Just like it was the unions and workers who should be blamed for the ruin of General Motors and the other American car companies, not the companies themselves selling gas-guzzling cars no one wanted.

The opinion piece has a whining tone, it seems to me. Oh, those poor banks and financial giants are always being picked on.

We live in a society that is built on and driven by consumption. It is the capitalist way. It is the American way. Television shows and commercials suggest to us how much better our lives would be if only we had a big house, fancy clothing, big cars, and lots of amenities like big flat screen televisions, surround sound stereo systems, and the like.

Credit card ads and deals are everywhere. “Save 20% if you sign up today. No interest or payments for 48 months.” Everywhere we turn, there are temptations with just how easy it would be. But you don’t see with the same pervasiveness information about how to responsibly manage your debt or your finances. Credit card companies turn up on college campuses, whose vast majority of students have no or minimal income, and tempt students with free stuff if they just sign up.

If someone grew up having not learned about the dangers of crossing a busy street, then walked out and got hit, would we blame them for being senseless? I doubt it. But somehow the author of the opinion piece and countless others seem to think all Americans should be endowed at birth with the understanding of interest rates and pages of legalese in a mortgage contract. They should understand instinctively the dangerous pitfalls of spending on credit money they’ll never have.

Why is it we should blame these people, instead of the heads of Wall Street, of banks, of Bear Stearns, of Goldman-Sachs, of AIG? These people are supposed to be experts. They’re supposed to have an intimate understanding of the financial system, yet how is it they can shrug their shoulders: “There’s no way we could have seen this coming.”

And it’s funny how no one was talking about individual financial responsibility when those same heads of the financial markets, their firms and employees were making insane amounts of money in real estate, in subprime mortgage-backed securities sales, in credit default swaps. Only after the collapse, only after those companies which were ‘too big to fail’ started doing exactly that, did Wall Street and conservatives started pointing fingers at those same people on whom they had gotten filthy rich for years.

So how is it the individual homeowner is to blame, while those companies that made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS aren’t at the same time culpable? How is it these savvy financial leaders couldn’t see the cliff approaching, but the guy on Main Street should have known better about what they were getting into?

Matt Taibbi, a writer for Rolling Stone Magazine, has done an excellent job of shining a light on what’s really happened. In a March 19, 2009 article, he writes:

When Geithner announced the $30 billion bailout, the party line was  that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of shitty luck — bad year for business, you know what with the financial crisis and all. Edward Liddy, the company’s CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: “The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be in right now,” he said. ” When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too.” In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being “consumed by the same issues that are diving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet’s investment portfolio.”

Liddy made AIG sound like an orphan begging in a soup line, hungry and sick from being left out in someone else’s financial weather. He conveniently forgot to mention that AIG had spent more than a decade systematically scheming to evade U.S. and international regulators, or that one of the causes of its “pneumonia” was making colossal, world-sinking $500 billion bets with money it didn’t have, in a toxic and completely unregulated derivatives market.

Nor did anyone mention that when AIG finally got up from its seat at the Wall Street casino, broke and busted in the afterdawn light, it owed money all over town — and that huge chunk of your taxpayer dollars in this particular bailout scam will be going to pay off the other high rollers at its table. Or that this was a casino unique among all casinos, one where middle-class taxpayers cover the bets of billionaires.

I have no doubt that there were a small percentage of savvy people who were trying to beat the clock and make a quick buck, like so many others, turning over bigger and bigger houses for profit. I also have little doubt there were also those who felt a knot in their stomach before they signed their mortgage papers for a house they really shouldn’t be buying, but signed anyway. But the vast majority of those millions of people who are now broke, busted, with foreclosure papers in hand that were simply duped. They didn’t understand what they were getting into and were foolish enough to trust those mortgage brokers who told them it would be alright.

A special report in The Economist on financial risk is a brief, but clear assessment on what when wrong. The report seems to place no blame on irresponsible individuals, but instead on a government too eager to get people into homes of their own, on ’self-serving’  financial and banking industries, ‘cheap money:’

It would, though, be simplistic to blame the crisis solely, or even mainly, on sloppy risk manager or wild-eyed quants. Cheap money led to the wholesale underpricing of risk; America ran negative real estate interest rates in 2002-2005, even though consumer-price inflation was quiescent. Plenty of economists disagree with the recent assertion by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the crisis had more to do with lax regulation of mortgage products and loose monetary policy.

Equally damaging were policies to promote home ownership in America using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country’s two mortgage giants. They led the duo to binge on securities backed by shoddily underwritten loans.

In the absence of strict limits, higher leverage followed naturally from low interest rates. The debt of America’s financial firms ballooned relative to the overall economy. At the peak of the madness, the median large bank had borrowings of 37 times its equity, meaning it could be wiped out by a loss of just 2-3% of its assets.

Here in Hawaii, a number of residents complain that government workers and union members haven’t shouldered ‘their fair share’ of the economic crisis and $1.2 billion budget shortfall. People feel better about their bad situation if they feel it’s shared by everyone else. Well, while unemployment nationwide continues to rise, while wages and retirement portfolios stagnate or shrink, those banks and financial firms who are reporting huge profits are talking about giving huge bonuses to their employees. While homeowners continue to lose their homes, the rich continue to get richer.

When I write on these types of topics, I do my best to do so dispassionately on the facts of the issue, but I can’t help but be pissed off about this. Main Street should feel bad about its key role in the financial meltdown while the rich manage to get richer with a loan from those same Main Street people? I’m sorry, but I don’t blame Main Street excesses when the richest 1% of this country owns 90%, or more, of the wealth.

Lastly, while it may be a bit off topic, I can’t help but wonder about those people and politicians who have for several months decried a single-payer health care system, or a ‘public option’ as a government takeover of the health care system or a move toward socialism. Aren’t these the same people that put up virtually no fight at all when Bush and Obama bailed out Wall Street? How is a government bailout not a move in the realm of socialism?

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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SCOTUS is able to confer these rights to corporations because, by reasoning devoid of understanding, corporations are people under the law. This recent insult is added to the injury they inflicted on the republic when they equated money to speech.

A quick google search came up with a report by American Constitution Society titled, Beyond Citizens United v. FEC: Re-Examining Corporate Rights. While the report was published prior to the SCOTUS decision, it is nonetheless insightful with regard to the consequences of the ruling:

[I]f the Court deems Congress and the states to be powerless to restrict corporate political expenditures, the piecemeal and unwarranted fabrication of a corporate rights doctrine that has gathered pace over the past three decades will have reached an extreme conclusion. Such a conclusion by the Court would not only be wildly out of touch with the realities of corporate power in contemporary American life, but would disregard the Court’s proper separation over 200 years of the constitutional rights of people from those claimed by corporations.

The ACLU, which I think is fantastic and with which I agree more often than not filed an amicus curiae brief partially supporting the position of Citizens United in the case. An excerpt from an otherwise lengthy brief, lays out its position:

The broad prohibition on “electioneering communications” set forth in § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)… violates the First Amendment, and the limiting construction adopted by this Court in WRTL is insufficient to save it….

This brief addresses only that question. It does not address the additional question raise by this Court’s reargument order: namely, whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce…. should be overruled. However, if Austin is overruled and the ban on express advocacy by corporations and unions is struck down, then the ban on “electioneering communication” in § 203 would necessarily fall as a consequence.

So, while the ACLU brief only focuses on one aspect of the issue, it seems clear to me that they are at least tacitly supportive of the position argued by Citizens United.

That the ACLU is, to me, so clearly wrong-headed in its position that First Amendment rights should extend to corporations (and unions) makes me rethink renewing my membership with them in the future.

Unfortunately, since SCOTUS cannot be overruled by the President or Congress, nothing short of some sort of Constitutional Amendment will really set this straight.

While I am no legal scholar, to be sure, I would think language breaking the link between money and speech, as well as excluding corporations (and maybe other similar entities) from the legal definition of ‘person, would directly address the damage done by this court to our democracy.

I am also forced to point out what to me seems a glaring distinction between those here in Hawaii, who on the one hand decry the death of democracy at the State Capitol, while making no such similar clamoring at this SCOTUS ruling, which is has the potential to damage our democracy on such a larger and more devastating scale.

What’s more ironic is the bill’s final death took place in the same chamber that saw its end in the same chamber that passed it just one year ago, merely a single vote shy of a two-thirds majority vote. Yes, the same people that passed the bill so overwhelmingly last year felt the undeniable need to save themselves from perceived losses in the coming elections. Rather than stand on principle, rather than do the honorable thing and grant these residents and citizens the State Supreme Court has said they deserve, our elected officials in the State House of Representatives tucked their tails between their legs and voted to save their jobs.

I admit to some tempering in the last few years of my sense of political right and wrong, but there isn’t a reason, isn’t an excuse that makes what they did OK.

I wasn’t in the gallery when the the death knoll rang for equal rights, but I was watching from my office on the third floor of the Capitol. I saw the tearful and angry faces of my colleagues in the rotunda and in the press and by the end of the day, I was myself both outraged and tearful.

I feel hopeless. I decry the cowards in our legislature and our utterly broken system of government. Privately, I curse at them and am furious. I struggle with how I’m supposed to be gracious and polite when I see them in the halls, when my organization invites them to events. Even the few with whom I’ve begun building friendly relationships I fight the urge to grab them, shake them, and shout. “How could you do this? How could you have done this while claiming to support their cause? How do you sleep at night? How do you look at yourself in the mirror each morning?”

Part of me wants to throw in the towel and take a job selling… something. Another part of me wants to declare the whole system broken, cry “revolution,” and burn it all down. Above all, isn’t government meant to protect the people it serves?

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different G[-]d. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

Here he refers to basic principles, a checklist of sorts, that helps define what constitutes a ‘just war.’ As a country in the midst of two wars, the President makes no apologies for either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, only states that one of them is drawing to a close. If a war is illegal, it follows naturally that the war is also unjust. One might conclude from statements Obama made during his campaign, that he would agree the Iraq war was not only ill advised, but illegal, and therefore unjust. As our nation’s focus has slowly shifted, since Obama took office, from Iraq back to Afghanistan, his administration has done nothing to punish, or even investigate, those responsible for the illegal war in Iraq.

The inference I draw from these statements is that he has concluded the war in Afghanistan is indeed a ‘just war,’ as America, along with other nations from around the world, are defending themselves from evil. It is in this context that Obama apologetically distances himself from previous Nobel Peace Prize winners like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.

It seems Obama is suggesting that neither King, nor Gandhi faced the world as it is, but rather lived and operated in some other, idealized world, separate from the one in which he and the rest of us live. It is, rather, their firm commitment to the principles of non-violence in ‘the world as it is’ that made them heroes worthy of the same price given to Obama. Instead of being a leader and champion of peace, he gives in to the popular, almost zealous notion that we must do whatever is necessary to eradicate terrorism from our world, an endeavor which is almost certainly doomed to fail. In my opinion, there is nothing peaceful, nor noble in that sort of mentality and simply paying lip service to those who have come before him does not absolve the President. As a leader of the American people and the free world and now recipient of this auspicious award, he should strive to be better.

In an article in the December 2001 issue of The Progressive magazine, historian Howard Zinn clarifies the difference between a ‘just cause,’ which Obama seems to be mistaking for a ‘just war.’

I believe that the progressive supporters of the war have confused a “just cause” with a “just war.” There are unjust causes, such as the attempt of the United States to establish its power in Vietnam, or to dominate Panama or Grenada, or to subvert the government of Nicaragua. And a cause may be just — getting North Korea to withdraw from South Korea, getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, or ending terrorism — but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.

On this point, I agree with Zinn. I won’t deny the threat terrorism poses to America and the world. What’s more, I think a strong case can be made against the use of force to deal with terrorists generally and Al Qaeda specifically.

Let me back up a moment. While most people claim, as Obama does, that World War II was a ‘just war,’ he also concedes that more civilians than soldiers dies. In this instance also, there is no doubt that the cause was just, but how can such a war be just? I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the same is true for the war in Afghanistan. In fact, rough estimates for the total number of civilians killed in Afghanistan as a result of the war ranges anywhere from 9,260 to 12,057. And more than half of those deaths have been a direct result of U.S.-led military actions.

So, while Obama claims the righteousness of a ‘just war’ in defense of Americans, it would seem the consequence of civilian casualties is little more than an unfortunate cost of doing business.

The Bush Administration dismissed Al Qaeda’s motives as a hatred of freedom and the American way. I might have missed it, but I haven’t heard the current administration refute the previous administration, nor suggest their own thoughts for the root causes of terrorism, and I’d hope the current administration’s insight would be more… nuanced.

Could terrorist hatred for America be a result of our abysmal foreign policy and militarism around the world? Could it be our willingness to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations as a matter of our own self-interest? These are questions that need to be seriously looked at, devoid of any nationalistic leanings.

Instead of trying to eradicate terrorism by force, a prospect I doubt will have much success, why don’t we try helping those countries build their own economies. Surely there are alternative methods of fighting terrorism that don’t involve killing people or blowing things up; let’s find a way to fight terrorism with a ‘carrot’ instead of a ’stick.’

One suggestion might be, instead of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, why not try sending 30,000 teachers, or doctors, or Peace Corp volunteers? For a man accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama seems all too eager to cast aside the notions of non-violence.

There is no doubt that this is a huge step forward in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation. What’s more,  President Obama again pledged to today to end the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in the military. This pledge, unfortunately comes without any specifics with regard to a timeline for such an end.

Despite these positive steps, however, our federal government doesn’t seem to have any problem discriminating based on sexual orientation in the military. Our federal government doesn’t seem to have any problem discriminating based on sexual orientation when it comes to same-sex couples, denying them benefits and ‘marriage.’

To me this is a huge and glaring hypocrisy that I cannot overlook. While on the one hand, Congress and the President should be lauded for their expansion of Hate Crimes Legislation, essentially what their doing is saying its not OK for individuals to discriminate based on sexual orientation. But the very same Congress and the very same President isn’t willing to apply the same essential standard to themselves.

With the fight for same-sex marriage and/or Civil Unions taking place across the country, this President and this Democratic-controlled Congress needs to do more. They need to turn their shaking, scolding fingers around on themselves and stop discriminating against this same group of people.

Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Pass legislation which codifies federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the form of a federal same-sex marriage law. Then, and only then, will our elected officials in D.C. truly garner my respect on their efforts toward this disenfranchised segment of our citizenry.

Seeing as he’s started campaigning so early and seeing as how I’ve already received a flier from his campaign in my mailbox, I thought I’d start laying out the reasons for voting for someone else. Let’s start with the aforementioned flier.

It begins directly enough:

Aloha! I proudly represented you and our Hawaii in our United States Congress from 2002  to 2007, and humbly ask for your support to continue my service in Washington D.C.

Without going any further, I’m immediately struck by what seems to me to be a pretty direct glaring implication. By using the phrase, ‘continue my service,’ he makes it sound, at least to me, that he’s running for reelection. People who haven’t heard of Ed Case before, or who aren’t very familiar with his resume, might be prone to some confusion, especially if they only skim the contents of the flier.

Additionally, I’m struck by what seems to me to be a pretty direct question. If you served so proudly, Ed, why did you feel the need to give up your seat to oppose a popular Senator with years of seniority in the the Senate?

See, Ed is building an argument against just about anyone who he may end up running against in either the Democratic Primary, or General Election; he already has some seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives and so wouldn’t be starting at the very bottom, like others would. He used this same argument about seniority when he ran against Senator Akaka; we should vote out the Senator now, so Case could fill the spot and start accruing seniority in the U.S. Senate now, rather than waiting for the good Senator to die. (I added the ‘die’ part, though I think its hard to deny the sentiment was implined by Case during his 2006 bid).

I find this approach as hypocritical now as I did then. If Ed is so concerned about building seniority in Congress, to Hawaii’s benefit, why did he vacate his seat two years ago? To me the answer is simple and direct: he isn’t the slightest bit interested in building seniority in the U.S. House. He’s not running for the Senate seat next year because he’s smart enough to know it’s not a good idea to get into a race against Senator Inouye. I have little doubt, though, that when the opportunity arises, Case will jump ship from any position in the U.S. House to take a shot at the U.S. Senate. Hell, he’s done it once already.

And despite this reality of his history, its possible to read into this flier a jab at Congressman Abercrombie, who is vacating his seat in the U.S. House to run for Hawaii’s top executive.

These are tough times for us all, especially our national economy and pocketbooks. We face crucial challenges like balancing out budget, improving health care, preserving our environment and living in an uncertain world, to name a few. Our Hawaii also faces transition in our congressional representation, especially with the lost of Rep. Abercrombie’s two decades of seniority.

There he goes again with seniority. Given my previously stated bias against Case, I have to admit the possibility that I’m reading too much into that last sentence. Maybe its not a jab at all, but for a man who gave up what would be, by next year, two additional years of seniority to his already accrued four, he didn’t seem terribly interested in the idea of seniority when he saw a chance to step over Senator Akaka and take his seat in the Senate. For a man who’s been ‘blessed with a lifetime in Hawaii,’ I’m pretty sure Ed really should have known better.

The race was made more interesting yesterday with the Senate President, Colleen Hanabusa, announcing her own bid for Hawaii’s First Congressional seat. A frequent voice on the local blog scene, Kolea makes an interesting analysis of the match-up (you’ll need to scroll down the page a bit). I tend to agree with him, both in his analysis and desire for a good progressive third candidate.

Without comparing side-by-side their stance on any number of issues, its hard for me to claim one to be more progressive than the other, though at a time when every Democratic vote in the House counts, I do believe Colleen will be more likely to vote ‘the Party Line’ than Ed, who flaunted his independence from the Party in his 2006 Senate bid. He continues to make the same appeal to Republicans and independents, though maybe not explicitly.

From his email response to Colleen’s announcement:

Above all, I offer my continued loyalty first and foremost to all those I represent, regardless of party, belief, origin or power.

Certainly to the average voter this is a welcome sentiment, however, for those of us that look to the Democratic majority in the U.S. House as a means to enact real and progressive change, its frightening. When it comes to issues relating to the economy, corporate interests, and foreign policy, Ed is considered by many to be a ‘blue dog’ Democrat and would be less inclined to vote with the majority in these areas.

Expect more from me in the future on the race for Hawaii’s First Congressional seat. For now, I’ll leave you with a suggestion; if you’re considering supporting Ed Case, you might want to ask him if he’d be willing to make a campaign promise not to run for the Senate for, say, at least ten years. If he’s not willing to make that, or some similar commitment, I’d think long and hard about what his real motives might be before deciding to support the man.

As for Colleen, I haven’t yet formed an opinion one way or another….

]]> http://peoplesdialectic.com/2009/10/02/hawaiis-1st-congressional-race/feed/ http://peoplesdialectic.com/2009/09/13/strong-well-crafted-words-from-bill-maher/ http://peoplesdialectic.com/2009/09/13/strong-well-crafted-words-from-bill-maher/#comments Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:38:18 +0000 peoplesdialectic http://peoplesdialectic.com/?p=96 I came across an article today that one which I feel the need to comment. Bill Maher, talk show host and progressive guest blogger on HuffingtonPost.com, put to words much better than I could, the things I’ve been thinking and feeling at least since the health care debate started heating up this summer, if not since Obama took office.

Its also been my major complaint with the Democratic Party since they took back control of the U.S. House in 2006; right off the bat, House leadership proclaimed impeachment was ‘off the table.’

For progressives, such as myself, the Obama Presidency has been a huge disappointment thus far. From discharging Van Jones, to a weak environmental emissions regulation bill, to his most recent concessions on health care reform, Obama has bowed to Republican pressure every time.

Those who supported Obama from the beginning (of which I am not one), they’re still waiting for the campaign promised ‘change we can believe in.’

Bill Maher voices, with insight and humor, what I believe many progressives and even some Democrats are thinking. With Democrats controlling BOTH houses of Congress, not to mention the White House, I think its really time for Republicans (and their pundits) to remember what it feels like to be relegated to the minority party.

He (and Democrats generally) caved without a fight on a Single-Payer solution to our health care woes, only to have a fight about his watered-down-at-best solution which is little more than a bail out, or subsidy, to the health insurance industry. A public option, as described by Obama, is likely to act like a syphon drawing the sick and elderly out of the private insurance system, eventually driving the public insurance system to bankruptcy.

Referring to a Single-Payer option as the hope of the left, Obama by default invalidates it as a real and valid solution to our health care crisis.

And now, Obama has begun to look to ‘overhaul the financial regulatory system,’ according to the Washington Post. Here’s hoping Obama is far more of an ‘asshole’ in regulating the financial market than he has been in dealing with health care reform…..

I won’t be holding my breath.

As is suggested in comments on the story at both iLind.net and Volcanic Ash, I think the SPLC article is awkwardly one-sided. Does prejudice exist in Hawaii? Certainly. Do I need the SPLC to tell me that? No. The matter is far more complicated than a native culture breading violence against white people.

I’ve lived here for nearly seven years and know and count among my friends several Hawaiians. One of the things I love so much about these islands is the Hawaiian culture. In contrast to my experience, and I expect the experience of countless other visitors and ‘transplants’, the SPLC reports with a seemingly broad stroke, painting the entire culture as ‘white-hating.’ Its simply not true.

Whether most people think the issues of Statehood, overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, sovereignty, etc., are in the past and that Native Hawaiians should just ‘get over it,’ isn’t addressed at all. In my humble opinion, Native Hawaiians have every right to be angry.

To be clear, and as a pacifist, I don’t condone violence against anyone and certainly not against children.

I’ve heard little to no argument to the notion that the Hawaii Kingdom was illegally annexed by the United States. And the annexation occurred after the overthrow of the Queen, Liliʻuokalani. In 1993, the U.S. Congress said as much in a joint resolution officially apologizing for the overthrow.

Americans, including those at the SPLC should take a second to think about how they might feel or respond were the U.S. illegally overthrown by some foreign power. Sure it’s history, but in the scope of human history, it didn’t happen that long ago.

I also find the timing of the article’s publication interesting. Days before this article popped in the Hawaii blogosphere, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights again voiced its opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, commonly known as the Akaka Bill.

These reports, added to a slew of recent lawsuits against Hawaiian-only programs and school admissions, its no wonder Native Hawaiians are angry. They must feel powerless watching endowments and government agencies, like Kamehameha Schools and Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), come under attack in recent years and listening to people say these programs unfairly and illegally favor Native Hawaiians.

(I can’t help but wonder what these same people would say about Affirmative Action, for example? I’m not a lawyer, but I find such suits smack of hypocrisy)

Now, having said all this, I do believe the SPLC’s observation about under-reported racially motivated attacks to be accurate. More should indeed be done to curb this type of violence. Regardless of past aggressions and illegal actions against the Hawaiian Kingdom, no one has the right to physically or verbally assault another person.

Ultimately, I think the SPLC report shines a light on an issue in Hawaii to which we should all pay more attention, not just for the sake of those getting attacked, but for the sake of those doing the attacking. I think both the State and Federal Governments have been sorely negligent in their responsibilities to the Native Hawaiian community.

On a personal note, the current condition of Native Hawaiians pains me. I would like nothing more for them than to be able to stand, united, as a nation of people and announce themselves in one voice. I intentionally take no position on the Akaka Bill because I believe it isn’t my place. I do know, that if Hawaiians could come together and agree on a course of action regarding the Akaka Bill, I would, vocally and whole-heartedly, support whatever position they chose.

The Eat Local Challenge is no exception. In fact, it strikes at the heart of possibly one of the most immediate and important questions for our islands. Eating local is beneficial on both an economic and environmental level. And the light the Challenge shines on food channels couldn’t have come at a more crucial time.

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin featured on Wednesday, August 12, an article discussing plans to develop 1,500 acres of some of ‘the best ag land’ on Oahu for a 12,000 home community. The loss of this prime agricultural land to tract housing, shopping centers, and business parks will be a significant loss of our ability to grow food for ourselves.

There was a day when the economy of our islands didn’t depend on visitors from around the world. While no one suggests we return to the plantation culture, we do need to diversify our economy away from tourism. With a revenue stream that is so fundamentally tied to the vacation plans of people around the world, Hawaii is particularly vulnerable to economic hard times and recessions. We can no longer afford to depend so heavily on the disposable income of others. Hawaii must once again become self-sufficient.

Additionally, and simply put, growing and buying local produce is smart on a number of different levels. For starters, buying food that is locally grown keeps all (or at least the vast majority) of the money spent on food in the state, adding to the overall health and diversity of our local economy. Such locally grown products will be more fresh, obviously, than similar crops shipped from elsewhere. What’s more, the more produce grown and purchased in the islands means less is shipped to us, reducing the environmental impact of buying produce from out of state.

When talking about issues that have the potential to affect the lives of all of us, I can’t help but mention that I am not a life-long Hawaii resident. I’ve lived in the islands for nearly seven years and have come to call this place home. I have a deep appreciation and respect for the culture, the history, and the ‘aina of Hawaii and want to do what I can to preserve it.

This is an issue that requires more awareness, more discussion, and more commitment from all of us.

On Friday, August 28th, the Land Use Commission (LUC) ruled that D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes isn’t in compliance with state laws because their development plan extends 20 years to completion, instead of the ten required by law. This is ultimately a victory for those opposing the development of Hoopili, though it seems the set-back is a result of a technicality.

According to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser on Saturday, the 5-3 ruling by the LUC is, at a minimum, nothing more than a set-back and that the developer still has the ability to petition for partial, or even complete development of the site.

In addition to the LUC ruling, neither the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation support the development. Admittedly, both agencies have proposed compromises to the current plan, which is unfortunate and shows an unwillingness, in my mind, of the State to stand firm on the need to maintain prime agricultural land for agricultural purposes.

The Department of Agriculture, should the development of Hoopili be ultimately approved, suggested the developer ‘obtain an easement committing 1,407 acres of equivalent prime farmland elsewhere on Oahu for farm use in perpetuity.’ To me, this suggestion shows the State is willing to put off discussion, until some future date, or forever, on the important topic of a Hawaii that is self-sustaining in the area of food production. It would seem to me that if the State is willing to compromise on this area of development, what would keep it from compromising in the future on the 1,407 acres for which it is suggesting the developer obtain the easement?

Aside from the loss of prime agricultural land, the Department of Transportation says the developer hasn’t yet resolved issues related to the significant increase in traffic congestion the development would create. It is this issue, for better or worse, and not the loss of prime ag land, that may ultimately keep the land zoned for agriculture. The Department of Transportation has also said that the developer has, as of yet, not presented any ‘reasonable proposal’ to deal with the traffic concerns raised by the department.

All in all, the ruling by the LUC is a victory, however temporary, for those opposed to the Hoopili development, but I have little doubt that there is more work to do to raise the profile of this issue and to bring more people to the side of the Friends of Makakilo.

You can find additional information about the development of Hoopili and the LUC meeting here.

Mainstream media has begun to pick up on the differences. I’ve seen both CNN and MSNBC make references to astroturf organizing and while I doubt FOX News would call it that, I have to admit to not knowing for sure, seeing as watching a minute of FOX News creates a growing desire in me to stick sharp, pointy objects in my eyes and ears.

As the stories begin to trickle out from the media, research is beginning to show those behind the growing angry astroturf movement: corporations, right-wing republicans and even FOX commentator Glenn Beck!

In a conversation that can be seen on The Nation website, Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Keith Olbermann rightly discuss the question of just whom these angry mobs are comprised. Certainly, some of them are truly scared, confused, and concerned about the changes being discussed and proposed for health care. Others, on the other hand, are simply mouth pieces for the far-right, corporate health and pharmaceutical interests.

Progressives, (real) grassroots supporters of health care reform, both within and outside the Democratic Party need to get organized and moving on this, not only to show a strong, sound, and reasoned counter-argument to the “death panel” type propaganda, but also to show Congress the far-right aren’t the only ones who can turn out numbers to rallies.

Democratic Representatives and Senators are scared to hold public meetings during the recess because they fear the rabid mobs that have been turning out. During a time when it is the most important for our Congresspeople to be out in the public answering questions and fighting misinformation, they’re too afraid to come out of their offices.

Here in Hawaii, not one member of our Congressional delegation will be holding town hall meetings relating to health care because of their fear of the mob.

What’s more, President Obama should be publicly chastising the right-wing Republicans in Congress, rather than responding to the mob by chastising the progressives in his own Party. Those on the left side of the Democratic Party might be less inclined to publicly attack the right in their own Party if the leader of their Party and President of the United States was more willing to publicly challenge the right side of the Republican Party.

All of this makes any frank and public conversation about a Single-Payer system of public health impossible, but it also makes discussion about any real, if not mediocre, reform difficult. If rabid mobs stifle frank conversations about such vital topics like health care reform, there may not be any hope for the successful passage of real and comprehensive reform.