance of its original virtue.
Sometimes it’s because troglodytic pitchfork and torch-wielding bumpkins, whipped into a frenzy, descend on the decision makers- as they are doing as we write- because they don’t want to let others be as or more miserable than they are in their abusive and loveless marriages where they abuse their children by sending them to church to learn how to hate.
But most of the time it’s those “leaders” who sell the rest of us down the river by compromising away what both they and their followers wanted in the first place, selling us a “diamonelle” and calling it a gem..
Even though we spent yesterday ridiculing the bible-thumping bigots, we have to remember that the civil union bill HB 444 is already a mockery of the civil rights that those who support it really envisioned.
Before the red-shirted, wide-eyed handful of dogmatic hypocrites descended on the capitol we had already lost the battle because those who would protect the rights of same-gender couples had already given up on the true equality that only a repeal of the legislature’s ban on equal marriage rights for all can provide.
Now mind you we don’t really understand the need people have for obtaining paperwork to prove they love someone else- it’s a remnant of medieval society that really has no place in the 21st century.
If the government is going to grant licenses for anything the only important thing is that they be subject to equal protection under the law. Yet our own progressive leaders have already given up before we began by telling the rest of us to sit down shut up and support their poor substitution for social justice.
But this isn’t the only issue that’s had it’s heart torn out by our supposed allies.
A bloggers’ battle royal is brewing over Ian Lind’s usual bent toward losing the battle before it has begun- especially on issues like campaign finance reform- after Disappeared News’ Larry Geller dared to expose the shibai Lind has been promoting lately supporting a series of bills that would actually cause a flood of corporate money to fill politician coffers by repealing restrictions that are in place now.
The “that is better than this and we’ll never get that so we should settle for something else” pap has been a theme of Lind’s on this and many other issues for years but never more than in his apparent longstanding opposition to meaningful public financing of elections.
Recently he’s even not just been campaigning against fully eliminating corporate contributions to political campaigns he’s actually supporting a bill to increase corporate cash
Lind, the self professed progressive who actually headed Common Cause Hawai`i in the early 80’s, has somehow become a leading voice in whittling away at reforms before they even get started by accepting unacceptable compromises.
He’s been keeping up a cockamamie thread for over a year now about how the pilot program of full public financing of elections on the Big Island violates a somewhat unrelated U.S. Supreme Court ruling even after we pointed out the differences between the Big Island law and those that were struck down.
(The ones struck down all restrict the amounts non-participants can collect while the local measure only increases the amount publicly financed participants get based on what the others collect)
We finally gave up on challenging him- as we did last year- when he reinstated his bafflingly devoid-of-reality rant again recently but when Geller sort of called him out- without even mentioning his name or blog- Lind apparently blew a gasket.
Geller reiterated his stance today which somehow didn’t rise to Lind’s snooty Honolulu-kama`aina-family standards or bow to his usual mainstream corporate journalism embrace.
He attacked Geller for writing a “diatribe” that “abandoned any pretense of thoughtful analysis of campaign finance issues and instead waded into a swamp of name calling and crudely overstated political stereotypes.”
What the heck Lind is referring to is anyone’s guess. Geller’s original piece is well researched and simply rightly ridicules those in the legislature who want to pad their campaign coffers and increase corporate influence.
Lind’s personal and passive-aggressive attack on Geller was the only thing in all of it that could be called name calling but is typical of the lack of depth he exhibits every day, usually substituting a quick google search for substance and analysis.
Geller, as usual, beat us to the punch in his articulation of what kind of crap the legislature is pulling, calling it their “own stimulus bill” but apparently the somewhat prissy and proper Lind has some weird kind of axe to grind that causes him to be one of those who lose our battles before they commence.
And besides- if Ian’s characterization of Larry’s piece were accurate we’d be the first to complain...name calling, diatribes are our kuleana.
Another well known compromiser of rights- as usual the rights of the very people it purports to represent- the Office of Hawaiian affairs was also torn another new one today by Dave Shapiro
In his blog he asks what the heck OHA is doing supporting bills that are held out to stop the state’s “ceded land” grab but actually do so by acknowledging the very principle of ownership-by theft by giving the legislature the right to approve, by a 2/3 margin, the sale of the lands
Another bit of bitter baloney is how the anti-GMO groups have joined those with this kind of unfathomable need to abandon-the-war-to-fight-a-skirmish by dropping efforts to ban frankenfoods- or even restrict or label them- but rather jumping on the bandwagon to ban only GMO taro.
That leaves active measures in the legislature- like the bills that would not just protect corporate interests in despoiling what we eat but even possibly ban the counties from prohibiting them as some have contemplated- orphans that could stealthily slip through to passage.
We have met the enemy and he is, if not us certainly a close approximation.
Monday, July 14, 2008
PATERNALIST PET:
PATERNALIST PET: The chattering classes today have their panties in a bunch today over the new cover of The New Yorker.
By Wolf Blitzer’s tone today you’d think the whole election now hinges on the New Yorker magazine cover lampooning, er, ... well maybe that’s the problem- what is being lampooned may depend on anything from one’s political affiliation to what they ate for breakfast.
But today’s political orthodoxy maintains that it feeds false allegations about Barack Obama that unfortunately some people believe. And is therefore anything from in bad taste to a despicable reinforcement of the closely held beliefs of the uninformed.
And not just nation-wide but locally the blogs are a-twitter too with a provocative posts like the elocutiously eclectic Joltin’ Joan Conrow’s regarding the NYer cover and on-line “citizen-journalism” which has tangentially evolved into a discussion of whether journalists should be licensed.
Another post at Disappeared News today reports on Disappeared humor and cites Undernews’ Sam Smith’s poking a little fun at the “outrage” of posters at some humorless liberal web sites like Huffington Post, while Joan reports on the fear and loathing at the sycophantic Daily Kos and other Democratic Party pissing parties.
But in every single comment on TV and every story in the newspapers, from the political blogs to the Obama and McCain campaign sites, whether from pundit or news consumers’ comments, they all agrees on one thing - “some people” will not see the cartoon as satire but as depicting the truth because they are “not as smart as us”
So just where are all these dumb people and why haven’t we heard from them? If you listen to the pontificating press you’d think that half the country believes that Barack Obama is an anti-American, Muslim terrorist because their brother-in-law sent them an email. Yet no one has bothered to dig one of those people up to interview him or her and prove their hypothesis.
It’s the same complaint used to bemoan the lack of accuracy and the resulting misinformation supposedly spread by on-line pseudo-journalists who aren’t “qualified” to tell us what the news is, which may be at the unintended heart of Joan’s piece today.
The thinking apparently goes something like this: People are too dumb to do critical reading and are just believing anything they read. But while there must be someone out there that is so stupid they absorb bullcrap like a sponge, most read through the filter of their own beliefs and experiences no matter what others report.
Now we’ll grant and in fact promote the concept that unbending unquestioned “belief” in place of knowledge is a semi-moronic endeavor. But those filters and the results of the filtering is not what we keep hearing about these “other people”.
Somehow they all quite obviously have a mental image of this guy:
“Hi- I’m Cletus. I’m a toothless knuckle-dragging, slack-jaw and I seed that thar NYer pi’ture and I says to mah Mable Sue I says ‘see I tol’ ya all that stuff was true. Why now even them liberals in New York City admit that Obomber is a flag bunin’ a-rab and his wife is a black panther-lovin’, afro-wearing Angela Davis.’”
That’s got to be the meat and potatoes of what those who can’t seem to remember where they left their sense of humor- a malady effecting many millions more than the one afflicting our depicted every-cave-man- are saying about the cartoon as well as other depictions and characterizations.... “I know better but what will others who aren’t as smart as me think?”
Everyone seems to think there are people “out there”- not me, mind you- who can’t tell fact from fiction and they are being manipulated by others who are now out-of-control with the ubiquitousness of the internet.
Never mind the fact that these brain dead squawkers at the corporate news networks and print dailies create their own echo chamber filled with utter crap that’s bought and paid for by their advertisers and pals in government. They and only they have the paternalistic right to protect people from what they might find out from friends and neighbors because only we professionals have the psychic ability to tell when we are being scammed.
For every “Obama is a secret Muslim” email there are 10 exposing the corruption of the press- the lowering of our standards and the corporate control that has caused investigative journalism and fighting corporate and governmental corruption to be a figment of past imaginations.
But what’s a little discarded baby when there’s so much bathwater to toss?
Joan makes the point that reporting is not as easy as it seems. Research and the search for the facts can be trying and difficult. Daily ethical dilemmas are part of the territory. It takes a great deal of experience and more than a basic knowledge of communications and story telling.
But it also takes a lot of those abilities to read- and it always has. The only difference with the internet and bloggers is that there are a lot more to chose from for the critical reader.
Sounds like what we’re hearing from many is that perhaps we should license not just newswriting but news reading too. Then we’ll all have one way of disseminating and receiving information and there will be no room for that awful “interpretation” stuff.
Will the real idiot please step forward? Or will one of you great informed, never-misled, “professional” journalists out there who never tire of pointing out the uninformed and misinformed nature of the “great unwashed”- those getting their news from someone other than you and your corporate masters- seek out one of these “dumb guys” for an interview? Perhaps you can start in the Situation Room.
By Wolf Blitzer’s tone today you’d think the whole election now hinges on the New Yorker magazine cover lampooning, er, ... well maybe that’s the problem- what is being lampooned may depend on anything from one’s political affiliation to what they ate for breakfast.
But today’s political orthodoxy maintains that it feeds false allegations about Barack Obama that unfortunately some people believe. And is therefore anything from in bad taste to a despicable reinforcement of the closely held beliefs of the uninformed.
And not just nation-wide but locally the blogs are a-twitter too with a provocative posts like the elocutiously eclectic Joltin’ Joan Conrow’s regarding the NYer cover and on-line “citizen-journalism” which has tangentially evolved into a discussion of whether journalists should be licensed.
Another post at Disappeared News today reports on Disappeared humor and cites Undernews’ Sam Smith’s poking a little fun at the “outrage” of posters at some humorless liberal web sites like Huffington Post, while Joan reports on the fear and loathing at the sycophantic Daily Kos and other Democratic Party pissing parties.
But in every single comment on TV and every story in the newspapers, from the political blogs to the Obama and McCain campaign sites, whether from pundit or news consumers’ comments, they all agrees on one thing - “some people” will not see the cartoon as satire but as depicting the truth because they are “not as smart as us”
So just where are all these dumb people and why haven’t we heard from them? If you listen to the pontificating press you’d think that half the country believes that Barack Obama is an anti-American, Muslim terrorist because their brother-in-law sent them an email. Yet no one has bothered to dig one of those people up to interview him or her and prove their hypothesis.
It’s the same complaint used to bemoan the lack of accuracy and the resulting misinformation supposedly spread by on-line pseudo-journalists who aren’t “qualified” to tell us what the news is, which may be at the unintended heart of Joan’s piece today.
The thinking apparently goes something like this: People are too dumb to do critical reading and are just believing anything they read. But while there must be someone out there that is so stupid they absorb bullcrap like a sponge, most read through the filter of their own beliefs and experiences no matter what others report.
Now we’ll grant and in fact promote the concept that unbending unquestioned “belief” in place of knowledge is a semi-moronic endeavor. But those filters and the results of the filtering is not what we keep hearing about these “other people”.
Somehow they all quite obviously have a mental image of this guy:
“Hi- I’m Cletus. I’m a toothless knuckle-dragging, slack-jaw and I seed that thar NYer pi’ture and I says to mah Mable Sue I says ‘see I tol’ ya all that stuff was true. Why now even them liberals in New York City admit that Obomber is a flag bunin’ a-rab and his wife is a black panther-lovin’, afro-wearing Angela Davis.’”
That’s got to be the meat and potatoes of what those who can’t seem to remember where they left their sense of humor- a malady effecting many millions more than the one afflicting our depicted every-cave-man- are saying about the cartoon as well as other depictions and characterizations.... “I know better but what will others who aren’t as smart as me think?”
Everyone seems to think there are people “out there”- not me, mind you- who can’t tell fact from fiction and they are being manipulated by others who are now out-of-control with the ubiquitousness of the internet.
Never mind the fact that these brain dead squawkers at the corporate news networks and print dailies create their own echo chamber filled with utter crap that’s bought and paid for by their advertisers and pals in government. They and only they have the paternalistic right to protect people from what they might find out from friends and neighbors because only we professionals have the psychic ability to tell when we are being scammed.
For every “Obama is a secret Muslim” email there are 10 exposing the corruption of the press- the lowering of our standards and the corporate control that has caused investigative journalism and fighting corporate and governmental corruption to be a figment of past imaginations.
But what’s a little discarded baby when there’s so much bathwater to toss?
Joan makes the point that reporting is not as easy as it seems. Research and the search for the facts can be trying and difficult. Daily ethical dilemmas are part of the territory. It takes a great deal of experience and more than a basic knowledge of communications and story telling.
But it also takes a lot of those abilities to read- and it always has. The only difference with the internet and bloggers is that there are a lot more to chose from for the critical reader.
Sounds like what we’re hearing from many is that perhaps we should license not just newswriting but news reading too. Then we’ll all have one way of disseminating and receiving information and there will be no room for that awful “interpretation” stuff.
Will the real idiot please step forward? Or will one of you great informed, never-misled, “professional” journalists out there who never tire of pointing out the uninformed and misinformed nature of the “great unwashed”- those getting their news from someone other than you and your corporate masters- seek out one of these “dumb guys” for an interview? Perhaps you can start in the Situation Room.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
TWO BITS A YELP
TWO BITS A YELP: The Honolulu rail debate has been a circus.
And one of the pro-rail’s biggest of clowns Doug Carlson has now been exposed by Disappeared News’ Larry Geller today for putting up a blog of hypocritical drivel and getting paid for it with his supposed “full disclosure” buried and blurred. In it, though it’s an ordeal to find it, he “admits” he’s being paid to produce this pro-rail blog- although by whom isn’t quite clear- but pooh-poohing any concerns he’s unduly biased.
And in a comment on Geller’s post today Carlson refused to tell Geller who is financing him claiming it would violate his financial privacy.
But the most galling part of Carlson’s little shilling adventure is his contention that only the anti-rail people are engaged in below-the-belt distraction-from-the-real-issues discourse while his pro-rail crowd would never stoop to that, all the while maintaining that the whole purpose of his blog is to separate the “Sideshow” from the “Big Tent” .
Carlson who has held various jobs as a corporate spokesperson and worked for Hawaiian Electric Company as their mouthpiece for 10 years, tries in his blog to paint the anti-rail people as not addressing the issues while he is focused on debating as to core rail issue.
He says:
After reading hundreds of letters to the editor and comments in the newspapers about rail, it seems to me they fall into one of two groups – the Big Tent or the Sideshow.
The Big Tent’s center ring features the primary reason to build this system, which is traffic avoidance. Commuters who can’t tolerate the lost time and immense frustration caused by traffic congestion or for whom reliance on their own car is too costly are attracted by this reason to ride the train. They want back their mobility, which they’ve lost. That’s the reason to build this system.
The anti-rail crowd pretty much avoids the Big Tent altogether. For whatever reason, they can’t or won’t even look at the traffic-avoidance issue and instead hang out in the Sideshow where everything but the main issue is on stage.
The Sideshow’s leading “barkers” are well known, and some have been shouting about what’s behind their tents’ curtains since the last time this circus was in town. You’ve heard it all – how HOT Lanes will be the cheap and easy solution to traffic; why a vote on this issue would be the democratic way, etc.
Yet the only arguments Carlson raises- again and again and again- boil down to “we need rail therefore we need THIS rail system”.
His writings are filled with the wonders of rail transit in general and the benefits of getting cars off the road but not once does he relate those arguments to the specific controversial- and some say corrupt- proposal for Honolulu.
Geller on the other hand has written entries on the subject and they are perhaps the only intelligent discourse we’ve read on the subject, saying that “rail or no rail” is not the issue as much as is the absolute dearth of any community based planning on the system’s specifics like location, stops, need, type etc.... especially given that the lines seem to go places where the intent appears be to open up certain areas for development rather than serve the already populated neighborhoods..
Yet, Geller says, there was never any community based planning, which is typical of Honolulu in all development matters.
Geller says he is not against mass transit or even rail per se, he just wanted to back up a little and get a real plan going, asking rhetorically if anyone has even heard of “smart growth”.
And we’ve agreed with both statements wholeheartedly.
But more significant is the fact that the rail system has been turned into a revolving-door boondoggle for Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s administration as we also detailed.
Here’s what the Honolulu Advertiser had to say on June 29
The project's largest contractor is Parsons Brinckerhoff, which has an $86 million deal with the city. The other major contractor is InfraConsult LLC, which has an $11.5 million deal to manage the rail project for the city. InfraConsult was founded in part by former Parsons Brinckerhoff employees.
The train project is run by the city transportation department, which is led by director Wayne Yoshioka, a former Parsons Brinckerhoff engineer. Yoshioka has promised to recuse himself from key decisions regarding his former employer.
And this on May 4"
Contractors on Honolulu's $3.7 billion transit system and their employees have contributed $163,000 to Mayor Mufi Hannemann's re-election campaign.
Between November 2004, when Hannemann was elected, to December 2007, he has raised $2.26 million for his campaign, and $163,000, or 7.2 percent, has come from contractors involved in the planning of the project, their employees and families, according to an Advertiser search of Hawai`i Campaign Spending Commission records.
The $163,000 donation figure includes companies already receiving money from the city but does not include contributions from land owners and developers, labor unions, other future beneficiaries of the transit project.[Honolulu Advertiser 5/4/2008
Carlson doesn’t mention these issues at all in his blog but rather sounds like Frankenstein describing food, smoke and fire
“Mass Transit, gooooood. Rail gooooood. anti-rail – arrrgh”. No further debate needed. And if you don’t agree Doug claims you’re just a name-calling, partisan sideshow geek.
That’s rational, focused “Big Tent” discussion of the real issues? Sounds more like his little side show might just have more headless chickens than you can shake a blog at.
And now he is calling Geller’s revelation a “part of the side show” although in questioning Carlson's ’s credibility Geller does only what the rest of Carlson’s blog attempts to do.
The difference is Geller is spot-on right about Carlson while Doug apparently makes up things to attack.
The blog appears to be one of those “Wizard of Oz on steroids” sites: i.e.-. more straw men than Ray Bolger and Buddy Ebsen combined could have depicted.
His most recent entry tries to excoriate Governor Linda Lingle’s recent signing of the stop-rail petition and although she- genuinely or disingenuously- is saying she is just doing it to “let the people decide via the ballot box”, Carlson belittles any such notion by saying
Governor Linda Lingle’s signature is now on a petition whose sole purpose is to prevent the construction of Honolulu’s proposed rail transit system. Since signing a petition implicitly supports its intent, her insistence that she’s not advocating for or against rail rings hollow.
He then goes on to say what he wished she had said, misrepresenting, mocking and personally deriding her but not making any real arguments for rail, just against her and what he imagines her motives are.
That had been preceded on the blog with another personal attack that avoids any of the issues:
People sign petitions to support the intent of the petition, which in this case is an unambiguous attempt to kill Honolulu’s rail project now and forever, once and for all time. Her signature – if it’s actually been affixed – sends a clear message, no matter what his 800-word explanation says.
No, you da liar- no, you da liar- no, you da liar. Yeah- real erudite and honest argumentation Doug... during a trash talk session with 12 year olds.
One has to wonder if Mr. Carlson’s M.O. is based on the famous legal case of Rubber v Glue.
His previous posting before the one where he attacked Larry for disclosing the corporate and/or governmental funding for his blog, attacked rail opponent, Honolulu Councilperson Charles Djou personally because he used the word “propaganda” on a radio program in characterizing the city’s use of taxpayer money and Hannamann’s own campaign funds to promote the project and discourage those signing the petitions.
One of the more bizarre red herrings is this little previous ditty:.
We talked yesterday with a friend who has signed the anti-rail petition and asked what his big objection to rail is, and it came down to Honolulu’s alleged inability to maintain a rail system due to our climate, rust, etc. So I pointed out that dozens of elevators and other key equipment in town are maintained with no apparent problem and that train systems apparently are maintained well around the world in caustic conditions. He had no response, because the “maintenance issue” is another Sideshow act that attracts attention but has no substance.
Where did he dig someone up who claimed this? We’ve read almost every article in the mainstream papers and dozens of alternative news sites and blogs and no one has ever seriously said “oh it’ll rust too quick here so we shouldn’t have rail”. Gee- it couldn’t be one of those corporate spinmeister tricks of making up a bad argument, creating something to rail against (pun intended)...could it?
Boy it’s a good thing he’s concentrating on the issues and not just personally attacking those anti-rail people who he actually criticizes for not doing anything but criticizing the pro rail people... otherwise we might think that his disingenuity stems from his being a paid hack.
Preceding the circus post were various other attacks on anyone daring to question the wisdom of the project as it is currently designed and sited including an excoriation of former Governor Ben Cayetano who wrote an essay in the paper before he and his wife were character-assassinated by Carlson without discussing specific issues
Before that was a piece promoting a big pro-rail demonstration containing no discussion of the merits but plenty of attempted ridicule of the anti-rail people and another post with a bunch of attacks on the reputation and temperament of Panos D. Prevedouros, a UH Engineering professor and outspoken opponent of rail itself (he prefers to spend the transit money on high occupancy freeway lanes) who is now running for mayor against Carlson’s presumed employer, Hannemann.
As much as Larry Geller represents the best of journalism- a reasoned and well researched web site “appearing” the Disappeared News- Carlson represents the worst.
Carlson says he used to be a journalist but now, as we can see, he is an anything-for-a-buck con artist who, unlike any journalist with ethics, doesn’t feel like he needs six showers a day after running his three-card-Monte and shell-game public relations and marketing scams.
Mainstream media pundits like to deride and question the accuracy of on-line citizen-journalist postings. But few things are more reprehensible than people who trade on their good name for being honest and factual reporters to do the paid dirty work of crooks, whether they basically agree with them or not.
This kind of thing isn’t acceptable in an ethical newsroom. If the Advertiser has big banner ads for the Superferry at least it acts as disclosure. A site like Carlson’s needs a “sponsored by” box at the top of the side column at the very least.
Otherwise it’s a trick- a PR ploy to try to get your marketing campaign to look “grassroots” and “go viral”
Larry Geller says today that “I am still a great fan of Doug Carlson’s writing and his work”. That may be the only thing we’ve ever read at from Larry that really doesn’t make sense.
And one of the pro-rail’s biggest of clowns Doug Carlson has now been exposed by Disappeared News’ Larry Geller today for putting up a blog of hypocritical drivel and getting paid for it with his supposed “full disclosure” buried and blurred. In it, though it’s an ordeal to find it, he “admits” he’s being paid to produce this pro-rail blog- although by whom isn’t quite clear- but pooh-poohing any concerns he’s unduly biased.
And in a comment on Geller’s post today Carlson refused to tell Geller who is financing him claiming it would violate his financial privacy.
But the most galling part of Carlson’s little shilling adventure is his contention that only the anti-rail people are engaged in below-the-belt distraction-from-the-real-issues discourse while his pro-rail crowd would never stoop to that, all the while maintaining that the whole purpose of his blog is to separate the “Sideshow” from the “Big Tent” .
Carlson who has held various jobs as a corporate spokesperson and worked for Hawaiian Electric Company as their mouthpiece for 10 years, tries in his blog to paint the anti-rail people as not addressing the issues while he is focused on debating as to core rail issue.
He says:
After reading hundreds of letters to the editor and comments in the newspapers about rail, it seems to me they fall into one of two groups – the Big Tent or the Sideshow.
The Big Tent’s center ring features the primary reason to build this system, which is traffic avoidance. Commuters who can’t tolerate the lost time and immense frustration caused by traffic congestion or for whom reliance on their own car is too costly are attracted by this reason to ride the train. They want back their mobility, which they’ve lost. That’s the reason to build this system.
The anti-rail crowd pretty much avoids the Big Tent altogether. For whatever reason, they can’t or won’t even look at the traffic-avoidance issue and instead hang out in the Sideshow where everything but the main issue is on stage.
The Sideshow’s leading “barkers” are well known, and some have been shouting about what’s behind their tents’ curtains since the last time this circus was in town. You’ve heard it all – how HOT Lanes will be the cheap and easy solution to traffic; why a vote on this issue would be the democratic way, etc.
Yet the only arguments Carlson raises- again and again and again- boil down to “we need rail therefore we need THIS rail system”.
His writings are filled with the wonders of rail transit in general and the benefits of getting cars off the road but not once does he relate those arguments to the specific controversial- and some say corrupt- proposal for Honolulu.
Geller on the other hand has written entries on the subject and they are perhaps the only intelligent discourse we’ve read on the subject, saying that “rail or no rail” is not the issue as much as is the absolute dearth of any community based planning on the system’s specifics like location, stops, need, type etc.... especially given that the lines seem to go places where the intent appears be to open up certain areas for development rather than serve the already populated neighborhoods..
Yet, Geller says, there was never any community based planning, which is typical of Honolulu in all development matters.
Geller says he is not against mass transit or even rail per se, he just wanted to back up a little and get a real plan going, asking rhetorically if anyone has even heard of “smart growth”.
And we’ve agreed with both statements wholeheartedly.
But more significant is the fact that the rail system has been turned into a revolving-door boondoggle for Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s administration as we also detailed.
Here’s what the Honolulu Advertiser had to say on June 29
The project's largest contractor is Parsons Brinckerhoff, which has an $86 million deal with the city. The other major contractor is InfraConsult LLC, which has an $11.5 million deal to manage the rail project for the city. InfraConsult was founded in part by former Parsons Brinckerhoff employees.
The train project is run by the city transportation department, which is led by director Wayne Yoshioka, a former Parsons Brinckerhoff engineer. Yoshioka has promised to recuse himself from key decisions regarding his former employer.
And this on May 4"
Contractors on Honolulu's $3.7 billion transit system and their employees have contributed $163,000 to Mayor Mufi Hannemann's re-election campaign.
Between November 2004, when Hannemann was elected, to December 2007, he has raised $2.26 million for his campaign, and $163,000, or 7.2 percent, has come from contractors involved in the planning of the project, their employees and families, according to an Advertiser search of Hawai`i Campaign Spending Commission records.
The $163,000 donation figure includes companies already receiving money from the city but does not include contributions from land owners and developers, labor unions, other future beneficiaries of the transit project.[Honolulu Advertiser 5/4/2008
Carlson doesn’t mention these issues at all in his blog but rather sounds like Frankenstein describing food, smoke and fire
“Mass Transit, gooooood. Rail gooooood. anti-rail – arrrgh”. No further debate needed. And if you don’t agree Doug claims you’re just a name-calling, partisan sideshow geek.
That’s rational, focused “Big Tent” discussion of the real issues? Sounds more like his little side show might just have more headless chickens than you can shake a blog at.
And now he is calling Geller’s revelation a “part of the side show” although in questioning Carlson's ’s credibility Geller does only what the rest of Carlson’s blog attempts to do.
The difference is Geller is spot-on right about Carlson while Doug apparently makes up things to attack.
The blog appears to be one of those “Wizard of Oz on steroids” sites: i.e.-. more straw men than Ray Bolger and Buddy Ebsen combined could have depicted.
His most recent entry tries to excoriate Governor Linda Lingle’s recent signing of the stop-rail petition and although she- genuinely or disingenuously- is saying she is just doing it to “let the people decide via the ballot box”, Carlson belittles any such notion by saying
Governor Linda Lingle’s signature is now on a petition whose sole purpose is to prevent the construction of Honolulu’s proposed rail transit system. Since signing a petition implicitly supports its intent, her insistence that she’s not advocating for or against rail rings hollow.
He then goes on to say what he wished she had said, misrepresenting, mocking and personally deriding her but not making any real arguments for rail, just against her and what he imagines her motives are.
That had been preceded on the blog with another personal attack that avoids any of the issues:
People sign petitions to support the intent of the petition, which in this case is an unambiguous attempt to kill Honolulu’s rail project now and forever, once and for all time. Her signature – if it’s actually been affixed – sends a clear message, no matter what his 800-word explanation says.
No, you da liar- no, you da liar- no, you da liar. Yeah- real erudite and honest argumentation Doug... during a trash talk session with 12 year olds.
One has to wonder if Mr. Carlson’s M.O. is based on the famous legal case of Rubber v Glue.
His previous posting before the one where he attacked Larry for disclosing the corporate and/or governmental funding for his blog, attacked rail opponent, Honolulu Councilperson Charles Djou personally because he used the word “propaganda” on a radio program in characterizing the city’s use of taxpayer money and Hannamann’s own campaign funds to promote the project and discourage those signing the petitions.
One of the more bizarre red herrings is this little previous ditty:.
We talked yesterday with a friend who has signed the anti-rail petition and asked what his big objection to rail is, and it came down to Honolulu’s alleged inability to maintain a rail system due to our climate, rust, etc. So I pointed out that dozens of elevators and other key equipment in town are maintained with no apparent problem and that train systems apparently are maintained well around the world in caustic conditions. He had no response, because the “maintenance issue” is another Sideshow act that attracts attention but has no substance.
Where did he dig someone up who claimed this? We’ve read almost every article in the mainstream papers and dozens of alternative news sites and blogs and no one has ever seriously said “oh it’ll rust too quick here so we shouldn’t have rail”. Gee- it couldn’t be one of those corporate spinmeister tricks of making up a bad argument, creating something to rail against (pun intended)...could it?
Boy it’s a good thing he’s concentrating on the issues and not just personally attacking those anti-rail people who he actually criticizes for not doing anything but criticizing the pro rail people... otherwise we might think that his disingenuity stems from his being a paid hack.
Preceding the circus post were various other attacks on anyone daring to question the wisdom of the project as it is currently designed and sited including an excoriation of former Governor Ben Cayetano who wrote an essay in the paper before he and his wife were character-assassinated by Carlson without discussing specific issues
Before that was a piece promoting a big pro-rail demonstration containing no discussion of the merits but plenty of attempted ridicule of the anti-rail people and another post with a bunch of attacks on the reputation and temperament of Panos D. Prevedouros, a UH Engineering professor and outspoken opponent of rail itself (he prefers to spend the transit money on high occupancy freeway lanes) who is now running for mayor against Carlson’s presumed employer, Hannemann.
As much as Larry Geller represents the best of journalism- a reasoned and well researched web site “appearing” the Disappeared News- Carlson represents the worst.
Carlson says he used to be a journalist but now, as we can see, he is an anything-for-a-buck con artist who, unlike any journalist with ethics, doesn’t feel like he needs six showers a day after running his three-card-Monte and shell-game public relations and marketing scams.
Mainstream media pundits like to deride and question the accuracy of on-line citizen-journalist postings. But few things are more reprehensible than people who trade on their good name for being honest and factual reporters to do the paid dirty work of crooks, whether they basically agree with them or not.
This kind of thing isn’t acceptable in an ethical newsroom. If the Advertiser has big banner ads for the Superferry at least it acts as disclosure. A site like Carlson’s needs a “sponsored by” box at the top of the side column at the very least.
Otherwise it’s a trick- a PR ploy to try to get your marketing campaign to look “grassroots” and “go viral”
Larry Geller says today that “I am still a great fan of Doug Carlson’s writing and his work”. That may be the only thing we’ve ever read at from Larry that really doesn’t make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
