Tag Archives: Hawaii

Akaka Bill, OHA

Akaka by OHA

Leave a comment

So, if you’ve been living in a cave on Mars, with your fingers in your ears, going, “La, la, la, la, la” over and over again, you’ll probably be glad to hear that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has launched an “informational” page to help people truly understand the implications of the Akaka Bill.  Of course, if you’re even slightly conscious and an inhabitant of Hawaii, you probably already have  grasp of the basics.  But I’m sure OHA’s effort will be deeply appreciated by those who just woke from a coma or those who don’t care to have their news tainted by elements of impartiality.

Of course, there’s not much new to find there–they’ve basically taken the “There, there . . . no need to worry, it won’t change anything except the very foundations of the state,” approach.  It was interesting to see that they skipped right past the fact that a roll of names of eligible Hawaiians to participate in the formation of the of the new Native Hawaiian government would be determined and published . . . without really questioning how that determination would be reached.  This was especially fascinating in light of OHA’s assurance that the Akaka Bill is not race-based.  Technically speaking, that would be proper, as the Kingdom of Hawaii was not a racial entity, but a regular old sovereign government with borders, citizens of many races, and so on.  But that’s not exactly the history of Native Hawaiian programs in the last several decades, which (understandably) tend to focus on actual Native Hawaiian lineage.

The claim that the Akaka Bill is not race-based does bring up an interesting paradox, however. Pretend for a moment that it really was going to reflect the history of the Hawaiian nation and include anyone who can trace their heritage to citizens of the Kingdom–including Native Hawaiians, Chinese, whites, and so on.  It certainly would be a most accurate representations of Hawaiian citizens at the time of annexation.  But would there be much support for an Akaka Bill that wasn’t at it’s heart, race-based?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Grants, HHS

Hey Buddy, Can You Spare a Sustainable Plant?

1 Comment

Sometimes, I really have to wonder about the thinking behind some of these grant programs.  Take, for example, the $444,500 granted in 2009 to the Ali’i Pauahi Hawaiian Civic Club from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  (Yep, federal funds.)  The grant is being given for Ka Mahi’ ai ‘Ihi o Wailea (The Sacred Farm of Wailea).  Again, I have to stress here that this is the actual language from the grant.  I am not making  up the sacredness of the farm in question.  So what is it that the Sacred Farm is going to do with hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds?  Why, the money is for, “Establishing a community and culturally-based sustainable farm to raise sacred and important native plants for domestic use and export.”  Sacred and important Hawaiian plants.  As opposed to non-sacred or unimportant plants.  Not to get too hung up on the plant judgment thing, but I couldn’t resist doing a Google search to try to find out what counts as a sacred Hawaiian plant.  Unfortunately, there isn’t a sacredandimportanthawaiianplants.com.  As far as I can tell, a sacred native plant is a plant with some degree of use in Hawaiian culture + the word “sacred”.  So we’ve got taro, ‘ohelo, and so on.

Ok, I’m getting a little obsessed here.  I just can’t stop envisioning some pencil-pusher in Washington nodding and saying something like, “Of course we do have to protect the sacred native plants.”

What I don’t get is how this is really an effort to help Native Hawaiians.  I’m sure the argument is about creating a viable business for the community, but if that were really the goal, then there wouldn’t be so many limitations on the products of the farm.  Assuming that there is a viable trade in export and sale of Hawaiian plants (which there clearly is), then why not make the focus on creating a sustainable source of income for the community?  Obviously, there are competitors in the native plant business.  And at least some of those aren’t going to be adding cost to their production by requiring the farming to be “culturally-based” and “sustainable.”  Not that these aren’t selling points in themselves–as the organic trend has taught us, there are people willing to pay the upcharge for philosophy-based farming–but who is this really helping?  If you lived in a struggling community, how happy would you be to hear that your newest economic opportunity was in the form of a Sacred Farm?  I just can’t shake the feeling that this is more about helping Sacred Farm then aiding the community at large.

Akaka Bill

A Feeling of Recognition

Leave a comment

Interesting things are happening in Hawaii politics when it comes to support for the Akaka Bill.

Actively opposing it still takes a measure of political courage.  (Which, believe it or not, is not necessarily an oxymoron.)  But slowly, enough concerns have been raised about its effect on the Islands that some of those aspirants to office that aren’t completely beholden to the Akaka supporters are searching for some other language to express their reservations.  Consider it the political equivalent of backing quietly away from a terrible potluck dinner, saying, “No, I’m pretty full.  I think maybe I’ll just have this roll.”  (This might not be the best analogy, in that I’ve never been to a bad potluck dinner in Hawaii.  You all are luckier than you know.  Maybe everyone should have to do a year-long mission to the Mainland so that they can learn about the horrors of the mysterious gooey casserole and wet, salty, mushy rice.)

The result is a move towards ambiguity.  Look for statements that support, “some form of recognition for Native Hawaiians,” and yet stop short of endorsing Akaka.  Putting aside for the moment, all of the debate about how comparable the situation of Native Hawaiians is to that of Native Americans, there is (at heart) a genuine and admirable impulse here:  No one wants to underrate the contribution of Native Hawaiians or the importance of Hawaiian culture.  And when combined with the difficult socio-economic situation of many Native Hawaiians, there is a clear desire to assist that community–heck, this entire website calculates the millions and millions of dollars spent on all of these motivations.  But warm feelings do not make necessarily make good law.  In fact, all of this vague charity comes perilously close to that “soft bigotry of low expectations” thing.  I’m starting to wonder whether all of these well-intentioned feelings aren’t more destructive to the future of Native Hawaiians than anything else.  Stopping short of creating a separate governmental system, but still wanting to give “something” to Native Hawaiians . . . isn’t that pretty close to where we are now, only without making it official with Presidential signatures and much patting-ourselves-on-the-back?  (Then again, if I was Hawaiian, I’d be happy to just get a check for my share of the millions in federal, state, OHA, and Bishop Estate money spent to help me.  Because I’m starting think that I could do a lot more to help myself than any of those groups.)

Hawaii Legislature

The Hawaii Legislature–Working for you. Sort of.

Leave a comment

How often do you get to see an actual politician explain how counter-productive and useless this legislative session was?  Not very often, that’s for sure.  It requires a degree of honesty that (let’s face it) is not exactly plentiful among those with one finger in the prevailing political winds.  And that’s why, if you want a real rundown of the accomplishments (or lack thereof) of the Hawaii Legislature this year, you definitely want to watch Hawaii Senator Sam Slom’s legislative round-up.  It’s certainly worth viewing in its entirety, but I’ll hit the highlights for you:

Downsides to this Legislative Session: They balanced the budget only by raising taxes and fees, raided the hurricane relief safety net to try to prop up the teacher’s union and the state school system (which isn’t exactly reaching new heights in education . . . except to hit a national record for shortest school year), and generally handicapped business and enterprise in the Islands.

Accomplishments of this Legislative Session: Feel-good bills about sharks and monk seals.

You know, some people might question a legislative session that only lasts a few months, but I’m starting to be grateful that the window to really foul things up is so small.

Akaka Bill

How Big is Bigger and Who Stands to Gain?

1 Comment

The CEO of OHA, Clyde Namuo, makes remarks in the Honolulu Advertiser of 4/15/10 addressing David Shapiro’s regular column of 4/12/10 opining that Shapiro made some “good observations” but “overlooks the bigger issue of why federal recognition makes sense for Native Hawaiians and for all in Hawaii, in the first place”. He follows that with mostly platitudes, but specifically mentions land, rights and resources “owed” a new Akaka Tribe.

Shapiro, on the other hand, discusses the secret, closed door method used in DC to make the latest changes before they were sprung on then Representative Abercrombie, the Governor, and virtually everyone else, just before the House vote. His observations then turn even darker. Here are some quotes:

“ The Akaka bill would change life in Hawaii in profound ways and confer enormous power on a relative few, but there has been little clear explaination….” Senators Inouye and Akaka “are basicly saying ‘Trust Us’ which many are unwilling to accept on a matter with such enormous impact on local life and so much opportunity for political mischief”

Here are my questions for readers:

Which person outlines the bigger issue?

Which of these two stands to gain power, money, etc if the Akaka bill becomes law?

The best course of action at this time is to stop all consideration and action at this time in the US Senate until extensive educational hearings are held in Hawaii so our people can evaluate and judge what the federal government is planning to do to us or for us and what we think of it. For those of you who like that idea, call an elected official and propose such.

Uncategorized

Save the Bulletin!

Leave a comment

I confess that I’ve always kind of liked the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the best.  Nothing against the Advertiser, but I always felt like there was a little less editorial bias at the Bulletin.  And also there’s just something about the name.  “Star-Bulletin.”  It sounds dreamy, but newsy.  Just what I want out of a Hawaii newspaper.  (Well, that and good, fair news coverage of course.)

But the Bulletin is actually in danger of shutting down–maybe even as soon as next week.  Why is this bad news?  Well, on a practical level, that means that hundreds of Hawaiians are in danger of losing their jobs.  And that stinks no matter how you cut it.  But beyond that, losing the Star-Bulletin will make Honolulu a one-newspaper town.  And if you want to encourage fair, responsible, and hard-hitting reporting, a little competition is important.  The internet may have changed news forever in letting people choose to get their news from a source they trust, but without the journalists on the ground, it gets harder and harder to find good information.  (And this goes double for the outer islands.  Feel a little overlooked now?  Imagine how much worse that can be with only one major paper in Hawaii’s capitol to cover your news and concerns.)

It just so happens that there are two highly-respected local figures who have put forth a bid to buy the Star Bulletin–State Senator Sam Slom and Hawaii Reporter’s Malia Zimmerman.  I won’t bore you all with their bonafides, but believe me when I say that if you’re local and wish that there was a Hawaii newspaper run by people who lived here, understood Hawaii, understood our concerns, and would promote accurate and unbiased reporting, then it would be hard to do better than these two. (And for all y’all on the outer islands, take note that part of their plan for the Star-Bulletin, should their bid succeed, is to expand its coverage of the outer islands and make it less Oahu-centric.)

As to why that matters to those of us concerned about transparency and fiscal responsibility?  Well, it should be obvious that if we want to ensure an independent voice in the community for issues like this, we need to save the Star-Bulletin.

(Want to learn more?  Go to http://www.savehawaiinews.com.)

Uncategorized

An Issue with OHA’s Commentary in the Advertiser

Leave a comment

In his Honolulu Advertiserletter of April 15, OHA administrator Clyde Namuo talks about “reestablishing self-determination and self-governance for Native Hawaiian people.”  But the Hawaiian Kingdom was not a “Native Hawaiian” government.  Most cabinet ministers, nearly all department heads, and about 1/4 of the Legislature were Caucasians.  Thousands of people with zero native blood, including Asians, were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom.

Taxes

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself (& end up looking foolish)

Leave a comment

With tax day looming tomorrow, how about something that reminds us of how much we all loathe the IRS and the politics of taxation?  (Not you–IRS employee who reads this blog and could conceivably audit me.  I think you’re a fine, upstanding person, a great dancer, and have fabulous hair.  I’m talking about a completely different IRS person who would never be so cool as to be reading this.)

For awhile now, candidates for office who have wanted to demonstrate their commitment to not taxing us into oblivion have signed the ATR (Americans for Tax Reform) Tax Pledge, the gist of which is that the candidate promises to oppose any net increase in taxes, corporate or personal.  (I know, I know.  The horror!  Why, with a philosophy like that, one might leap to the conclusion that the candidate in question wasn’t in favor of driving away business and could even want to improve the economy.  What will those crazy fiscal conservatives come up with next?)

Well, in a move so disingenuous that I wouldn’t be surprised if their pants were actually on fire while they did this, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee started running an attack ad against Charles Djou (a Republican running for Congress in Hawaii’s 1st District) based on his pledge.  Of course, they couldn’t claim that Djou was opposed to higher taxes.  (Well, they could, but this would tend to undermine their efforts to not get him elected.)  So instead they twisted his anti-tax pledge into a claim that he supported tax breaks for companies moving jobs overseas.  As FactCheck.org explains, this is a complete misrepresentation of the anti-tax pledge that can only be explained by political sneakiness or crack addiction.  (Ok, I added the part about sneakiness and crack.  But FactCheck really did take the DCCC to task for the blatant misrepresentation of Djou, which, in this time of high unemployment, amounts to little more than a smear tactic.)

So let that be a reminder of a few things:

Don’t be swayed by outrageous claims when it comes to where the candidates stand on important economic issues.  Tax issues are almost always more complicated than can be explained in a 30 second commercial.  And falling for tactics like the DCCC tried with Djou will just teach politicians that making pledges isn’t worth the fallout.

While we can all agree that the employees of the IRS are a lovely group of people who should each individually get to date Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, April 15th still stinks.

Transparency

Transparency Shouldn’t Have “Annoyance” Exceptions

Leave a comment

Hawaii Reporter currently has a good summary of the effort to pass a law that would allow the Hawaii Department of Health to ignore requests for the President’s birth certificate.  (As you can imagine, there have been quite a few requests, and the DOH claims that it has become a waste of staff resources.)

Well, cry me a river.

A word of explanation: I once worked in a government FOIA office–for the Army as it so happened.  This was not long after two extremely unpopular Army decisions–the adoption of the Ranger beret for all soldiers and the awarding of the “Army of One” contract.  To say that we were besieged by requests for information about both of these things was an understatement.  Let’s just say that a large section of America was not at all happy about it and made that very clear as they sought more information about the decision process.

And “vexatious” requesters?  Well, I challenge the DOH to beat some of the doozies I encountered.  Processing something so simple and straightforward as a request for information about the microchips implanted by the Army in everyone’s brains was an easy day.

But I do have a point here–it didn’t matter what we in the FOIA office thought about the legitimacy of the requests we got.  We processed them.  Because that is the right thing to do.  Because an open and transparent government needs to treat all requests with respect–not just the ones that don’t annoy us.  And when we had to deal with the same question over and over and over and over again (like the beret), we did the logical thing–we made everything as open and easily available as possible and then streamlined the response process so that it didn’t use up too many of our resources.  (Hint to the DOH–Copy machines.  Use them.)  Did we gripe in the lunch room?  Sure.  But we never would have dreamed that someone would ever try to create a legal exception to the principle of transparency just out of annoyance.

As to why this is all important to the Native Hawaiian project–well, it should be obvious.  This is not a good precedent to set–especially in a state government that has made a lot of promises about sunshine and openness, but hasn’t always followed through.  If the legislature can carve out one exception to transparency policy out of reasons that amount to little more than bureaucratic irritation, then there’s not much to stop them from deciding that there are plenty of other things that they don’t much care to share with the public.

Making transparency a pick-and-choose option in the hands of bureaucrats violates the principle of open government and sets us on a slippery slope.

Uncategorized

Census Nonsense

Leave a comment

Like most everyone else, I have been feeling the mild irritation that comes with getting a long questionnaire from the government accompanied by vague threats and even vaguer promises about the importance of filling it out.  Apparently, we should all be eager to take advantage of this chance to get “our fair share.”

Has it really come to that?

Are we so greedy, so eager to get our share of the government pie that the advertising wizards behind this year’s census marketing decided that a naked appeal to greed, and social/cultural divisions was the best motivator to use?  Especially in light of the fact that the “fair share” here is really the fair share of my own tax dollars.

Call me cynical if you must, but my experience hasn’t let me to believe that a lot of those tax dollars are coming back to me.  Especially in light of recent legislative efforts.  So when I see the “fair share” ads, all I can think of is the government urging people to fill out their census so they can be certain to get some of my money.

And when we throw race into the equation, it gets even more complicated.

Because (as this site makes so abundantly clear) race and ethnicity and monetary “fair share” is almost an industry in this country.  And the net effect is not to bring us together, but to deepen racial divisions and resentments.

I highly recommend Sam Slom’s recent article about the census in the Hawaii Reporter about the census.  As Senator Slom points out, the census was originally about the reapportionment of the US House of Representatives.  Not the all-out entitlement grab that it seems to have become.  And by standing by and allowing it to be a more and more intrusive process, we’re basically condoning it.  No, I’m not advocating refusing to fill out your census form.  But I think that everyone who has an issue with big, intrusive government and with the business of federal entitlements and grievances should begin asking questions of their elected representatives about the appropriateness of the ever-expanding census.

And don’t even get me started on what it costs.