Disappeared News

A Senate committee heard rather shocking testimony today on how the Lingle Administration has managed Hawaii's first-in-the-nation gasoline cap law. A representative of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission testified this morning that the law has not been administered in a way that would lower prices as the law permits. Instead, prices have been set at the maximum values the law allows.

In response to questioning on SB2911 before Senator Ron Menor and Senator Rosalyn Baker, Chair and Vice Chair respectively of the Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Housing, the Public Utilities Commission stated that it has not been administering the price cap law to reduce prices at all, but to only to maintain "stability in the market."

Testimony by the PUC at today's hearing revealed:

• Under the law, when gasoline prices spiked in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the PUC could have removed high Gulf prices from the equation and substituted prices in Singapore, which shares similar sourcing to Hawaii--but it chose not to, thereby allowing Hawaii prices to rise although none of Hawaii's gasoline comes from refineries in the Gulf. Removing the Gulf would have insulated Hawaii prices from the effects of the hurricane.
• The PUC could have reduced the marketing margin from 18 cents to 1 cent, as recommended by their consultant, but did not.
• The PUC could have eliminated the 6.5 cent zone adjustment and accepted their consultant's recommendation of 2.5 cents, but did not.
• Staffing has not been put in place as required by the law until recently, and some is not yet in place

The PUC representative testified he did not understand that the purpose of the law was to reduce prices but understood it to require that the PUC provide "stability in the market" (the law begins:" SECTION 1. During the 2002 legislative session, the legislature found that affirmative action was necessary to address the high price of gasoline...").

Republican Governor Linda Lingle has consistently opposed the gasoline price cap law, which is the first in nation.

It appears now that her administration has used the law in a way that sets prices at the highest rates permitted rather than the lowest. No doubt this has influenced many of the public to conclude that the gas cap has not worked.

The Hawaii State Legislature is currently considering bills to both fine-tune and improve the gas cap law and to repeal it altogether. Some testimony has referred to the high prices following Katrina as proof that the law is not working. Other testimony points to the soaring price of diesel fuel, which is not regulated, as a demonstration that it is working (the price of gasoline and diesel often went up and down in tandem in the past).

During the period that the gas cap has been in place, oil companies have reported all-time record profits, indicating that the law has not harmed them as has been predicted by its critics.

At a time when taxes and prices are rising and putting pressure on those with limited incomes, failure to fully implement the gasoline cap has been a hardship for individuals on limited or fixed incomes and for small businesses struggling to meet expenses.

Today's hearing has demonstrated that the gas cap law has been rigged in such a way as to produce higher prices than it could have if the intent of the legislature were followed by the Lingle administration.

To administer the law in a way that maintains high prices rather than produces the maximum reductions is a disservice to everyone in Hawaii--except possibly the oil lobby.

It's far too simplistic to accept that the recent cartoon controversy which resulted in overseas protests is a clash of theologies and politics--there is an important psychological component playing out that remains largely unspoken. It's time to put this matter on the couch and talk it out.

Recall Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network," shouting from the window "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" In other words, the reaction against the cartoon of Muhammad drawn as a terrorist and its derivatives, many of which are also offensive, is more than just a protest against the cartoons. Think of it as a revolt against the entire milieu, against the totality of the environment of which the cartoons are a part. It is a reaction against the entire social setting in which one group finds itself marginalized and persecuted in multiple racially discriminatory ways, relentlessly, and by a power that is stronger but morally bankrupt.

To reframe, the average practitioner of Islam is not a terrorist, but he, and any male with dark skin or a turban or certain forenames or surnames, is subject to be severely punished in undeniably racist ways by the American government--kidnapped and held indefinitely in horrible conditions without basic human rights, without right to council, without charges, even shipped to secret locations where he can be tortured and murdered. No one will be held responsible for these crimes. Short of any of that happening, there is suspicion in the general population of his religion, charities and businesses, and he faces discrimination that makes him less than even a second class citizen.

Politically, the West is not solving the Mid-East peace problem, it is feeding war and supporting the suppression of entire populations. The West Bank is cut up like Swiss cheese. The ancient city of Falluja has been totally destroyed. The occupiers are not benevolent, in fact they murder and torture, and hold family members hostage. Casualties in Iraq are reported to be over 100,000 civilians but if the American press expresses concern at all, it is over the approximately 2300 U.S. service members killed, not over the magnitude larger Iraqi civilian death toll.

We, the American people, know all this, it's no longer a secret, and we do nothing about it. This was the cause of the widespread revolt. Not just a bunch of cartoons.

We may feel comfortable here in our homeland, but we cannot escape responsibility. One day, when today's children grow up, some of them will ask, "Daddy, Mommy, where were you when Falluja was bombed to smithereens?"

It's very seldom that cartoons make headlines. Sure, they are a key part of editorial page expression, but the leap to Page 1 must be exceedingly rare.

The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the ensuing riots in various countries resulted in a huge splat, if not a splash, on the front pages of newspapers everywhere. Mostly, it was news that I think readers wish would not have happened. With all the troubles in the world, couldn't we have somehow avoided this confrontation?

Right into this fray, for some reason, steps the Honolulu Weekly, with an original twist: a new offensive cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad as a smiley face, penned by John Pritchett, was published in their February 8 issue. Looking at it, I simply wondered "why?" They can't possibly be having trouble in the free speech department, so what purpose might it serve to gratuitiously offend people?

The weekly published three letters in the next paper questioning their decision, one of which was mine. I asked if they could tell us why they chose to publish that cartoon.

In response, the Weekly gave John a good hunk of their scarce editorial real estate in which he explained first that he turned down KHON (which he referred to as one of the "mainstream chicken-shit, media outlets") for an interview because they would not allow him to display the controversial cartoon responsible for igniting the opposition and riots in the Mid-East. He chastised KHON as "among those, who in my opinion, are undermining the First Amendment by kowtowing to a handful of Islamic extremists."

Never mind that one needn't be an Islamic extremist to be offended by either the controversial cartoon or John's smirky image. In fact, one needn't be a follower of that religion at all to find them offensive.

Oh... of course, John and the Weekly had to print the Danish cartoon just to make some point. Which point or what point I am not sure, but I guess the Weekly editor and publisher think differently than the usual "chicken-shit" media. So there it is, the cartoon that they knew to be offensive, displayed again to make one cartoonist happy.

Kudos to KHON. Shame on the Weekly.

John's remark about the First Amendment is also off-base and escaped editorial attention. Here is the text of the amendment:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the First Amendment prevents the government from interfereing with the press, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a TV station or newspaper exercises discretion over what it publishes.

The Weekly is sadly short of discretion. Whatever point they are trying to make, it's too bad that they had to offend many of their readers to make it.

I would cancel my subscription, except that the paper is free.

This article first appeared in The Free Range Gourmet.

According to an article in The Guardian of London dated February 2, 2006:

The mineral content of milk and popular meats has fallen significantly in the past 60 years, according to a new analysis of government records of the chemical composition of everyday food.

The analysis, which refers to UK products, presents the following details:

The levels of iron recorded in the average rump steak have dropped by 55%, while magnesium fell by 7%. Looking at 15 different meat items, the analysis found that the iron content had fallen on average by 47%. The iron content of milk had dropped by more than 60%, and by more than 50% for cream and eight different cheeses. Milk appears to have lost 2% of its calcium, and 21% of its magnesium too.

Most cheeses showed a fall in magnesium and calcium levels. According to the analysis, cheddar provides 9% less calcium today, 38% less magnesium and 47% less iron, while parmesan shows the steepest drop in nutrients, with magnesium levels down by 70% and iron all gone compared with its content in the years up to 1940.

This reminded me of a similar article I had read a number of years ago that originated here in the USA. Fortunately, Google also remembered it, and I can report that things seem to be no better here at home.

The article Vegetables Without Vitamins reports shockingly similar results. The UK study compared nutritional tables published in 1940 and again in 2002. US author Alex Jack compared US Department of Agriculture food tables from 1973 and 1997.

This article mentions some findings:

Collards are not the greens they used to be. If you're eating them for minerals and vitamin A, be aware that the vitamin A content has fallen from 6500 IUs to 3800 IUs. Their potassium has dropped from from 400 mg to 170 mg. Magnesium has fallen sharply-57 mg to 9. Cauliflower has lost almost half its vitamin C, along with its thiamin and riboflavin. Most of the calcium in pineapple is gone-from 17 mg (per 100 grams raw) to 7. And the list goes on and on.

In a 2004 article, The Disappearing Nutrients in America's Orchards, Alex Jack asks:

"Will an apple a day with 40% less vitamin A, 40% less iron, and 30% less phosphorus still keep the doctor way?"

There is additional data that points to a decline in the nutritional value of eggs due to increased factory-farming:

These factory-farm eggs contain significantly less health-enhancing carotenes that eggs from a pasture-raised chickens. This difference is easy to see because the more carotenes, the more orange in color the yolks are. Factory-farm aggs also are lower in vitamin E, vitamins B-12, vitamin A, folic acid and omega-3 fatty acids, according to a remarkable collection of studies assembled by journalist Jo Robinson on her web site, www.eatwild.com. Robinson also documents that not only do factory-farm eggs contain less vitamins, they have more fat and cholesterol than eggs from pastured poultry.

The Longevity Institute, reviewing this issue, states the concern well for anyone who must plan a family's nutritional needs or who is interested in influencing public policy decisions:

Soil and agriculture experts assure there is a sufficient mineral supply in soils for plants to thrive well. We have no reason to oppose their views. We are not concerned with the well being of plants. We are concerned with the health of the people eating the plants.

It's not clear that there is significant public awareness that our food supply is being systematically degraded. Who is working to inform the public and to work to restore nutrient levels in the common foods we consume each day? While the Slow Food movement seeks to preserve endangered food, what organizations work on the concerns raised in the Guardian article just published? This data is quite shocking. Especially if you believe that we are what we eat.

Lahaina Intermediate School´s plan to introduce drug-sniffing dogs onto their campus ("Lahaina school considers drug dogs", Honolulu Advertiser, 1/10/2006) is an admission of failure. Either they have failed to educate children to refuse when approached to buy or take drugs, or for some reason students at this school have bucked the state and national trends that show a marked decrease in drug use among school children.

Either way, parents should be very concerned.

Use of illicit drugs by students in Hawaii has been on the decline for years. The 2003 ADAD study available on the Department of Health website found that reports of ecstasy, marijuana, methamphetamines and hallucinogens dropped, and most other illicit drugs decreased slightly or remained unchanged. The DOH surveyed public schools and selected private schools. Nationally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse also found that use of illicit drugs for the grades surveyed decreased significantly. These findings mean that sound educational programs are working to decrease drug use. If Lahaina Intermediate has to resort to dogs, parents should ask administrators what went wrong in the classrooms.

Mid-Pacific Institute, a private school, may be having its own drug problems. Last year ("Mid-Pac to start drug tests", Honolulu Advertiser, March 18, 2005) administrators instituted a voluntary program based on random urine testing. The program was put in place despite vocal opposition by some parents who suggested that there are better evidence-based programs that could be adopted.

Students should be taught to resist drugs and not how to duck detection by dogs or random urine testing. Parents planning to send their children to Lahaina Intermediate or to Mid-Pac might consider whether they should instead choose a school with a proven effective drug education program.

Parents want to know that if their child should be approached by a stranger offering drugs, whether on-campus or off, the child will know to refuse and walk away. If children can resist these offers and peer pressure, then there is no need for dogs in the school or for intrusive random drug testing. These enforcement measures are no substitute for evidence-based programs that are effective at other schools. Dogs may keep the schoolroom free of drugs, but they do nothing to immunize students against pressures they may encounter on the sidewalks nearby.

Perhaps Mid-Pac administrators have been dragged into the "war on drugs" by Mid-Pac parent Peter Carlile, the city prosecutor who would love to have drug testing in public schools. If so, Mid-Pac parents might be concerned about this manipulation--because their children could benefit from proven programs instead of this cheap substitute. And they might also think of the effect on a family if there is a false positive--that is, if an erroneous report comes home indicating that their child has used drugs. Suddenly, parent will be pitted against child, with the child at a distinct disadvantage. It would be an unfortunate consequence of the enforcement mentality that Peter Carlile and others would impose on our schools.

Why don't the newspapers tell us about the effective drug education programs that are available? How can we find out how bad the problem is at these two schools? How can we keep prosecutors out of education?