UNMUZZLED: Well the breathless babbling at Kaua`iEclectic continues regarding citizen journalism, blogging and other extraneous issues and Doug Carlson, whose questionable ethics Joan brought up after we and Larry Geller excoriated him. Carlson has left another attempted defense, not directed to the actual troublemakers but at the thoughtful musing Joan published on related subjects.
So here’s some of the pertinent fleshing out of our objections from some comments and our replies
First Carlson’s post and our reaction at KauaiEclectic .
Since I'm the subject of much that's written in today's post and comments, let me weigh in.
Anyone who's paid close attention to the transit issue on Oahu since 1990 will know that I've been a consistent supporter of grade-separated transit... almost as visible as Cliff Slater in letters and commentaries, although nobody could be as prolific as Cliff. All of those pieces were written without compensation or connection with a client.
Now comes the Super Fight on Oahu, almost as big as the Superferry fight on Kauai, and I was asked to join the City's team of speakers to give the project's Power Point show to community groups around town. I'm paid a fee to do so, and I told every audience that fact. Nobody got up and left. And as the fight escalated, I was asked two weeks ago to step up my outreach; I decided to write a blog -- http://yes2rail.blogspot.com I have several others, including two on emergency communications; please read them: http://tsunamilessons.blogspot.com
http://yourchore.blotspot.com
I disclosed my affiliation with the City in the very first Yes2Rail post on June 30 and the next day, too. When Larry Geller asked me about it last week and said he couldn't find my disclosure, I posted a FULL DISCLOSURE ALERT in the largest available type on my blog... in red, at that....and have continued to mention it.
Nothing I'm writing in my blog now is any different than what I wrote over 15+ years as I supported grade-separated transit. But because I'm being paid to give speeches and write about rail, critics conclude that what I'm writing now is tainted.
Sorry. Their logic falls apart. I didn't hide anything and in fact did just the opposite. And I didn't change my position in order to be paid. They're paying me because of my position -- which as an added bonus apparently upsets some people to the point of distraction.
I'm still waiting for the critics to answer this question: What alternative is there to sitting in traffic unless it's grade-separated transit? It's not buses; it's not Lexus Lanes; it's not car pools; it's not jitneys. Only grade-separated transit -- rail or otherwise -- delivers the commuter to his or her destination on time, every time. Nothing else can do that.
Rather than step up to this key issue, critics and the anti-rail crowd create smoke around the distractions, like my fee. I call it the Sideshow.
So be it. There's nothing hidden here, including my name, which is more than can be said for 99% of the posters of comments on the newspapers' sites. I will continue to argue in favor of transit as the logical and only option to avoid traffic. THAT is the Big Tent issue.
Our response?:
You really don’t get it Mr. Carlson.
I could give a rip about Honolulu and rail. But I really hate corrupt practices, especially in government. And the very fact that you have been doing all this (I presume) unpaid work for all these years and putting up public-interest blogs (again presume unpaid) makes it worse. You are trading on journalistic integrity and using the “name” you attained for that work to do a paid PR job, “disclosed” or otherwiseYou make a point of how you actually believe in what you’re getting paid to do- is this because usually you’ll sell anything? Boy that’s a real good way to promote your personal integrity.
Yes, money does change everything. This is not a side issue or distraction. I don’t like the anti-rail people’s silly personal attacks any more than I do yours. But please don’t try to BS me with this crap of you and your pro-rail crowd being “above the side show” when you’re just as bad in that department. As private individuals I really don’t care who the anti rail people “are”.
But the connections of government officials to extremely apparent corruption - the same officials who presumably are, along with the corrupt contractors, paying you - ARE the issue that puts THIS rail project in jeopardy and your ignoring that and getting everyone on the happy bandwagon and your not addressing it by calling it a sideshow is as corrupt as you can get.
There are lots of things that are “good” in concept. Rail-transit for Honolulu is probably one. But the devil is always in the details and the institution of this good idea has been fully corrupted and may be useless to anyone but developers and contractors. That is the central issue here.
And that BS about your “financial privacy” is even worse. No one is asking how much you are getting paid, only that you list those paying you.
I’m sure after all these years as a corporate shill you can’t see how money changes the equation and how you are giving public-interest journalism and news reporting a bad name. And that’s the problem. You can’t see it.
Then there was this from Jim Loomis in our comments section.
Jim asked:
You fail to inform your legion of followers that Doug Carlson has a very long list of credentials in journalism and is universally respected by any professional who has ever dealt with him. Why is it that he cannot be believed or trusted the moment he is paid (a pittance) for his work?
A- If you write for free, you're credible.
B- Any idiot can write for free.
C- Therefore any idiot is credible.
To further clarify what we found objectionable we said this
No that’s not the point Jim. And you make my point by stating Doug’s reputation as a journalist.
I don’t begrudge someone making a living in PR but when they establish a journalistic reputation and then trade on that there is a difference between taking a normal job in PR where the veracity of information you’re disseminating is read without using the credibility of a journalist and conflating it the message with the messenger.
I’ve done PR work for projects causes I believe in. But I don’t go out and use my professional reputation to sell that product. I may use my contacts my writing skills my communication skills but I don’t say “buy this product because you’ve trusted me as a journalist”.
Disclosure helps but it is not the only part of the equation. This is a very serious ethics question these days. Many journalists and reporters will not even take a stipend to appear on a talking-head opinion TV show. And certainly they won’t trade on their credibility by taking an “outside” PR job, especially on the subjects they cover but really on any subject.
No one I know would think it ethical for a city hall reporter take a job lobbying the mayor or lobbying for the mayor or working for one side or another in any matter that could possibly come up before city government. No publisher or editor would stand for it whether “disclosed” or not. And that applies to free lancer too.
Getting paid and what you get paid for- and just as importantly what you don’t get paid for- is a major ethics issue that is becoming more scrutinized every day in journalism and reportage. And the reason I object to the blurring going on here is because it reflects on all journalists when someone does this kind of thing and worse tries to defend it.
Go to Romenesko at Pointer Institute and you’ll see the same conversation going on with virtually no one trying to actually defend these types of things only discussing what can be done about it and perhaps some discussing on how to toe the line.
----------------
And while we’re posting comments instead of real blogging today we might as well say that we might have been less than clear as to what precisely we were attempting to communicate in asking “where are they” as the humorless partisans claim that people are just misinformed about Obama and that the New Yorker cartoon adds to that problem.
An anonymous poster took us to task based on a Newsweek poll
He or she said:
"The new poll suggests white voters continue to be a challenge for Obama, with McCain leading the Democrat in that category 48 to 36 percent. Some of Obama's lag in white support may be explained by continual confusion over his religious identity. Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true.
"Newsweek story here:http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737/page/2
Are you suggesting Newsweek is making this up?
The actual poll:http://www.newsweek.com/id/145556
1200+ real people called and interviewed.
question 16 on page 8 is the source of the data re the dis info.
and here's a Youtube for you Andy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXjeOLOX6o
And perhaps our sentence yesterday regarding the New Yorker magazine’s satirical cover cartoon wasn’t very elegantly expressed. We probably buried the point we were trying to make about those that “believe” things to be true to the point where they are not ever going to be “informed” and the relationship to the complaints of the Obama campaign. We clarified by saying this:
Based on a comment above, I might have glossed over too much the fact that there are a group of people- and I’m not sure how the Newsweek poll was conducted so can’t vouch for its accuracy- who will filter the factual material about Obama through enough “beliefs” that no amount of correct information will change their minds.
But by definition that’s not who those who deride the cartoon are talking about because they objections presume that these people are just not “educated” as to the facts yet and would “learn the truth” if this type of “too tongue in cheek” thing wasn’t published.
There is a set of people in every population who will never be educated on certain matters because they don’t want to be. Heck there are millions who believe Bush/Chaney were telling the truth in the run up to Iraq. But they are not the ones who people think will have their ideas reinforced by the cartoon whereas otherwise they might all of a sudden WANT TO learn the facts. They are rather the uneducable and are not part of the equation for those who claim the cartoon reinforces their misperception that needs to be corrected.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
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.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
MCGRUFF’S MARAUDERS
MCGRUFF’S MARAUDERS: In one of the most predictable screw-ups in a screwed-up system the Department of Public Safety (DPS) apparently sent the names, addresses and medical information for all 4200 some-odd medical marijuana patients in the state to a reporter at the Hawai`i Tribune Herald (HTH) last month.
The unfathomable breach of privacy and safety- including apparently the location of their plants- was barely mentioned, buried deep inside a June 27 story about medical use of marijuana on the big Island in the HTH with just a mention that the information was in reporter Peter Sur’s hands.
Though apparently calls immediately flooded both HH and DPS offices within minutes of publication the story was evidently covered up until yesterday when HTH detailed the story, which was picked up by the Honolulu Advertiser today.
In the intervening period Governor Lingle vetoed a measure that would form a task force to look into methodology for the State growing and distributing the medication to patients and also look into whether the DPS is the right place to administrate the program.
None of the other 12 states that allow medical marijuana regulate the prescriptions through a law enforcement entity preferring to put administration where people almost universally agree it belongs- in their respective departments of health or similar entities that have experience in administering medical information and privacy laws.
What the prison system was doing keeping medical records in the first place was an issue brought up often since the legislature passed the law. At the time of enactment, advocates were assured by lawmakers that the statute would be changed in future legislative sessions but every year bills to shift responsibility of the Department of Health have died.
People around the state are apparently frantic and wonder who else now might have their records or whether there were other such breaches unreported by the troubled DPS, which has been constantly under fire for many years for it’s own lawlessness and a whole slew of issues.
A DPW spokesperson sent a letter informing the patients of the breach, saying that supposedly “steps are also being taken internally within my department so that this does not happen again”. But it did not address any specifics or say whether other such breaches have occurred or are occurring daily with already distributed lists.
One of the worst provisions of the Hawaii law- the only one in the country not passed by citizen initiative- is the sharing of information by DPS with local police and “other law enforcement agencies”, even apparently federal bureaus such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) who are known to arrest patients after the Supreme Court allowed them to do so a few years back.
According to the HTH article
The DPS Web site has a list of frequently asked questions for patients, including the question of whether a patient's confidentiality is protected.
"Yes," it says. "However, upon an inquiry by a law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Safety will verify whether a particular qualifying patient has registered with the Department and may provide reasonable access to the registry information for official law enforcement purposes."
While they try to make it sound as if they will only identify individual patients upon a request by law informant agencies for information on a specific patient named by the agency the reality is that the last part of that sentence describes the practice that has become standard- the same list that was released to HTH sits in files at every police department in the state and possibly the DEA itself
Reform of this outrageous lack of medical privacy has unfathomably been blocked by a slew of law enforcement agencies across the state who are apparently gung-ho for the money and resources the feds, states and counties provide to take medicine away from sick people.
Although we have not seen the actual lists, one source close to Kaua`i Police Department told us that the list are available to all officers and even potentially to non- sworn officers at KPD.
According to the article the lists contain the exact locations of the plants patients are allowed to grow giving thieves a road map to steal medicinal “pakalolo” as it’s know locally. If bought and sold, the herb reportedly goes for $400-500 an ounce on Kaua`i, about twice the price of California which has medical marijuana “stores” called co-ops.
More than a dozen of medical marijuana patients report to us that they do not even try to grow their own due to fears that they will be targeted by thieves and others still have had such experiences with thievery- including the theft of other items by thieves taking their plants- and now are unable to obtain the medicine needed for treatment of severe and debilitating diseases.
Others still report that they won’t even try to get their prescriptions because of the provisions for distributing the lists to federal agencies, especially many who live in federally-funded public housing or receive federal housing vouchers.
They fear that despite the fact that they receive the assistance due to their horribly debilitating conditions and diseases there is a “zero-tolerance” policy under federal law which would throw them out in the street if they admitted to using medical marijuana.
The bill vetoed by Lingle during the intervening time between the HTH security lapse and the statewide publicizing of the incident- which the House refused to override after the Senate did- would have set up a task force to do what other states like New Mexico and California have successfully done in setting up a system to grow and distributed the medicine to patients.
The bill was a compromise after being introduced in a form that would have systematized and permitted a Maui cooperative to grow and supply the marijuana to patients
------------
Correction: The correct location for Derrick DePledge's and Peter Boylan's "Notebook" blog is http://thenotebook.honadvblogs.com/ . We embedded the wrong link yesterday. We apologies for any inconvenience. Yesterday’s post has been corrected.
The unfathomable breach of privacy and safety- including apparently the location of their plants- was barely mentioned, buried deep inside a June 27 story about medical use of marijuana on the big Island in the HTH with just a mention that the information was in reporter Peter Sur’s hands.
Though apparently calls immediately flooded both HH and DPS offices within minutes of publication the story was evidently covered up until yesterday when HTH detailed the story, which was picked up by the Honolulu Advertiser today.
In the intervening period Governor Lingle vetoed a measure that would form a task force to look into methodology for the State growing and distributing the medication to patients and also look into whether the DPS is the right place to administrate the program.
None of the other 12 states that allow medical marijuana regulate the prescriptions through a law enforcement entity preferring to put administration where people almost universally agree it belongs- in their respective departments of health or similar entities that have experience in administering medical information and privacy laws.
What the prison system was doing keeping medical records in the first place was an issue brought up often since the legislature passed the law. At the time of enactment, advocates were assured by lawmakers that the statute would be changed in future legislative sessions but every year bills to shift responsibility of the Department of Health have died.
People around the state are apparently frantic and wonder who else now might have their records or whether there were other such breaches unreported by the troubled DPS, which has been constantly under fire for many years for it’s own lawlessness and a whole slew of issues.
A DPW spokesperson sent a letter informing the patients of the breach, saying that supposedly “steps are also being taken internally within my department so that this does not happen again”. But it did not address any specifics or say whether other such breaches have occurred or are occurring daily with already distributed lists.
One of the worst provisions of the Hawaii law- the only one in the country not passed by citizen initiative- is the sharing of information by DPS with local police and “other law enforcement agencies”, even apparently federal bureaus such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) who are known to arrest patients after the Supreme Court allowed them to do so a few years back.
According to the HTH article
The DPS Web site has a list of frequently asked questions for patients, including the question of whether a patient's confidentiality is protected.
"Yes," it says. "However, upon an inquiry by a law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Safety will verify whether a particular qualifying patient has registered with the Department and may provide reasonable access to the registry information for official law enforcement purposes."
While they try to make it sound as if they will only identify individual patients upon a request by law informant agencies for information on a specific patient named by the agency the reality is that the last part of that sentence describes the practice that has become standard- the same list that was released to HTH sits in files at every police department in the state and possibly the DEA itself
Reform of this outrageous lack of medical privacy has unfathomably been blocked by a slew of law enforcement agencies across the state who are apparently gung-ho for the money and resources the feds, states and counties provide to take medicine away from sick people.
Although we have not seen the actual lists, one source close to Kaua`i Police Department told us that the list are available to all officers and even potentially to non- sworn officers at KPD.
According to the article the lists contain the exact locations of the plants patients are allowed to grow giving thieves a road map to steal medicinal “pakalolo” as it’s know locally. If bought and sold, the herb reportedly goes for $400-500 an ounce on Kaua`i, about twice the price of California which has medical marijuana “stores” called co-ops.
More than a dozen of medical marijuana patients report to us that they do not even try to grow their own due to fears that they will be targeted by thieves and others still have had such experiences with thievery- including the theft of other items by thieves taking their plants- and now are unable to obtain the medicine needed for treatment of severe and debilitating diseases.
Others still report that they won’t even try to get their prescriptions because of the provisions for distributing the lists to federal agencies, especially many who live in federally-funded public housing or receive federal housing vouchers.
They fear that despite the fact that they receive the assistance due to their horribly debilitating conditions and diseases there is a “zero-tolerance” policy under federal law which would throw them out in the street if they admitted to using medical marijuana.
The bill vetoed by Lingle during the intervening time between the HTH security lapse and the statewide publicizing of the incident- which the House refused to override after the Senate did- would have set up a task force to do what other states like New Mexico and California have successfully done in setting up a system to grow and distributed the medicine to patients.
The bill was a compromise after being introduced in a form that would have systematized and permitted a Maui cooperative to grow and supply the marijuana to patients
------------
Correction: The correct location for Derrick DePledge's and Peter Boylan's "Notebook" blog is http://thenotebook.honadvblogs.com/ . We embedded the wrong link yesterday. We apologies for any inconvenience. Yesterday’s post has been corrected.
Friday, July 11, 2008
SNIFFIN’ IT OUT
SNIFFIN’ IT OUT: Our childhood hero liked to say, “we all know how painful that can be.”.
And so we were polled by SMS Research Wednesday night regarding politics on Kaua`i.
Boy did they get the wrong number.
There were four candidates on their list for mayor, including the three announced candidates and Ron Kouchi, who interestingly has not only not stated whether or not he is or is not running but has not, like Jay Furfaro, said he will not announce or has not decided what his decision will be.
We asked about Bruce Pleas and the woman said “who”?
So Bruce wasn’t conducting the polls. Though they would not identify who they were polling for we did ask if it was a commercial marketing or political poll and were strangely enough told marketing.
But it wasn’t about denture-paste or armpit-sweat.
Another question was if we were a Democrat, Republican or independent. When we said “Green” we were answered with “huh?”
“Green- like the Green Party, ya know?”
“Oh, independent.”
“No, Green. If you don’t put down Green I’m gonna put down the phone.”
“OK- Green.”
They obviously didn’t- or more likely couldn’t- pay her enough to deal with us.
The obligatory age, race and length of residency questions were also asked although interestingly enough there was no income question.
Anyway they did ask about the biggest “issues” but didn’t give multiple choices and rather asked us to fill in the blanks. We were up to issue # 8 before she told us that was enough.
That open-ended issue-identifying type question sounds, from our experience, more like an internal campaign type polling call but they said they were SMS and although the call was from an “unknown number” a callback did elicit an answer identifying “SMS”.
They also asked about the 2nd Congressional District posing Maize Hirono against perennial Republican candidate Roger Evans. Now it was our chance to ask “who?”
We thought then it might have been a Republican Party sponsored poll.
But to figure out who would be polling we really have to ask who can afford one. The first-asked Hirono question could have been a ruse to disguise the nature of the poll, something marketing companies routinely do to “throw off” the call recipient.... that’s why they get the big bucks.
We have to look to the war chests. JoAnn’s got one and Ron’s got one... and that’s it. Though this year’s filings aren’t in yet both could have around $20,000 based on 2007 numbers and past performance.
Mel’s appears to be barely solvent but he’s gonna get his especially if he keeps $1000 contributions from Washington D.C. lobbying PACa like the American Resort Development Association, unlike Kouchi and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who returned the money... although if he keeps getting fined for filing late like he did in 2007 he’ll be $50 poorer each time.
And Bernard’s gonna get more. But for a campaign that hasn’t raised a nickel to poll now doesn’t make sense. There're yard signs and brochures to print and cash-only media buys to lock-in.
But Joann’s been collecting a tidy bundle readying for 2010 since she re-entered politics in 2002. Could she be getting cold feet? Could she see the Council leadership changing and want to grab that as a stage for a 2010 run?
Whoever’s poll it is would have had to have ordered and paid for it before Monday’s Council Chamber performance.
It would make sense that that could be why JoAnn pressured Kaipo he way she did. If he had said he would run in the special election she could have ended the meeting by saying that in deference she wouldn’t challenge him, coming out rose-smelling and in line for the chair- especially if Mel and Shaylene were going bye-bye too- and a free-TV-promoted run in 2010.
The combination of the short mayoral term and the short fuse on the present economic downturn could doom the winner in a quick turnaround election especially if the winner has run on a platform of keeping the same incompetent appointed department heads- as all seem so far to be saying they’d do.
For anyone looking to 2010, the issue of “county government incompetence” is bound to be as central an issue as it is now for many Kauaians. It could look like pretty good pickin’s for anyone looking for to a wedge issue once the blinders come off and the current post-mortem gleam of the Baptiste administration fades.
Carvalho could just be unbeatable in this atmosphere and a loss for the ambitious could pin the loser tail on any donkey who fails in ’08.
Yukimura can only run and win as the anti-Baptiste candidate. If she is skilled enough it’s possible she can do it without driving away those who worshipped Bryan but who aren’t tied to anyone who has had a full time mayoral-appointed job for the 14 years since JoAnn left the mayor’s office.
Is she polling? Nah- it was Ron. He doesn’t just have a campaign war chest, he’s got a storage locker. He just wants to see if there’s any chance at all or whether to sit tight, collect more money and let the others beat each other up and wait a short two years..
-------------------
Honolulu Advertiser Capitol reporter Derrick DePledge is blogging again joining City Hall correspondent Peter Boylan at “The Notebook”. It’s a great place for the political junkie looking for background.
And so we were polled by SMS Research Wednesday night regarding politics on Kaua`i.
Boy did they get the wrong number.
There were four candidates on their list for mayor, including the three announced candidates and Ron Kouchi, who interestingly has not only not stated whether or not he is or is not running but has not, like Jay Furfaro, said he will not announce or has not decided what his decision will be.
We asked about Bruce Pleas and the woman said “who”?
So Bruce wasn’t conducting the polls. Though they would not identify who they were polling for we did ask if it was a commercial marketing or political poll and were strangely enough told marketing.
But it wasn’t about denture-paste or armpit-sweat.
Another question was if we were a Democrat, Republican or independent. When we said “Green” we were answered with “huh?”
“Green- like the Green Party, ya know?”
“Oh, independent.”
“No, Green. If you don’t put down Green I’m gonna put down the phone.”
“OK- Green.”
They obviously didn’t- or more likely couldn’t- pay her enough to deal with us.
The obligatory age, race and length of residency questions were also asked although interestingly enough there was no income question.
Anyway they did ask about the biggest “issues” but didn’t give multiple choices and rather asked us to fill in the blanks. We were up to issue # 8 before she told us that was enough.
That open-ended issue-identifying type question sounds, from our experience, more like an internal campaign type polling call but they said they were SMS and although the call was from an “unknown number” a callback did elicit an answer identifying “SMS”.
They also asked about the 2nd Congressional District posing Maize Hirono against perennial Republican candidate Roger Evans. Now it was our chance to ask “who?”
We thought then it might have been a Republican Party sponsored poll.
But to figure out who would be polling we really have to ask who can afford one. The first-asked Hirono question could have been a ruse to disguise the nature of the poll, something marketing companies routinely do to “throw off” the call recipient.... that’s why they get the big bucks.
We have to look to the war chests. JoAnn’s got one and Ron’s got one... and that’s it. Though this year’s filings aren’t in yet both could have around $20,000 based on 2007 numbers and past performance.
Mel’s appears to be barely solvent but he’s gonna get his especially if he keeps $1000 contributions from Washington D.C. lobbying PACa like the American Resort Development Association, unlike Kouchi and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who returned the money... although if he keeps getting fined for filing late like he did in 2007 he’ll be $50 poorer each time.
And Bernard’s gonna get more. But for a campaign that hasn’t raised a nickel to poll now doesn’t make sense. There're yard signs and brochures to print and cash-only media buys to lock-in.
But Joann’s been collecting a tidy bundle readying for 2010 since she re-entered politics in 2002. Could she be getting cold feet? Could she see the Council leadership changing and want to grab that as a stage for a 2010 run?
Whoever’s poll it is would have had to have ordered and paid for it before Monday’s Council Chamber performance.
It would make sense that that could be why JoAnn pressured Kaipo he way she did. If he had said he would run in the special election she could have ended the meeting by saying that in deference she wouldn’t challenge him, coming out rose-smelling and in line for the chair- especially if Mel and Shaylene were going bye-bye too- and a free-TV-promoted run in 2010.
The combination of the short mayoral term and the short fuse on the present economic downturn could doom the winner in a quick turnaround election especially if the winner has run on a platform of keeping the same incompetent appointed department heads- as all seem so far to be saying they’d do.
For anyone looking to 2010, the issue of “county government incompetence” is bound to be as central an issue as it is now for many Kauaians. It could look like pretty good pickin’s for anyone looking for to a wedge issue once the blinders come off and the current post-mortem gleam of the Baptiste administration fades.
Carvalho could just be unbeatable in this atmosphere and a loss for the ambitious could pin the loser tail on any donkey who fails in ’08.
Yukimura can only run and win as the anti-Baptiste candidate. If she is skilled enough it’s possible she can do it without driving away those who worshipped Bryan but who aren’t tied to anyone who has had a full time mayoral-appointed job for the 14 years since JoAnn left the mayor’s office.
Is she polling? Nah- it was Ron. He doesn’t just have a campaign war chest, he’s got a storage locker. He just wants to see if there’s any chance at all or whether to sit tight, collect more money and let the others beat each other up and wait a short two years..
-------------------
Honolulu Advertiser Capitol reporter Derrick DePledge is blogging again joining City Hall correspondent Peter Boylan at “The Notebook”. It’s a great place for the political junkie looking for background.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
DEM BONZ:
DEM BONZ: In a yet another somewhat stunning development in the case of the desecration of kanaka maoli burials at Ha`ena point the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Tuesday requested that the attorney general’s office send a cease and desist order to halt all construction there.
The letter questions not only the legitimacy of the state burial council’s administrative rules under state constitution and statues but details how the State Archeologist Nancy McMahon and the developer’s attorney’s Walton Hong lied to both the Kaua`i Planning Commission and the Burial Council.
The highly legally notated letter, available only in a pdf file for now, first cites HRS 6E-13 and 6E-13(b) allowing the attorney general or any citizen to file suit “for the protection of an historic site or burial site and public trust therein or improper demolition alteration or transfer of property or burial site”
Then it cites 10(4)4 and 10 1(b) which essentially requires state agencies to assist OHA saying “(i)t shall be the duty and responsibility of all state departments ... to actively work toward (OHA’s) goals”.
But the heart of the request is based on Article Vii Section 7 of the State Constitution which says the state “shall protect all rights customarily and traditionally exercised for substance cultural and religious purposes”.
Then citing HRS 6E and Chapter 13-300 of Hawaii Administrative rules which regulate the Burial Council it quotes McMahon and Hong misrepresenting the law to the two citizen panels.
At the heart of the claim is the state’s contention that the burial councils, as they have been told, have no right to have any say over burials other than to say either remove them or let them sit where they are.
OHA goes on to show that this is not true when the actual laws and rules are read, claiming that the burial council also has the right to say “no- you’ can’t build there” or other appropriate actions.
It questions the legitimacy of the process and says because the process was abused that the current decision allowing Joe Brescia to build a house on top of the numerous burials, both discovered and undiscovered at the north shore parcel at Naue in Ha`ena must be revisited and the decision of the burial council be considered void and illegitimate.
The letter includes many other specific details of and objections to the way the Burial Council, under the State Historic Preservation Department (SHPD) has violated the constitution and state laws and presents the transcripts of the misrepresentation by SHPD head McMahon, and Brescia’s attorney Hong before both the Kaua`i Planning Commission and the Burial Council.
What’s most surprising is that it took so long for OHA to start going through this process. But the confluence of events brought to light by Ka`iulani Edens Huff, Nani Rogers Louise Marston and a host of others over the last month or so has perhaps spurred them to action
And perhaps the very adamancy of the right wing wacko property rights crowd in supporting Brescia’s “right to desecrate” because he “followed all the rules” was just the thing needed to spur action by OHA,
OHA outrages their own community with regularity in its state-lap-dog habit of fighting against its own beneficiaries on so many occasions that it has become a joke to most kanaka in light of its mission.
And the fact that Chief Darryl Perry on Kaua`i brought up the state law against desecration- even though it is written separately from the laws protecting the traditional cultural and religious rights of the descendent of pre-western contact islanders- might have been contributory enough to finally provoke the ever conservative OHA to finally stand up for the rights of the people they represent.
It is an election year- for OHA too- and this story has been getting statewide media attention of late and has gotten to the point where not just many but most, in the Kaua`i community agree that something is wrong as typified by a letter in today’s local paper .
The one problem may be that the person who OHA is requesting/demanding write the cease and desist letter is allegedly the most corrupt of the hacks in the Linda Lingle administration Attorney General Mark Bennett who is responsible for the Superferry debacle and various other gubernatorial sleazy ploys, using blatantly unethical if not illegal secrecy ploys to cover-up alleged crimes by administration personnel.
How he answers the letter will be most interesting but it is apparent that asking him to do it is only OHA’s first move and that if he refuses, OHA makes it most clear that they will proceed on their own.
We leave you with the words of Nani Rogers on the current situation written this week when the corrupt pols in the AG’s and the local Kaua`i Prosecutor Craig Decosta’s office refused to back up Police Chief Perry ’s assertion that Bescia’s and Hong’s actions were desacratory.
I pray all is maita`i with you and your loved ones. Auwe! Auwe! Auwe! Kaua`i na po`e are crying over the unbelievable disrespect and denial of State and County agencies. For their disrespect of sacred burials and their denial of the truth and cultural and natural laws that protect graveyards from desecration. It is a criminal act, in anybody's law book, to desecrate burials; the Naue burials date back to the 13th century and are of great significance to our na po`e that are lineal descendants ofna iwi at Naue and to all na po`e and supporters that have been camping near by to protect them from harm for the last three months. It has been a long and hard battle but we will go on, we will continue to be there and to stand up to any challenges they may throw at us.
We urge na kanaka to come to Naue and be eye witnesses to the desecration so you can go home and tell your ohana and children. They need to learn our ways.
Ka`iu, myself, and others will be at Naue this afternoon to camp overnight again. We made a vow to protect our na po`e buried there, we must keep our promise to do all we can to do so.
To Mr. Joseph Brescia, who says he owns the `aina, to Mr. Walton Hong, his lawyer, to Mr. Galante, the contractor, to Pua Aiu, SHPD Director, to the Police Dept., the Attorney General and to Governor Lingle, et al, we say, BEWARE! get ready for the grave (pardon the pun) spiritual consequences your actions will cause. Remember that you will have brought it all upon yourselves, nobody else is to be blamed but you for anything that may happen to you and your family. Can you see that?
We pray that our na Akua, na Aumakua and na Tupuna continue to surround and protect us at Naue. We pray that our na po`e; men, women and children; buried there may continue to rest in peace. Mahalo!
The letter questions not only the legitimacy of the state burial council’s administrative rules under state constitution and statues but details how the State Archeologist Nancy McMahon and the developer’s attorney’s Walton Hong lied to both the Kaua`i Planning Commission and the Burial Council.
The highly legally notated letter, available only in a pdf file for now, first cites HRS 6E-13 and 6E-13(b) allowing the attorney general or any citizen to file suit “for the protection of an historic site or burial site and public trust therein or improper demolition alteration or transfer of property or burial site”
Then it cites 10(4)4 and 10 1(b) which essentially requires state agencies to assist OHA saying “(i)t shall be the duty and responsibility of all state departments ... to actively work toward (OHA’s) goals”.
But the heart of the request is based on Article Vii Section 7 of the State Constitution which says the state “shall protect all rights customarily and traditionally exercised for substance cultural and religious purposes”.
Then citing HRS 6E and Chapter 13-300 of Hawaii Administrative rules which regulate the Burial Council it quotes McMahon and Hong misrepresenting the law to the two citizen panels.
At the heart of the claim is the state’s contention that the burial councils, as they have been told, have no right to have any say over burials other than to say either remove them or let them sit where they are.
OHA goes on to show that this is not true when the actual laws and rules are read, claiming that the burial council also has the right to say “no- you’ can’t build there” or other appropriate actions.
It questions the legitimacy of the process and says because the process was abused that the current decision allowing Joe Brescia to build a house on top of the numerous burials, both discovered and undiscovered at the north shore parcel at Naue in Ha`ena must be revisited and the decision of the burial council be considered void and illegitimate.
The letter includes many other specific details of and objections to the way the Burial Council, under the State Historic Preservation Department (SHPD) has violated the constitution and state laws and presents the transcripts of the misrepresentation by SHPD head McMahon, and Brescia’s attorney Hong before both the Kaua`i Planning Commission and the Burial Council.
What’s most surprising is that it took so long for OHA to start going through this process. But the confluence of events brought to light by Ka`iulani Edens Huff, Nani Rogers Louise Marston and a host of others over the last month or so has perhaps spurred them to action
And perhaps the very adamancy of the right wing wacko property rights crowd in supporting Brescia’s “right to desecrate” because he “followed all the rules” was just the thing needed to spur action by OHA,
OHA outrages their own community with regularity in its state-lap-dog habit of fighting against its own beneficiaries on so many occasions that it has become a joke to most kanaka in light of its mission.
And the fact that Chief Darryl Perry on Kaua`i brought up the state law against desecration- even though it is written separately from the laws protecting the traditional cultural and religious rights of the descendent of pre-western contact islanders- might have been contributory enough to finally provoke the ever conservative OHA to finally stand up for the rights of the people they represent.
It is an election year- for OHA too- and this story has been getting statewide media attention of late and has gotten to the point where not just many but most, in the Kaua`i community agree that something is wrong as typified by a letter in today’s local paper .
The one problem may be that the person who OHA is requesting/demanding write the cease and desist letter is allegedly the most corrupt of the hacks in the Linda Lingle administration Attorney General Mark Bennett who is responsible for the Superferry debacle and various other gubernatorial sleazy ploys, using blatantly unethical if not illegal secrecy ploys to cover-up alleged crimes by administration personnel.
How he answers the letter will be most interesting but it is apparent that asking him to do it is only OHA’s first move and that if he refuses, OHA makes it most clear that they will proceed on their own.
We leave you with the words of Nani Rogers on the current situation written this week when the corrupt pols in the AG’s and the local Kaua`i Prosecutor Craig Decosta’s office refused to back up Police Chief Perry ’s assertion that Bescia’s and Hong’s actions were desacratory.
I pray all is maita`i with you and your loved ones. Auwe! Auwe! Auwe! Kaua`i na po`e are crying over the unbelievable disrespect and denial of State and County agencies. For their disrespect of sacred burials and their denial of the truth and cultural and natural laws that protect graveyards from desecration. It is a criminal act, in anybody's law book, to desecrate burials; the Naue burials date back to the 13th century and are of great significance to our na po`e that are lineal descendants ofna iwi at Naue and to all na po`e and supporters that have been camping near by to protect them from harm for the last three months. It has been a long and hard battle but we will go on, we will continue to be there and to stand up to any challenges they may throw at us.
We urge na kanaka to come to Naue and be eye witnesses to the desecration so you can go home and tell your ohana and children. They need to learn our ways.
Ka`iu, myself, and others will be at Naue this afternoon to camp overnight again. We made a vow to protect our na po`e buried there, we must keep our promise to do all we can to do so.
To Mr. Joseph Brescia, who says he owns the `aina, to Mr. Walton Hong, his lawyer, to Mr. Galante, the contractor, to Pua Aiu, SHPD Director, to the Police Dept., the Attorney General and to Governor Lingle, et al, we say, BEWARE! get ready for the grave (pardon the pun) spiritual consequences your actions will cause. Remember that you will have brought it all upon yourselves, nobody else is to be blamed but you for anything that may happen to you and your family. Can you see that?
We pray that our na Akua, na Aumakua and na Tupuna continue to surround and protect us at Naue. We pray that our na po`e; men, women and children; buried there may continue to rest in peace. Mahalo!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
GET A MUZZLE
GET A MUZZLE: After hearing and reading about and getting rather rabid over Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura’s politically suicidal meltdown during Monday’s special Council meeting to select a new Mayor we heard from someone who said maybe we- and the press- had it all wrong and unfairly portrayed the drama.
But after watching the meeting on TV it was perhaps more astonishing than reported because Yukimura had an opportunity for an “out” but persevered to clarify her self-serving insistence that Asing “declare (his) intentions” and pledge not to challenge her in the upcoming election.
After watching Yukimura’s first statement to open the post-public testimony part of the meeting we were thinking that maybe our friend was right.
She started out by reading an announcement of her own candidacy for the mayoral special election and actually stated that she herself would not be in the running for the temporary slot saying “it would be inappropriate” and would give her an advantage.
So far no problem. But then she went on to raise some eyebrows by saying “It’s about fairness in not giving any candidate in the special election an advantage.”.
Well still it could be interpreted as referring to her decision although it was getting close to the line of trying to set that standard for all.
Then she ended with a seemingly separate statement saying “I do want to encourage you Mr. Chair to consider the appointment.”.
Well if one wanted to be chartable you could look at it as two statements, one of which could be seen as a proclamation of her intent to run in the election and the other saying that rather than try to take an unfair advantage of incumbency she would support Council Chair Kaipo Asing for the five month temporary stint- leaving intimated but not stated that maybe he should consider not running in the election after taking the empty mayor’s job.
Then there was some discussion among councilmembers about whether others should choose one or the other-selection or election- but not both. Tim Bynum supported JoAnn’s thoughts but Mel Rapozo, Ron Kouchi and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho said they disagreed with JoAnn saying essentially that everyone should be free to do either, both or neither depending on their aspirations. They all supported Asing’s selection in the upcoming vote.
At that point it was an issue on the table but far from being contentious it was a civil discussion on a real and politically core question of whether it would be “fair” to be temporary mayor and at the same time run in the election for the two year term.
We were beginning to wonder- did the press play this up too much- where was all the vexing and venom? Did the papers try to play it as a battle royal and somehow force Yukimura to apologize for something that could be seen as having been taken out of context- something she never meant?
But never underestimate Yukimura’s most persistently cited character trait- her inability to put the kibosh on the piehole and shut her yap.
So then came the words that perhaps doomed her campaign even before they stopped echoing in the Council chambers.
Looking directly at Asing and saying she would support him for the fill-in slot, in adamant and no uncertain terms she said “I will be voting with the understanding that you will not be running in the special election. We need to know what your intentions are.”
That was the opening Mel “the humble servant” Rapozo needed and he won the political play of the day award by “defending” Asing from Yukimura’s attack calling it “unfair” and “pretty selfish” and saying to Asing “I would encourage you not to answer the question”, convincingly espousing “shock, shock” that at a table of seven politicians choosing which one would move on to higher office that someone would stoop to playing politics.
We’re flabbergasted too....that someone like Mel could pull it off without himself and everyone else doubled over in laughter.
From there Yukimura once again compounded the blunder and again tried to defend herself by saying she had asked his intent “only out of a guideline of fairness I thought was appropriate”. begging the question that crystallized the situation- “fair to who? You?”.
Then Asing, speaking on the subject for the first time, either feeling or feigning a deep personal wound, gave a humble “et tu Brute” inspired speech saying things like “it’s almost like my integrity is at stake” and that it was “not fair to ask me to answer a question like that”.
He then went on to say he had already decided to run “one more time” for council before Bryan Baptiste’s death and saying to Yukimura in essence what we said yesterday- if she had waited to hear what he had to say or bothered to ask the clerk she’d know he had already filed his papers to run for Council again- and filed them after the Mayor’s death.
That brought a slew of comments including some tactful yet scathing attacks from Rapozo and tactless yet more personal and effective wounds from surrogate Iseri who really lit into her long time nemesis.
There was a reason Yukimura was described in the press as “viably upset” by the developments.
She “apologized” replete with emotionally-tinged long pauses every few words trying to find the words to apologize while even still combatively protesting that she “was trying to (long pause) show that (long pause) we need to follow (long pause) certain guidelines”, going on to say it was not her “intention to question (Asing’s) integrity” and that “it was not my intention to stop you from running for any office”
Some apology. I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to have this blow up in my face like an exploding cigar.
A couple of other notes. According to Iseri, Rapozo has also filed papers to run for council although presumably that was done before Baptiste’s death. Can you change your filing and run for mayor instead? We’ll be trying to find out.
And on the subject of the dual offices for Asing we described yesterday, one member of the public did bring up the plain meaning and words of the Charter indicating that, the person “selected” by the council becomes mayor at the moment the vote concludes and that the vote caused a vacancy on the Council as well as the mayoral slot.
However that was ignored, as are most things that question either the propriety or authority of Asing and “his” Council. Asing refused to recall the County Attorney to discuss the actual law, not just what “general practice” called for as the CA had previously based his analysis.
That’s galling to many especially given that this process was anything but routine and it’s described quite clearly in the Charter- which one would think trumps “general practice”
Why should we be surprised these day when administrators consider constitutions- whether federal, state or local- to be of use only in a “we ran out of toilet paper” emergency. Now that Kaipo is a true administration head his years of ignoring our county’s constitutional “Charter” as the “administrator” of the council have prepared him well for his new assignment- should he chose to accept it. This county will self destruct in 10 seconds
But after watching the meeting on TV it was perhaps more astonishing than reported because Yukimura had an opportunity for an “out” but persevered to clarify her self-serving insistence that Asing “declare (his) intentions” and pledge not to challenge her in the upcoming election.
After watching Yukimura’s first statement to open the post-public testimony part of the meeting we were thinking that maybe our friend was right.
She started out by reading an announcement of her own candidacy for the mayoral special election and actually stated that she herself would not be in the running for the temporary slot saying “it would be inappropriate” and would give her an advantage.
So far no problem. But then she went on to raise some eyebrows by saying “It’s about fairness in not giving any candidate in the special election an advantage.”.
Well still it could be interpreted as referring to her decision although it was getting close to the line of trying to set that standard for all.
Then she ended with a seemingly separate statement saying “I do want to encourage you Mr. Chair to consider the appointment.”.
Well if one wanted to be chartable you could look at it as two statements, one of which could be seen as a proclamation of her intent to run in the election and the other saying that rather than try to take an unfair advantage of incumbency she would support Council Chair Kaipo Asing for the five month temporary stint- leaving intimated but not stated that maybe he should consider not running in the election after taking the empty mayor’s job.
Then there was some discussion among councilmembers about whether others should choose one or the other-selection or election- but not both. Tim Bynum supported JoAnn’s thoughts but Mel Rapozo, Ron Kouchi and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho said they disagreed with JoAnn saying essentially that everyone should be free to do either, both or neither depending on their aspirations. They all supported Asing’s selection in the upcoming vote.
At that point it was an issue on the table but far from being contentious it was a civil discussion on a real and politically core question of whether it would be “fair” to be temporary mayor and at the same time run in the election for the two year term.
We were beginning to wonder- did the press play this up too much- where was all the vexing and venom? Did the papers try to play it as a battle royal and somehow force Yukimura to apologize for something that could be seen as having been taken out of context- something she never meant?
But never underestimate Yukimura’s most persistently cited character trait- her inability to put the kibosh on the piehole and shut her yap.
So then came the words that perhaps doomed her campaign even before they stopped echoing in the Council chambers.
Looking directly at Asing and saying she would support him for the fill-in slot, in adamant and no uncertain terms she said “I will be voting with the understanding that you will not be running in the special election. We need to know what your intentions are.”
That was the opening Mel “the humble servant” Rapozo needed and he won the political play of the day award by “defending” Asing from Yukimura’s attack calling it “unfair” and “pretty selfish” and saying to Asing “I would encourage you not to answer the question”, convincingly espousing “shock, shock” that at a table of seven politicians choosing which one would move on to higher office that someone would stoop to playing politics.
We’re flabbergasted too....that someone like Mel could pull it off without himself and everyone else doubled over in laughter.
From there Yukimura once again compounded the blunder and again tried to defend herself by saying she had asked his intent “only out of a guideline of fairness I thought was appropriate”. begging the question that crystallized the situation- “fair to who? You?”.
Then Asing, speaking on the subject for the first time, either feeling or feigning a deep personal wound, gave a humble “et tu Brute” inspired speech saying things like “it’s almost like my integrity is at stake” and that it was “not fair to ask me to answer a question like that”.
He then went on to say he had already decided to run “one more time” for council before Bryan Baptiste’s death and saying to Yukimura in essence what we said yesterday- if she had waited to hear what he had to say or bothered to ask the clerk she’d know he had already filed his papers to run for Council again- and filed them after the Mayor’s death.
That brought a slew of comments including some tactful yet scathing attacks from Rapozo and tactless yet more personal and effective wounds from surrogate Iseri who really lit into her long time nemesis.
There was a reason Yukimura was described in the press as “viably upset” by the developments.
She “apologized” replete with emotionally-tinged long pauses every few words trying to find the words to apologize while even still combatively protesting that she “was trying to (long pause) show that (long pause) we need to follow (long pause) certain guidelines”, going on to say it was not her “intention to question (Asing’s) integrity” and that “it was not my intention to stop you from running for any office”
Some apology. I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to have this blow up in my face like an exploding cigar.
A couple of other notes. According to Iseri, Rapozo has also filed papers to run for council although presumably that was done before Baptiste’s death. Can you change your filing and run for mayor instead? We’ll be trying to find out.
And on the subject of the dual offices for Asing we described yesterday, one member of the public did bring up the plain meaning and words of the Charter indicating that, the person “selected” by the council becomes mayor at the moment the vote concludes and that the vote caused a vacancy on the Council as well as the mayoral slot.
However that was ignored, as are most things that question either the propriety or authority of Asing and “his” Council. Asing refused to recall the County Attorney to discuss the actual law, not just what “general practice” called for as the CA had previously based his analysis.
That’s galling to many especially given that this process was anything but routine and it’s described quite clearly in the Charter- which one would think trumps “general practice”
Why should we be surprised these day when administrators consider constitutions- whether federal, state or local- to be of use only in a “we ran out of toilet paper” emergency. Now that Kaipo is a true administration head his years of ignoring our county’s constitutional “Charter” as the “administrator” of the council have prepared him well for his new assignment- should he chose to accept it. This county will self destruct in 10 seconds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
