Disappeared News

The space shuttle Discovery is scheduled for liftoff tomorrow (Saturday), but is it safe to fly? Government secrecy is preventing the release of information that would indicate more work is needed before the approval to launch should be given.

Information formerly available to the public is being withheld by the Bush administration. This year, documents that were used during NASA's flight readiness review have been withheld, according to a report by South Florida TV station WKMG. The station reports:

E-mails sent to NASA's administrator from the agency's inspector general's office obtained by the Orlando Sentinel said they didn't believe shuttle Discovery should launch without more work to prevent foam insulation from breaking off the external fuel tank.

NASA already had a "no go" for flight from the agency's top safety official and chief engineer. However, NASA managers went ahead and gave the "go for launch" for Saturday.

Launching the flight under unsafe conditions could result in a tragedy that we all would like to see avoided. Shrouding the decisionmaking process in secrecy (why?) is not in the best interests of the crew.

Most of the information in the press on whether we do indeed have a right to privacy in our phone calling has been pretty nebulous. We know that some lawsuits have been filed, but the papers just report it, there is little in-depth analysis. For example, under what conditions can the government get hold of your calling records, and if they have done so improperly, what is your recourse?

Librarian Marylaine Block at NeatNew has dug up this Congressional Research Report which should help answer questions and also be a resource for anyone writing on the subject: Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities

Time to empty out your wallets, folks, they're coming around collecting for a new transit system.

From an essay reprinted periodically by the American Institute for Economic Research:

Stand Still, Little Lambs, To Be Shorn !

Among the readers of this publication are a large and probably representative sample of America's "forgotten men and women." They are "forgotten" in the sense of the 19th-century social philosopher William Graham Sumner's name for the "quiet, virtuous, domestic citizen, who pays his debts and his taxes." These citizens are forgotten, that is, except when their votes are sought by those who would become the Nation's political leaders.

From one point of view, however, the virtuous citizen who pays his taxes never is forgotten. The citizen's task is the never-ending one of providing the funds for all public projects ranging from the necessary to the sometimes worse than useless...

The essay is on inflation and the gold standard, but we can adopt its opening premise as a warning, because once again, we are being asked to stand still and just pay for a massive, expensive public project.

Fooling the People

Does anyone trust that the proposed transit plan for Honolulu will cost anything near the $3 billion figure that's now appearing in headlines? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell, and Hawaii may be the place that might buy it.

We live in an age where leadership is conducted not through statesmanship or strength of character, but by the promulgation of an endless stream of lies, half-truths, smoke and mirrors. Public opinion is swayed by public relations campaigns. Press secretaries manage the news, and their words are dutifully transcribed by a compliant, and often complicit, corporate-dominated press. Politicians and yes, often the press, are beholden to corporations rather than to the people.

I'm not talking about the promoters of a war in a distant land, but of Hawaii, a chain of sacred islands in the Pacific Ocean that could shortly sink under the weight of concrete and asphalt as it is being exploited for the profit of everyone but those who live here.

So how are we being fooled? The headline of Crystal Kua's June 23 article in the Star-Bulletin (Rail line renderings ring alarm bells) was very appropriate. Notice that there are no shadows under the rail structures. Even the undersides are bright and sunny (good trick!). The Advertiser pictures are the same: the parked cars have shadows, but miraculously, the ugly structures do not.

Check out this picture from today's Star-Bulletin. The artist knows about shadows, because he gave the two people their own shadows. But the station and tracks seem supernatural because they cast no shadows at all. That's a deception.

Here's another--cars and telephone poles cast shadows, but not the structure, and the underside is bright and cheery.

These are not honest "pictures," of couse, they are artist renderings. They've been photoshopped to convince you of the beauty and elegance of the mass transit system you're being asked to pay for. They are, in short, lies. The tracks and stations, when built, will be different. For one thing, stairs or escalators leading up to the stations have to be fully covered or people will slip and slide in the rain. Station platforms will have to be fully roofed or passengers will not ride the trains--commuting from home to the office is not supposed to lead to skin cancer. In other words, the current drawings are pure fiction. Fantasy might be a better description.

Artists renderings are propaganda designed to sell a project to the public. They are drawn to deceive. Beware of views that are distant or too clean, lack shadows or realistic depiction of the blight that overhead rail structures can become.

Yes, we who let ourselves be talked into a failing but expensive Convention Center and now a risky and faltering Kakaako medical school (where is that research money we were promised would pay for it all?) are about to be shorn again, if we let them do it to us.

Well then, who benefits??

Of course, developers, architects and engineers, construction companies and many others (often Mainland-owned) will benefit from rail transit. The value of their developments will go up. It will be easier to sell tracts in Central Oahu if developers promise a rail transit system and relief from the horror of rush-hour traffic into and out of central Honolulu.

Trouble is, they are selling lies. By the very act of constructing tens of thousands of new homes, developers doom all of us to ever-increasing traffic and longer commutes as well. We'll also end up paying, through our taxes, for the water, sewage, road and energy costs of transit-driven development.

When Kalanianaole Highway was widened property values in East Hawaii went up, followed of course by development. The same will happen in Ewa as soon as transit plans are approved. Each new home comes with one or more new cars. Those cars, of course, will be used, they're not parked for display purposes.

Think about it--our tax money is being taken for a project to benefit primarily the folks who are making life on Oahu increasingly miserable for the rest of us!

Construction is not a sustainable industry for an island. Materials for rail transit will be imported, of course, but predictably so will cheap labor. Money will flow out of the state, just as tourism money does.

No reduction in traffic due to rail ridership

But what about the folks who work in town who will give up their cars to ride the train? As soon as they do so, a parking space becomes available. In no time it will be snatched up by someone else. Of course it will, because parking spaces are a premium commodity in Honolulu. So net reduction in traffic: zero.

Net effect of transit can be bad for Oahu residents

I'm lucky enough to live near town. I would say that those stuck in an hour-long commmute each way to get to or from work are actually suffering at this point, because life is not supposed to be like that. Adding more houses in Ewa will certainly overwhelm any benefits of mass transit. Our state and county governments seem to be in cahoots with greedy and of course uncaring developers. What about sensible urban planning and preservation of our quality of life?

Worse, we'll be paying for the cost of the system even if it doesn't reduce traffic and whether or not people ride it. Rail is not like bus transit--getting rid of buses or re-routing them is easy. One could, conceivably, sell all the buses to some third-world country and be quickly relieved of the expense. Tearing down Mufi's Folly would not be easy, nor is there likely to be federal money available to pay the cost. Rather than tear it down, the city will continue to dip into our wallets for maintenance costs.

The end of the Myrtle Avenue El

New York City did tear down its overhead rail structures.

The Bridge-Jay Street station of the elevated BMT Myrtle Avenue line was closed on October 4, 1969. I watched from a classroom at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn that overlooked the station, and revisited the area later after the station and tracks had been torn down.

I remember clearly the joy and jubilation as the neighborhood was reborn. Sunshine and vitality returned to the newly liberated streets, along with blessed quiet and dignity. Shop owners repainted their signs and new businesses moved in.

Apartments above the shops put out window boxes. Yes--for the first time in more than 80 years, plants would grow in window boxes! It was great when the El came down.

And we want to put one up.

Underneath an elevated structure it can be noisy, dark and unfriendly to nearby businesses. Neighborhoods can be ruined. Near the stations litter flies everywhere. It's not quiet-there may be bells, loudspeaker announcements, and whatever screeches the trains make. Maybe we'll need announcements in English and Japanese.

The Tokyo Monorail was built to run mostly over water because even with modern support technology overhead rail structures and stations can become a blight. Its stations are in industrial rather than residential areas.

What Oahu can expect

A transit system that brings people to work who could not afford to ride in cars increases productivity of labor. This seems to be undisputed, and it is what keeps giant cities like New York, London and Tokyo going and growing. But do we want Honolulu to grow without limit? If rail transit increases development, then it deteriorates quality of life for all of us.

Not only will traffic increase on highways and streets that feed them but the infrastructure must eventually give out. Rail transit-driven development will strain water and sewer lines and require more electricity to feed all of this.

In the end, will we be better or worse off?

I wrote this in 1993, still feeling like the relative newcomer to Hawaii that I was. It may have been my first letter to the editor. I just found it while cleaning out the file cabinet and thought it is still pretty good, so here it is again.

In order for us to protect our land, water, air and way of life, we first have to take back control of these things from our government and public servants. No one will give us want we want unless we ask, insist, convince and convert.

Each day the newspaper reveals a new excess or a new deficiency. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lawsuit but continue to operate a defective sewage system that dumps raw human waste into our coastal waters. We allocate $450,000 to develop a software industry in Hawaii while our schools can't help our children learn to think with their heads. The "we" is each of us, you and me, my family and your family. Because until we demand change, we will not get it. The system is designed that way. But we are the ones letting it go on and on.

It should be clear that if we let government go unguided, it will go its own way. Sure, no government is free of corruption. Not everyone on a city council or in a state legislature can be a wise and representative leader, at least all of the time. Who can we blame but ourselves if we simply vote for those with the most power and influence and fail to tell them what to do with it? When I hear of cronyism or the "old boy network" I can only be angry with myself. I let it happen--I just read about it, complained to anyone within earshot, and then did nothing. So I am not angry with those old boys, because they are behaving as old boys will if I let them. Old boys will be old boys.

And I'm not angry with you, who may read this. Well, I am a little, to tell the truth. As a relative newcomer to Hawaii, I'm disappointed in how I find it is being kept. How can those who claim these beautiful Islands as their home let them be trampled, befouled and even raped? Let no one accuse me of "blaming the victim," because we who live here are not victims, we are the perpetrators.

It is not difficult to come up with a short list of things that we can accomplish, if we can join our voices together. My list may not look like your list, but between us we will come up with something we both want. For example, I would ask you if you want to fix the sewer system. The money can be found, because we will work on that, too. Would you like to have a bus or other transportation system that will take you from near where you live to near where you work? I would like that, too. We can have it, if you want it also, and if we go and get it,

There is a lot that you and I and our neighbors can talk about. Let's meet in your place or mine, or in the public libraries or on the streets. We can write things down, and ask our legislators to pass them into law. We can take the power and influence back for ourselves. I know we can, and you know we can. If we don't get together to do something, then we have only ourselves to blame for how they are.

Look at that--sewage system problems in 1993 that no one did anything about. It's not like I have a crystal ball or special powers. Anyone could have written the same thing back then. As we know, nothing was done.

I stand by my statement above that it is our fault.

Athough today's Advertiser story Lack of blood test in crash an issue begins to dig into the issue, the paper is far behind investigative blogger Ian Lind who carried discussion of the police failure to take a blood sample in his Sunday article. Ian not only cited the statute but emphasized the operative word here, which is "Mandatory". Ian returned to the issue today, citing the Advertiser story and adding references to some relevent cases.

Although the "police official" (who remains unidentified in the Advertiser story for some reason--does this person require protection, or is it just sloppy journalism?) said that the department "considers differently each instance in which a driver involved in a fatal crash refuses to give blood, saliva, urine, or submit to a field sobriety test," this does not appear to square with the law. If there is a fatality, the police have all the probable cause they need. This seems to be supported in the cases Ian cited.

So the question that should be asked is why the police broke the law themselves, by failing to get a blood or urine sample. In the Arakawa case which we still remember (and which was cited by both the Advertiser and Ian Lind), they similarly failed to take the required tests but evidence was fortunately obtainable in other ways.

This case raises a related issue for me--why police are not enforcing the laws that we have. Each of us has witnessed outrageous speeding on the highways, and probably not a day goes by when a driver is not tailgated closely in any lane multiple times. Yet tailgaters and speeders (along with red-light runners and crosswalk violators) know that the chances of being caught are negligible. In fact, you almost never see police on the streets or highways enforcing these laws.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is not condoned by our society and so we have laws to protect us. Police do not have an option in these matters, and Peter Carlisle, who favors drug testing of innocent school children, should not hesitate to include police who fail to enforce the laws we have in his investigations.

Fat chance.

Update: Apologies to Ian Lind whose name I misspelled in the original post, and thanks to the reader who caught it.

Update2: darn, I also misspelled Peter Carlisle. Now corrected. Thanks to David, and also thanks for the link (see comments).

George Fox asks a very simple question over at his Blast-Em blog:

My question is: why does it cost more to collect 4.5% than 4.0%. The state is already collecting 4.0% if they collect 4.5% and write a check to the state for one ninth of the amount collected (the amount of the transit tax) why does this cost more than collecting 4.0% and not writing any check? So why does Governor Lingle demand five million dollars for setting it up? What am I missing here? I knew with all this new money floating around it wouldn’t be long before the politicians would start fighting over the spoils.

Maybe things are more complex than this, but the question cuts to the heart of this dispute. George's question deserves an answer. I hope someone is hurriedly thinking up one.

Heck, I have a pocket calculator. If the governor calls me in once a month, I'll help write the check for only 1/10th of that $5 million.

Or she can have the person in charge call me at home and I'll do it from there. I'll even split it with George, since this is his idea. Or I'm sure he wouldn't mind applying for the job himself.

What is it about our city and state governments that they can't work out simple things like this? I'm thinking of the recent Ala Moana Park eviction which was a textbook case for our city planners (in their case, they chose to throw away the textbook and do it without any planning). As you recall, the City summarily threw 200 people out of the park without a thought or care to where they would go or how they would get services. With little effort, the governor stepped in, ending the City's shame. Mass transit is more complicated than this. It takes more than a simple police action. It takes some smarts to do right. So you see why I'm hoping they can find where they threw that textbook and start reading it. I don't know where one gets the attitude adjustment which I think both the mayor and city council need very badly.

And is there a textbook for governors? Thanks for Kaka`ako, but withholding funds, asking for $5 million to write a couple of checks, and so forth, are not solutions.

We need solutions, not excuses and setting obstacles. We need our leaders not only to be smart, but to work smartly together towards solutions. We have an abundance of problems, it's time we got solutions instead of squabbles.

A good self-help book for both the city and state might be that childhood tale of the power of positive thinking, The Little Engine That Could. Hey, if they are planning a mass transit project they will need to at least master the basics.

A post today by News Dissector Danny Schechter sent shivers up my spine (though that happens often these days):

Google research scientists want your computer to watch television with you so it can deliver personalised internet content at the same time. In their paper Google researchers Michele Covell and Shumeet Baluja propose using ambient-audio identification technology to capture TV sound with a laptop PC to identify the show that is the source of the sound...

With such a system, Google could extend its online dominance into television, and presumably radio, by offering advertisers unparalleled insight into the mass media audience.

Media execs (see this Information Week article) are probably thrilled with the opportunity to get info based on spying on the sound in your livingroom:

"It's an interesting concept because we all sit with our laptops while watching TV," says Cynthia Brumfield, president of media research consultancy Emerging Media Dynamics.

Suppose NSA asked for Google's data and decided that you were watching too much PBS or Democracy Now!? Or worse, suppose Google supplied them with everything that was said in your house while your computer was on? What's interesting to Ms. Brumfield should be a red flag to privacy and civil rights advocates. And a call to disconnect that microphone or headset you leave plugged into your computer all the time. The program described in these articles is very sophisticated spyware, and if your computer is on, anything heard nearby can be processed and recorded. Of course, we are assured that no such thing is happening (right now!).

If not Google (or the NSA), someone may be listening through your microphone. Or (if you have a camera installed) watching everything you do. Yes, spyware can do that.

It's old news that under the Patriot Act the FBI can sneak into your house and put a monitoring program into your computer without your knowledge. Technology such as described above may be even easier and more accessible to the spymasters.

Imagine you downloaded Google Earth and tried it out. (Would you know if that program were reporting everyplace you "visited" to Google/NSA? Did you check out the scene in Baghdad or maybe London?) But back to spyware. Suppose this or another program installed spyware in your PC that, unbenownst to you, started recording and reporting anything said near your computer to Google/NSA?

Am I being paranoid? You decide: did you think that the NSA would ask for and get calling data (including yours?) from the phone companies?

Once data is gathered, no one can say that it will remain private or be protected. The loss of Veterans Administration personal data is another demonstration of this.

I don't agree that bloggers are journalists, as this article proclaims. You can't just sprinkle holy water over someone who has figured out how to sign up for a free account on Blogger.com and transform that person into a seasoned reporter. Nevertheless, extending the California shield law to that state's bloggers is a sound decision.

Of course, some journalists may write blogs, and probably many bloggers treat their writing as a craft and might qualify for the distinction of "journalist" although they never worked in a newspaper office, have no clue what a chase or a galley is and have never been exposed to type lice.

There is a new tradition emerging of "citizen journalism" that promises to upset the pros over the long run. Check out one incarnation of this at OhmyNews.com and then visit their home page to see how it is working.

With the legislative session over (unless there is some action to override any vetoes), attention is moving toward the November elections. At the same time, driven to a large extent by advocates equipped with computers and a passion for change, a reform movement is taking root in Hawaii.

It began as a result of the failure (yet again) of the legislature to pass a clean elections bill and the pro-industry actions of certain committee chairs. There's clearly a link between industry payoffs to legislators and the influence they have had this past session. Previously, if a popular bill succeeded, there was celebration--if not, a determination to try again next year. Few tried to learn why the deck seemed stacked against them.

This session has been different. A spotlight has been aimed at irregularities in the Democratic process, particularly in the state House of Representatives. And the intrusive glare didn't go off when legislators locked the doors of the House and headed home.

Yesterday's Pacific Business News editorial entitled "Ditch the interns and just hire a lobbyist" is unusual because the editors have not allowed the issues raised in this past legislative session to evaporate into the usual post-session journalistic amnesia. It's June already, well past the time when the dailies have printed their "report cards" and closed the book on the 2006 session. PBN is supporting the fine work of its reporter Kristen Consillo as she continues coverage of the behind the scenes shenanigans that have marred this past session.

In addition to the controversy over "embedded interns," this session saw a marked escalation in the number of measures and amendments pushed forward by legislators without public access. The House's subtrefuge will be costly to small businesses and employees. Rep. Bob Herkes supported the insurance industry in removing the shackles of regulation. He was also nearly successful in short-circuiting the ability of public sector employees to get a hearing before the Insurance Commissioner on health insurance denials. This will cost us.

What was HMSA intern Mark Forman's advice on health insurance legislation that came to Herkes' committee? Is it possible to believe that he never involved himself in his area of specialty? The House refused to hear its version of the bill removing the sunset clause on the regulation bill. Did anyone ask Forman what he said about that? After all, he was the ranking expert in the House on health insurance matters. It would be odd, wouldn't it, if people only asked him about construction issues or his views on the gas cap. So what exactly did he say and to whom, this session?

Although the Ethics Commission has been asked to look into Forman's role as Herke's intern, unless the Commissioner has been lurking behind the curtains in his office it will be hard to learn what they might have whispered to each other every day. No doubt they shared many an intimate tete-a-tete (after all, the guy spent almost as much time in Herkes' office during the week as he spent awake at home), but alas, only the NSA might know what they talked about. This does not bode well for any of the ethics complains to succeed.

Herkes himself, according to PBN articles, holds that health-industry lobbyists essentially wrote the provisions in the controversial amendments themselves. Those amendments benefitted the industry hugely. To let industry officials help shape legislation behind the scenes is bad enough, but admitting it may get Herkes clear of ethics charges. In terms of the public interest, it's hard to say Herkes has done his job for the people, though HMSA and Kaiser must be absolutely thrilled with him.

PBN has taken the lead in keeping the public informed on the embedded lobbyist issue. More power (and subscribers) to them.