Disappeared News

by Larry Geller
Decisionmaking on three bills that would criminalize homelessness has been continued until this morning.

Senator Hee, unlike many committee chairs, did not impose a time limit on each testifier during his hearing yesterday. The committee (JDL) was also good about posting all testimony, including “late” testimony, on the Capitol website even before the hearing. You can read the testimony by clicking on the link above, then on the bill number for each of the bills.

It was quite refreshing that everyone who wanted to was able to express themselves. He even allowed one more testimony after he called “last one!” on one of the bills. By allowing everyone to speak, the committee ran out of time, and recessed until today (Wednesday) at 10:30, still in room 016.
Doug Matsuoka was there with his live streaming camera – you can see and hear all the testimony at his Livestream channel page here.

I see from the channel page that Doug is already over at the capitol streaming the AG committee hearing in the auditorium. They seem to be holding a hearing at this moment on GMO labeling. I don’t know if he will shift over to the Judiciary hearing which is scheduled to do decisionmaking on yesterday’s agenda (including the three bills that would criminalize homelessness) which is set to begin at 10:30. Best to click over to his page at that time and see. If not, the AG committee hearing is also important, and thanks to Doug, you can watch that.

by Larry Geller

Three bills aimed specifically at Hawaii’s homeless population are scheduled for their last hearings before possible passage tomorrow at 10 a.m. in room 016 of the State Capitol.

If you were thinking of submitting testimony, better hurry.

HB2409 criminalizes falling asleep at a bus stop. Make no mistake about it, the cops will not charge a businessperson napping next to his briefcase or a UH student snoozing off against her knapsack. The only ones charged with disorderly conduct (what can be less “disorderly” than sleeping?) will be the homeless. If this bill becomes law, it will be used to punish the homeless, that’s all. I also can’t imagine the cops hauling away grandma if she nods off while waiting 45 minutes in a warm breeze for her bus. Yup, only the homeless will be made to suffer.

The bill has surprisingly attracted almost no testimony so far. Please send in yours today–it’s easy! Just click on the “Submit testimony” button at the upper right of the linked page.

This great example of “aloha” in the “Aloha State” was introduced by Representative Karl Rhoads.  At least he hasn’t offered plans to go out hunting sleepers with a sledgehammer (as far as I know…).

HB1660, introduced by Representatives Rhoads, Brower, Nishimoto and Saiki, criminalizes not only homelessness, but could be easily used, should it become law, to criminalize lawful assembly.

(1)  A person commits the offense of obstructing if, whether alone or with others and having no legal privilege to do so, the person knowingly or recklessly [obstructs]:

(a)  Obstructs any highway or public passage[, whether alone or with others.]; or

(b)  Provides less than one meter of space for passage on any paved public sidewalk.

(2)  A person in a gathering commits the offense of obstructing if the person refuses to obey a reasonable request or order by a law enforcement officer [to move]:

(a)  To move to prevent [obstruction of a highway or other public passage;] or to cease any activity prohibited under subsection (1); or

(b)  To move to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a public hazard."

Note that Honolulu has several substantial areas where simply standing on a sidewalk would obstruct passage to less than one meter. I’ve measured and documented sidewalks with only 31 inches of passage with no people at all.

So if the police want to arrest demonstrators, this bill would seem to give them a way to do it.

But make no mistake, it’s really aimed at Honolulu’s homeless population. Note the first two legislators who introduced the bill—the punishers.

Hawaii (and the city of Honolulu) need to abandon their policy of punishing the homeless—it hasn’t worked, has cost taxpayers globs of money that could have been used to assist the homeless, and hurts both tourism and our reputation as the “Aloha State.”

Finally, please note that the city regularly obstructs its own sidewalks. Will the cops arrest the city workers who do so? I doubt it.

Some pictures indicating the criminality of city officials that won’t be punished:

Here’s a whole sidewalk obstructed (at Thomas Square). Merely by walking on it, you’d be in violation. Or a cop could chase away or detain either a homeless person or someone demonstrating or holding a sign even though it’s a public sidewalk.

 

This ought to be against the law. Now, if only this is what legislators mean by “obstructing.”

 

And this one—there’s not even a meter of sidewalk left to walk on.

The city violated its own “complete streets” ordinance by narrowing the sidewalks without consultation. While this seems remote from the topic at hand, it illustrates that obstructing sidewalks isn’t the real concern of this bill.

 

The third bill is HB33, which didn’t make it in 2013. It has one hearing this session—tomorrow, before the committee which didn’t hear it last year.

This bill criminalizes urinating or defecating on streets. One can feel a certain sympathy for it, if only there were public toilets provided—not only for homeless persons but also for residents and tourists. “No public restrooms” signs are ubiquitous, and of course it is not the business of restaurants to provide public facilities that the city should undertake.

The ACLU submitted testimony last year in opposition. A snip:

H.B. 33 is poor public policy because it fails to address the underlying causes of homelessness. Treating homelessness as a crime only exasperates the problem as punitive actions like this bill serve only to make the lives of homeless individuals more difficult. H.B. 33 will push people away from services and turn them into criminals (just for not having access to bathroom facilities), both of which make it more difficult for them to obtain employment and housing.

Rather than passing punitive measures like H.B. 33, we should look towards constructive alternatives to combating the underlying causes of homelessness and its consequences.

Well said.

If only our lawmakers were listening.

Click the links. Have your say. Make a difference.

I'm waiting in the customer lounge at an auto dealership waiting for the parts center to open. The coffee is not bad, but in exchange I have to endure sitting in front of the tv.

KGMB news just reported that Donna Kim has filed papers to run for Congress. They mentioned all the other candidates who have declared their intention to run--except for Kathryn Xian, referring instead to her as "and others."

To learn about ALL the declared candidates without bias, see Video of Congressional CD1 candidate forum (2/24/2014).

“
January 17, 1893—the year the Hawai’ian Kingdom was overthrown by a group of businessmen backed by US Marines, followed by its annexation in 1898—was a true day of infamy. The centennial ceremonies starting January 16, 1993 were more important than the December 7, 1991 ceremony as commemoration of brutal statecraft.

Maybe some day we shall have an independent, multicultural, multiracial Republic of Hawai’i? Everyone, including the USA, would have much to gain. Wounds, if they are not dressed and healed, tend to fester.

However, efforts to undo the direct and structural violence of the past, counter the violence of the present and forestall the violence of the future would be of scant avail if the underlying cultural violence is not addressed.—Pax Pacifica: Terrorism, the Pacific Hemisphere, Globalisation and Peace Studies by Johan Galtung, Pluto Press, 2005
”

---

by Larry Geller

Did you ever send an email knowing that most likely you’d never get an answer? I sent one late Sunday afternoon to Joe Souki, Speaker of Hawaii’s House of Representatives, with mixed feelings. I would like an answer, but don’t know if this email will even get through his staff to his desk, and even if it does, will he reply? I need to give it a little time.

To:    repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov
Subject:    query on further censure actions
Date sent:    Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:50:46 –1000

As Speaker, do you intend to censure or take action in another form with regard to other House members who have or who may have broken the law?

Clearly, my question is related to the news about Rep. Hanohano, a Native Hawaiian, who is currently the sole legislator to be so censured.

Larry Geller
Disappeared News

Sure, if I worked for a newspaper or a TV station, the odds of getting an answer would be much better. And obviously, it’s a “loaded” question. And also, no answer is kind of an answer. But the commercial news media will never ask such a question.

Sure, I have a point of view.

Chad Blair wrote in a Civil Beat article:

The chief clerks in the House and Senate told me last week that they could not recall any incident in recent memory in which a representative or senator was forcibly removed from a committee, censured or expelled.

Well, now it’s happened. See: House Speaker Publicly Scolds Rep. Hanohano for 'Intimidating' Conduct (Civil Beat, 3/6/2014).

I was not present for any of the incidents cited by the Speaker, but my question is clear: why is Rep. Hanohano the only one, “in recent memory” now, to be censured?

Do other legislators have some kind of permanently installed halo that protects them from censure under House or Senate rules?

I thought this anonymous comment, attached to my March 3 article, demonstrated the sensitivity that all of us, including legislative leadership, should be careful to exercise in this state, considering its history:

Writing as a local of Japanese ancestry, I understand that some might find the language Rep. Hanohano used offensive. I wouldn't like to encourage its everyday use, nor do I think she uses that language on an everyday basis. When facing the cultural imperialism embedded in our system of government and the flood of Western perspective invading Hawaii for far too long, it is far more offensive to ignore the genocide of the Hawaiian culture than it is to use the "J" word. Who are we to legislate the Hawaiian relationship to sharks especially when we allow the US Navy to bombard all ocean life with sonar and to use the ocean as dumping grounds for obsolete or hazardous weaponry?

# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : March 10, 2014 at 7:51:00 PM HST

When does the real conversation begin?

Where is an appropriate forum? TV will likely never go there, and while our daily newspaper finally noted (for example) the state’s failure to meet its trust obligations to put Native Hawaiians back on their land, the paper did not pursue the issue as an example of systemic and structural violence against Native Hawaiians in Hawaii.

I urge readers in Hawaii to read the Wikipedia article on structural violence. It begins:

Structural violence is a term commonly ascribed to Johan Galtung, which he introduced in the article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" in 1969. It refers to a form of violence where some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized elitism, ethnocentrism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung. According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs". As it is avoidable, structural violence is a high cause of premature death and unnecessary disability. Since structural violence affects people differently in various social structures, it is very closely linked to social injustice.

The Wikipedia article also touches on cultural violence, and how society’s actions become “invisible” and part of everyday life.

Here’s another snip that applies directly to Hawaii:

Theorists argue that structural violence is embedded in the current world system. This form of violence, which is centered on apparently inequitable social arrangements, is not inevitable, they argue. Ending the global problem of structural violence will require actions that may seem unfeasible in the short term. To some this indicates that it may be easier to devote resources to minimizing the harmful impacts of structural violence. Others, such as futurist Wendell Bell, see a need for long term vision to guide projects for social justice.

In Hawaii we’re sometimes willing to “minimize the harmful impacts” of ongoing structural violence such as taking small steps to improve the health of Native Hawaiians. This is at most, harm reduction, not removal or mediation of the harm, which remains ongoing.

Just as an example of ongoing structural violence, we allow the failure of the state to meet its obligation to Native Hawaiians under its Hawaiian Homelands trust to go on for decades. Even now, the State of Hawaii is contesting beneficiary damage claims in state court. An already decade-long trial could be stretched out for another decade or more, at the current pace.

Doesn’t that meet the definition of structural or cultural violence? Why does the state refuse to correct its ongoing neglect of a single ethnic group??

So, Speaker Souki, are you concerned only with the language used by one Native Hawaiian legislator, or do you intend to treat all legislators equally? And what, exactly, have you or other legislators done to fix the abysmal performance of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands? I didn’t ask that in my email because I know I’d never get an answer if I did. Certainly, there are many more questions that could be asked besides that one.

There’s a larger problem here, and every state legislator is a part of it. As perhaps, I am, and we all are.

by Larry Geller

For some reason, granting exemptions to perfectly good law seems to be the fashion these days in Hawaii. Whether it’s height exemptions when the public decided against them, or (in this case) an exemption to allow abuse of the state’s open meetings law, it’s bad public policy.

The Superferry failed because the lege gave it an exemption. Well, it was also unable to make a profit. Last session the public rose up against the PLDC, an organization created to hand out exemptions and destroy our urban environment. The PLDC law was repealed. We’re still stuck with the HCDA, an organization created, like the PLDC, to hand out exemptions.

HB2139 looks like an invitation for abuse of the state’s open meetings law by exempting county councils. They’ve been looking for ways around the law for quite some time, and this would open a big loophole.

The bill would allow unlimited numbers of County Council members to attend an external “informational” meeting.

The abuse? Heck, there’s no watchdog overseeing what they say or do. For sure, since the county councils have been hunting for ways to escape the law, they will predictably begin to “chat” among themselves about anything and everything, and even to make decisions, as long as they are together.

What better opportunity to talk “business” than over a plate of pupus, without the public being aware? Speaking of “business,” who else (developers? contractors?) might also be at that meeting, with access to county council members that citizens don’t have and don’t even know about?

The bill is to be heard next tomorrow (Tuesday, 3/11). Here’s the hearing notice. It’s easy to submit testimony, please check out the bill and click on “submit testimony” to put your own comments on file.

“
Europe had the Cold War experience that a neutral-nonaligned belt between West and East is useful; the roles of Finland and Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, Yugoslavia.  To Washington they were half-way traitors, “equalizing” West and East, to be won over, even coerced.  But, a non-aligned borderland between today’s NATO Poland-Lithuania and Russia and NATO Turkey and Russia, could also one day be useful.
”

---

Ukraine-Crimea-Georgia–the West and Russia

10 March 2014

by Johan Galtung, 10 Mar 2014 - TRANSCEND Media Service

There is much in a name.  Ukraine means borderland.

The position of the extreme West–like US neocons–is clear: get all into NATO, encircling, containing, defeating Russia.  Some in Ukraine and Georgia share that goal.  The less extreme West would focus on EU membership, both being European countries.  Some of them, in turn, might focus on loans as there is much money to be made. Thus, Bosnia-Hercegovina had $9 billion debt before the EU take-over as “high authority”; now $107 billion.  “Austerity” around the corner.

The position of Russia as expressed by Putin and Lavrov: no way. Crimea will revert to Russia after it was given to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev–himself born in Kalinovka, Ukraine in 1894, his wife a Ukrainian–possibly mainly for economic reasons as his son at Brown University R.I., USA argues.

However, Ukraine is not only a borderland but also two countries between Poland and Russia.  The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569 and the Austria-Hungarian Empire once covered most of Ukraine; so did czarist Russia and Soviet Union in their heydays.  More importantly, the dividing line of the Roman Empire from 395, confirmed by the schism between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in 1054, is reflected in Ukraine’s extremely complex history.  The result is unmistakable: moving east the Catholic attachment yield to the Orthodox and Ukrainian to Russian.  When Poland became a member of EU and even of NATO, the handwriting for Ukraine was on the wall; bringing to mind Polish First Marshal Pilsudski’s Odessa-Black Sea ambitions after WW-I.

Odessa is in the West, Donets in the East, Ukrainian in the West, more Russian in the East.  And Kiev–origin of Russia, Rus–the capital, in the middle.  No doubt there is also a Ukraine uniting the two, a land, not only a border; also united in popular revolt against corruption all over. One split in two, two united in one: both true.

But watch out: one thing is the corruption-inequality pandemic all over the world hitting Ukraine; another is centuries of history leaving lasting impacts.  Imagine corruption-inequality subsiding, and the fault lines will come up, even with a vengeance.

So much for diagnosis.  Prognosis:  Crimea reverts to Russia; Ukraine under Washington-Brussels hegemony; civil war threatening.  Anti-semitism, islamism.  But not escalating to a world war: NATO is strong; even stronger is SCO-Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Russia-China+.  However, balance of terror is not peace, so what is the possible therapy?

But first Georgia, also deeply divided with Russian-speaking Orthodox South Ossetia and Abkhazia within 1921 borders where Stalin–a Georgian, Dzhugashvili–played a key role (Gamsakhardia, independent president in 1991, re-asserted Georgian hegemony; now more disputed).

The Soviet power center was in Moscow, but they showered the non-Russians with gifts of various kinds, even land. The two stories are similar, with Russian troops in Abkhazia-South Ossetia and military encounters. Thus, Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2008, evidently hoping to provoke Russia to provoke NATO– but the plot was revealed (by BBC-4 among others: the Russian T72 tanks were made of cardboard).

Georgia 2003-Ukraine 2004 had rose-orange “color revolutions”; now USA uses more forceful demonstrations also helped by OTPOR!-Отпор! Resistance!, the Beograd student group fighting Milosevic–to install governments.  Europe is more sensitive to conflicts between nations, making a NATO consensus unlikely (State Department Victoria Nuland: “Fuck the EU“).

Europe had the Cold War experience that a neutral-nonaligned belt between West and East is useful; the roles of Finland and Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, Yugoslavia.  To Washington they were half-way traitors, “equalizing” West and East, to be won over, even coerced.  But, a non-aligned borderland between today’s NATO Poland-Lithuania and Russia and NATO Turkey and Russia, could also one day be useful.

The choice for Ukraine is not between one unitary state ruled from Kiev, and two states run from, say, Odessa and Donets.  There are three in-betweens.

First, there is devolution, decentralization, already working, with regional parliaments reflecting the deep differences.  But they are weak relative to Kiev, let alone relative to Washington-Moscow.

Second, federation; the Federal Republic of Ukraine, with high level of autonomy for the two parts to express their character, yet sharing foreign, security (neutral!), finance and logistics policies.

Third, confederation, the Ukrainian Community, two independent countries each other’s major partners economically and politically.

Examples of the three: United Kingdom, Belgium, the Nordics; with similarities and differences.  Thus, the UK is now loosening, possibly breaking up in spite of shared language and history.  How Belgium will turn out, history will show.  The Nordics work well with even more differences than there is inside Ukraine and are not even contiguous.

The West and Russia compete with economic offers, but identity is probably more important.  Ukraine West feels West, Ukraine East feels Russian; united historically, divided culturally.  Could one be in EU and the other in the Russian federation, both enjoying the carrots offered?–in a Ukrainian Community with open borders?  Too divisive.

None of the three is perfect, but the federation may be the best way out.  There is unity and diversity.  Ukraine, a founding member of the United Nations, is still a country, yet the different identities are fully respected.  Be smart, could that federation even be both an associate member of the EU and the Russian federation?

For Georgia, a federation is much overdue as a way out; also for Adjar, the Muslim enclave.  Encased in a Caucasian Community, all three with strong EU ties as Europeans.  But keep NATO and SCO out.

Prediction: within 5 years we have both federations—and the crisis is over.

________________________________

Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, dr hc mult, is rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University-TPU. He is author of over 150 books on peace and related issues, including ‘50 Years-100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives,’ published by the TRANSCEND University Press-TUP.

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 United States License.

by Larry Geller

GE’s former CEO Jack Welch isn’t spending his retirement idly playing golf—he runs several management training courses—Google will find them for you. Maybe the University of Hawaii should apply for one.

Clearly, the current UH management style does not make them winners (Jack famously expected each GE division to be number one in its field, or it wouldn’t remain part of the company). Far from winning, as today’s story in the Star-Advertiser highlights once again, UH management isn’t even competent.

If you subscribe to the paper, check out UH's poor oversight adds costs to delayed project, audit says (Star-Advertiser p. A1, 3/9/2014). The story focuses on poor management of improvements to the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex that has resulted in delays and cost overruns.

A report by the UH Office of Internal Audit released Wednesday cited deficiencies in managing and monitoring the project as well as a lack of communication. Board of Regents member Jeff Portnoy has described the issues plaguing the facility as indicative of a "University of Hawaii-wide problem."

Portnoy told the regents, "These are such basic, systemic issues. I mean, saying the (school) and architect and contractor should be meeting on a weekly basis is like common sense. If I'm (adding) on to my house, I have weekly meetings."

Yes, it’s common sense, but it is also rather basic management of a key project, don’t you think?

Or check out the article in yesterday’s paper: UH cost itself millions, HNN asserts (Star-Advertiser p. C1, 3/8/2014).

Until the UH administration learns the basics of competent management, it will be one thing after another: cost overruns, maintenance backlogs, whatever can fail because it was not handled competently.

UH has a style of management that fits the so-called “garbage can model” that I’ve written about several times. I won’t describe it again here—please check the link.

Unless there is an intervention, which could be instigated by either the Regents or the state legislature, there is no self-healing mechanism in that model. Administrators of lower- or mid-level universities and colleges which have not learned to manage their affairs appropriately simply reach into the garbage can each time and go with what they find.

It seems paradoxical that a university can’t learn, but that seems to be a consequence of the model. There’s always something in the garbage can to grab onto, something that was tried before.

By “intervention” I specifically don’t mean another Senate inquisition. What is needed is positive action to improve management skills at the university and to instill a lasting culture of competence that will serve the organization, the students and the people of Hawaii on into the future.

No, it doesn’t have to be a Jack Welch course. I keep my eye on “Neutron Jack” because I worked for GE for more than 20 years. The company went through a number of leadership changes over that time, but its basic management structure was robust and persistent so that the company was able not only to grow and adapt to changing conditions, but to succeed in a competitive environment.

Can the same be said about UH leadership?

“
No U.S. government or international agency is monitoring the spread of low levels of radiation from Fukushima along the West Coast of North America and around the Hawaiian Islands.--The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1/28/2014
”

---

by Larry Geller

It’s getting harder for concerned citizens to know what to be concerned about most these days.

Whether it’s BPA (or worse) in our sippy cups or Fukushima radioactivity in our ocean water, it’s frustrating to know that vital information is being withheld from us by corporations and by our governments. You can find out more about chemicals in plastic containers at the link just above, but ocean water radiation reports seem to be more elusive.

A new project seeks to fill the gap by crowdsourcing testing of ocean water. We can gather information that we’re not getting from government sources ourselves.

Arguably, government silence is nothing new. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of the sacrifice of public health for corporate profit, and our own government didn’t hesitate to test or use nuclear weapons. One way or the other, it looks like citizens still need to take the initiative to protect our lives and health whether from harmful chemicals or from radiation.

For almost three years, a question has nagged at people living near the coastline in Alaska, British Columbia, Hawaii and along the U.S. West Coast. Is a plume of radioactive ocean water really inching its way toward us from Japan? By all accounts, yes it is.

[care2.com, How You Can Help Scientists Test U.S. Coastal Waters for Fukushima Radiation, 2/6/2014]

Is our federal government protecting us? What about the state? A bill just passed out of the Hawaii Senate to monitor radiation levels in the future (see below) received overwhelming popular and legislative support, moving forward despite state government objections.

Is the Hawaii Department of Health actively protecting us by monitoring ocean water that may contain Fukushima radiation? It’s hard to tell if they are.

The DOH home web page says nothing about radiation monitoring at all. But aha, there is a search box. typing in “radiation” brings up a few hits, mostly about response to radiation emergencies. But there is this:

It’s dated August 14, 2013, but might as well click and take a look. Clicking on the link takes one not to a radiation report, but to a missing report on “south-beach-diet-protein-smoothie-mango.”

In a KITV story, the DOH response to a senator’s question on the age and visibility of its reports was “duly noted.” Noted, perhaps, but it’s now a month later and it’s not fixed.

So much for DOH commitment to radiation monitoring.

SB3049 passed third reading and was submitted to the House this morning. The SD1 states, in part:

The department of health shall implement a radiation monitoring pilot project that shall:

     (1)  Measure and monitor radiation levels in items such as food, dairy products, rainwater, aquifers, and drainage ditches that may be susceptible to increased radiation levels due to the March 11, 2011, Fukushima nuclear disaster; and

     (2)  Post periodic reports on the department's website of those radiation levels and their significance to the State.

Interestingly, the Senate bill omits ocean water.

Individual testimony submitted to the committees on this bill was universally in support—with the notable exception of the Department of Health. Some of the testimony called for even more extensive testing, for example, of depleted uranium radiation. People do seem concerned about the lack of monitoring in Hawaii.

The Department of Health submitted late testimony in opposition. In their testimony, they stated that they are on top of things already.

This bill is unnecessary because the Department has already implemented additional radiation monitoring since March 11, 2011.

Fiscal Implications: Implementation of this measure may require additional funding for sampling and laboratory analysis at a cost of approximately $1000.00 per sample
…
The Department has already established enhanced radiation surveillance around the islands in response to the Fukushima nuclear event. This includes continuous air sampling through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Radnet system located in Honolulu; monthly (or as rain capture permits) precipitation sampling; quarterly milk and drinking water sampling; quarterly shoreline surveillance on the Islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui and Oahu; and surveying of Japan Tsunami Marine Debris (JTMD), as needed.

Trace amounts of radioactive material were detected in air, milk and precipitation samples for a few weeks following the Fukushima event, but were far below levels of public health concern. Levels have long since returned to normal values associated with background radiation. Reports of findings and advisories have been periodically posted to the Department’s website since March 14, 2011, along with links for additional resources from various agencies.

So the DOH is monitoring? What tests are they performing, and according to what procedures?

As to links, DOH refers to the federal government’s RadNet data. At least the feds have a web page. Data is for air monitoring. We might be more curious about water around the Hawaiian islands since the Fukushima reactors continue to dump radioactivity into the ocean.

So who will monitor ocean water? Scientists have said that any radiation will be too dilute to be harmful, but yet there is controversy. If no radiation shows up, great! But who is watching?

We’ll have to do it ourselves.

See the sidebar for information on the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute program that proposes to  crowdsource ocean water monitoring. You can become a monitor. Check it out.

“
I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.--White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh
”

---

by Larry Geller

Except for the unfortunate title, the article posted today by Civil Beat reporter Chad Blair (Chad Blair: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Hanohano?, Civil Beat, 3/3/2014) is an excellent summary of the situation now facing the Hawaii House of Representatives. No person is a “problem,” Chad.

Between the lines is the real story though: the House has chosen to do nothing, so far. What should House leadership do, if anything, in response to media coverage of remarks by Rep. Hanohano?

Perhaps the leadership and other representatives have more sensitivity than the media have shown to this and other issues related to Native Hawaiians in what used to be their own country. Perhaps they also understand that selective enforcement of legislative rules is discriminatory.

Certainly, Rep. Hanohano could have expressed herself differently. I am not arguing to excuse her words, nor was I personally present when she spoke them. But I do want to say that the House of Representatives has a lot of enforcing it might do before getting around to this situation. A lot.

In order to explain that last point, though, I think I need to set some background to start with. Bear with me. Background is in the sidebar on the right.

---

→

---

So my point is? Go back to the hydraulic theory. When someone speaks up, we are anxious to plug the leak, stop the noise, get back to forgetting that we are continuing to apply the pressure, the ongoing oppression.

At the same time, if the Legislature enforces its rules (which it is happy to break on a regular basis each session) against Rep. Hanohano, it might first explain why it has not enforced its rules against, for example, legislators who break the law by filing incorrect, incomplete or false reports.

See: Politically powerful state senator files false ethics reports (ilind.net, 5/21/2011). I’ve written several articles about false disclosures remaining uncorrected (for example, this article). I even wrote to the Senate President concerning the Senate’s own rules. Despite the “statutory penalties,” then-Senate President Shan Tsutsui declined to take action against the “politically powerful state senator” under Senate Rule 72.

The House has so far also not taken action against Rep.Tom Brower, whose violent tactics targeting the property of homeless persons in Waikiki. And if he “rousted” them from bus stops while carrying his sledgehammer, though I’m no legal expert, I wonder if that might fit the definition of assault. Brower embarrassed Hawaii nationally and internationally, but the House has remained silent.

So long story short, I have no doubt that Rep. Hanohano could have chosen other words, but as far as enforcing its rules against her, if the House did so it would itself be an embarrassment to the State of Hawaii since the Legislature has ignored far greater infractions of its rules and decorum.

From Chad Blair’s article:

The chief clerks in the House and Senate told me last week that they could not recall any incident in recent memory in which a representative or senator was forcibly removed from a committee, censured or expelled.

So how would it look if the only action the House takes “in recent memory” is against a Native Hawaiian, given that it chooses to ignore far greater infractions on the part of other legislators?