Musings: Wailing

The world was dim, dove gray and dripping all around the edges when Koko and I went walking on this full moon Monday morning, equipped with an umbrella that I soon put into service as the fine misty rain turned into something much more substantial. And hopefully, it will keep on coming.

We ran into my neighbor Andy, who asked what I’ve been working on. I said I’d spent much of the weekend writing a piece for Honolulu Weekly about burials and the implications of State Historic Preservation Division Administrator Pua Aiu’s decision to approve the Burial Treatment Plan for Joe Brescia’s house, even though the Burial Council had unanimously rejected it.

This was followed by Andy, who frequently gives me short history lessons, talking about the traditional Hawaiian practice of wailing to mourn the dead.

“I still think they should go out there in front of the house, every couple of weeks, especially after it’s been rented, and wail at 6 o clock in the morning, just to make it really clear to whoever is staying there exactly what’s gong on,” he said.

“That’s a vacation rental,” I interrupted, pointing to a house with a rental car parked in the drive, where the entry lights are always left on all night.

Andy paused, deadpan. “Let’s wail. We’re mourning the death of the land, and since it’s still dying, we can keep wailing.”

Ain’t that the truth.

KIUC, now officially being sued by Earthjustice, should be wailing over the birds they’re helping to drive to extinction, but instead they’re just whining:

KIUC was “surprised and disappointed” to learn about the lawsuit, the co-op’s president and CEO, Randy Hee, said Sunday.

Come on, Randy. Earthjustice gave you a heads up weeks ago with a notice of intent of sue. However, the most telling paragraph came at the end of Coco Zickos’ story, which reports that KIUC admits that it’s killing birds each and every year:

“KIUC realizes the potential for harm against the seabirds,” Hee said. “We are interested in doing whatever we can.”

What he doesn’t seem to realize is there’s a big difference between interest and actual action, which is precisely why the co-op is being sued.

This topic always makes me think of the thoughtful “f the birds” comment left by the shift-key impaired, short dash-fixated “dwps” — aka “mainland mentality,” “Darwin was pretty smart,” “young white atheist male” and “anonymous” — who recently left the comment:

only here, and a few weird places on the mainland populated by strange people, would a bike path be seen as some sort of bag thing. its bizarre

I’m assuming he meant “bad” and not “bag,” so let me spell it out for him. A bike path that is part of a road system, so as to truly facilitate alternative transportation, could be seen as a good thing.

But a bike path that runs over a beach or burials, is constructed of coastline hardening concrete, delivers hordes of people to places previously untrammeled, exposes you to possible $500 fines and puts you on the radar of an over zealous enforcement officer riding a bicycle with a poodle in a basket, well, in my opinion, that’s a bad thing.

Another bad thing: Tasers, and Police Chief Darryl Perry’s desire to make sure each and every officer (and hopefully that does not include Path enforcement) has one.

An article in the Daily Mail reports on how the United Kingdom has also embraced Tasers:

But perhaps of greater concern than increased numbers of X26 guns is the expectation that the police will soon be armed with a new long-range model. The more powerful weapon can immobilise a suspect for 20 seconds from 100ft away and is being tested by Home Office scientists.

One problem with Tasers is that they give cops a chance to vent their frustration and/or sadistic tendencies without getting in the same sort of trouble as they would if they beat someone up.

I heard that when the cops Tasered LeBeau Lagmay, he was lying immobilized on the ground, sweating profusely, shaking uncontrollably and literally shitting his pants, and they still Tased him again.

Of course, if you ask the cops, the alternative would have been to shoot him, like we do to unarmed people in Afghanistan all the time, as Democracy Now! reports:

Meanwhile, military officials in Kabul have admitted US and NATO troops have killed thirty Afghans and wounded eighty others at or near military checkpoints since last summer. In no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops. In a recent video conference, military commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said, “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

Yet in the face of this, we still have President Obama defending the death and destruction there with paranoid Cold War rhetoric like this:

“Plots against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the Afghan and Pakistani people are taking place as we speak right here. And if this region slides backwards, if the Taliban retakes this country and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake, the Afghan people will lose their chance at progress and prosperity, and the world will be significantly less secure.”

Kind of makes me want to start wailing.