Fake news has been much in the news
lately, which is why it's not surprising to see the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser publish a piece proclaiming (falsely) that failed
politician Gary Hooser is a member of the state Senate and a fashion
trend-setter.
Yes, he of the long-sleeved, tucked-in,
garish-print aloha shirts, accented by jowls and a pot belly, no
less, is a fashionista, according to (who the hell is?) Erin Smith.
She also incorrectly identified Hooser, who got his ass kicked
despite spending more money than any Kauai County Council candidate
in history, as “now in the state Senate.”
Well, that might be accurate if Erin
had inserted “persona non grata” between “now” and “in.”
But hey, in the best tradition of fake
news, Hooser was able to to plug his Hooser hats and his HAPA
organization. Which is what fake news is all about: self-promotion, creating a false
narrative and conferring credence and credibility
where there is none.
Most telling, however, was Hooser
sharing his “best moment professionally,” which had nothing to do
with actually serving his constituents. Instead, it was all about
grandstanding and furthering HAPA's interests by crashing the
Syngenta stockholders meeting in Switzerland — a trip whose funding sources he has never disclosed — while wearing his “mana
shirt.”
Too bad he used up all the mana on that
kind of bullshit, instead of his re-election.
Ya know, somebody oughta trot Hooser's "SHAME" banner over to the Star-Advertiser.....
And then there's real news countering
false promises. Like Trump intoning his “drain the swamp” rhetoric
as he appoints Wall Street attorney Jay Clayton to head the
Securities and Exchange Commission. As the Washington Post reports:
As chairman of the SEC, Clayton would
help police many of the same large banks he has spent decades
representing, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays.
As The Week reported:
Goldman Sachs' stocks soared 33 percent
this year [2016] —including a 75 percent gain since its low in June.
Analysts credit President-elect Trump's nomination of several
current and former Goldman executives to key roles in his
administration and his planned deregulation of the banking industry.
Not that we should be surprised. Heck, Trump turned his
election bid into a money-making enterprise, with his campaign spending
$11.4 million at business he and his family own, like Trump Hotel,
Trump Air, Eric Trump Wine, etc.
Which leads us to an old Style Council classic:
It's no good praying to the powers that
be
'cause they won't shake the roots of
the money tree
No good praying to the pristine altars
Waiting for the blessing with holy
water
They like the same old wealth in the
same old hands
Means the same old people stay old
people stay in command
Watch your money-go-round; watch your
money-go-round
They got it wrapped up tight, they got
it safe and sound
Watch your money-go-round; watch your
money-go-round
As you fall from grace and hit the
ground
But hey, Trump is the working man's hero,
doncha know? He's looking out for your best interest. For sure he's gonna make America great again. Well, at least for the
1 percent he hangs with. He's got your back, which makes it so easy to stab it.
There's a reason why people believe
fake news and false promises. P.T. Barnum pegged it long ago:
“There's a sucker born every minute.”
One wonders if the star advertiser will issue a correction? Maybe in Hooser's own mind he is a senator .
ReplyDeleteNo, in Hooser's own mind he is an Emperor.
DeleteHey now Joan, you better watch it "garish-print aloha shirts" are awesome!
ReplyDeleteGary Hooser is a fashion role model? Hahaha haha!
ReplyDeleteThis article was a spoof, right?
Star Advertiser owns The Garden Island. Need I say more?
ReplyDeleteHooser has been sighted wearing Sig Zane Design shirts, so he's definitely buying the right in-style aloha wear that most high-profile politicians are wearing these days. How those shirts look on his portly body ... well that's another story. Not exactly the physique that you'd want to be seen on the catwalk, even for a Big and Tall model. Sadly, most of Hooser's legislative bills looked about as good as he does.
ReplyDeleteWhy trash Trump before he even has a chance? If Hillary was elected we would have more of the same, high taxes, more regulations, and mediocre growth. Trump, with his low business tax proposal, (the US has on of the highest business tax) at least gives us the chance for improved growth. I'm willing to give his administration a chance.
ReplyDeleteWe can always vote him out in 4 years.
If we survive WWIII, that is.
DeleteJanuary 9, 2017 at 10:38 AM said: "Why trash Trump before he even has a chance?" Well for one thing, he is supposed to have his fat ass deep in "Making America Great Again" and not pitching asinine tweet storms at all and sundry people with whom he disagrees- the latest of whom is Meryl Streep whose absolutely worst performance eclipses El Trumpo's best by a universe and whose intellect betters his by the same margin. We have no choice but to afford him whatever time in the White House he deserves (even if he had a Putin inspired boost), and I'm hoping he gets hoisted up on one of his many petards and departs early taking with him some of his blatantly unqualified and ethics dodging Trump Tower buttlickers. He'd better get used to disagreement since he's the poster blob of disagreeable. On the other hand, the longer he festers in office, the greater the loss of confidence in the Republicans who put him forward, and the mid-terms could be interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf you keep repeating the same lie over and over again.... Hooser's a senator, Hooser's a senator, Hooser's a senator, eventually people will think it's true.
ReplyDeletePesticides are safe,Pesticides are safe, Pesticides are safe , ... like that lie?
ReplyDeleteNext time try decaf 12:09
ReplyDeleteStreep was also an "expert" on the apple Alare scare in the late 80s. One of the original antis
ReplyDelete@1:01. I haven't heard anyone saying pesticides are safe. What you're telling is a different kind of lie.
ReplyDelete1:01 Locals want Hippie Haoles like you to move your ass back to the mainland! That is a fact! Any questions, look at Hooser's election results.
ReplyDeletehaha! good on Ms. Joan. I guess 1:01's memory is short lived to be from blog post to blog post, and from 2013 to 2017.
ReplyDeletewhat should be fair for one, should be fair for all. and that's only one way of saying what you've been saying for years on 2491.
Hello I am a local born and raised and I dont want Joan to leave this island.....She does a AWESOME job and speaks the TRUTH.....
ReplyDelete"Out of 44,332 registered voters on Kauai, 27,225 residents, or 61.4 percent of voters, came out to vote during the general election on Tuesday. " That's hardly the majority. Chem Company workers and there families were afraid and voted. The rest, local and haole, could care less. That's what the vote shows.
ReplyDelete3:53 Hooser outspent the other Candidates in the race by far, his radio and newspaper ads, his signs and banners all over the whole island. He still lost as did his partner Bynum 2 years ago. That's what the vote show dumbass!
ReplyDelete3:53 That's one way of looking at the stats.
ReplyDeleteHere's another way of looking at the other 17,107 who didn't vote: they don't give a crep about chemicals in their back yard. Another bunch had better things to then go n vote. Another bunch accepted the outcome to be what it was to be. Surf's up! They rather go work then to be bothered. A bunch has a medical condition and couldn't go to vote.
BUT! The ones who are committed to the democratic process, voted for the way they voted. And! The outcome IS WHAT IT IS!
All your shit n my shit is true, and there's a shit load more reasons to justify your analogy. 17,107 or so.
I voted for over 50 years! What counts in the end is the votes that was counted.
Open your thinking process pal. 44,332 don't always think the exact same way as you and I do.
Joan's telling you that this bullshit about only chemical / ag is bad, is not fair or balanced way to treat chemicals.
But ah! You fair yeah! (Sarcasm!)
If you agree that pesticides are not safe then why are you constantly attacking people that are fighting against pesticides?
ReplyDelete8:51, that's an easy answer, because you guys only vilify agricultural pesticide use, the rest of the pesticide use, you seem to give a free pass.
ReplyDeleteJoan Conrow said: "I haven't heard anyone saying pesticides are safe."
ReplyDeleteSeriously? You should read your own blog.
Joan, thank you for continuing to print comments such as those posted by 1/9 @ 8:51 PM so they can continue to display their insipidness and childishly stubborn inability to consider other points of view and evidence, as well as their continual use of "truthiness" to establish their worldview. By continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, they are exposing themselves for what they are, and the public is turning away from them.
ReplyDeleteNow let me speak directly to aforesaid poster: Listen carefully, little one. NOTHING can be proven SAFE. The issue is, what is the level of risk and exposure to people and the environment if pesticides are used properly according to the label? The answer, which has been clearly established by greater and more competent minds than yours is, extremely low, less than going out for a walk at midday without sunscreen on. So the people who are "fighting against pesticides" are tilting against windmills without the competence to assess the information. They are doing it to feel good about themselves, rather than being willing to effect meaningful change in their communities that directly benefit all citizens. Or, they are doing it for personal gain (a la Hooser, Achitoff, et al) without regard for the effects on the community. If you've been reading Joan's blogs thoroughly and with an open mind, this is all very evident.
This is 1/10 @ 6:26 AM, what I wrote also goes for 1/10 @ 6:13 AM.
ReplyDeleteThis is 1/10 @ 6:26 AM, what I wrote also goes for 1/10 @ 6:13 AM.
ReplyDeleteSo if the red shirts start marching in front of golf courses, tinted houses, and stores that sell pesticides you will be on their side? I'm glad I wear a black shirt because both sides are idiots.
ReplyDeleteSo if the red shirts start marching in front of golf courses, tinted houses, and stores that sell pesticides you will be on their side? I'm glad I wear a black shirt because both sides are idiots.
ReplyDeleteI am local @2:04 and don't like pesticides. Neither do any of my local friends.
ReplyDelete1/10 @ 6:37 AM who are you responding to, with your first sentence?
ReplyDelete7:36@. The fact that Brun, a Syngenta employee is now sitting on Kauai Council in exact seat where Hooser used to sit, is all evidence anyone should need as to how the people of Kauai feel about this issue.
ReplyDelete6:43 well prove it's damage with facts, evidence, or proof! Don't make shit up like the Hippies and cause trouble for nothing! Local respect, be humble, that's local style. But when we have facts that prove otherwise, we fight! That's how it's done. Go watch Kaiulani, good movie, same thing, the Haoles think we stupid, the fact is "they are!" F-them.
ReplyDeleteto Jan 9 at 2:04--i local too and i don't like pesticides being sprayed recklessly without thinking of neighbors, schools, hospitals close by---this goes for the biotechs, golf courses, and all who do the spraying without thinking of their neighbors! Hey, a golf course on Oahu lost a suit by a neighbor who claimed their children were being harmed by the pesticides! Maybe we have to do more suing to get things done in a manner that will make changes. Can we sue the State for not protecting us from pesticides?
ReplyDelete@8:09 said: i don't like pesticides being sprayed recklessly without thinking of neighbors, schools, hospitals close by.
ReplyDeleteThis is the BS you have been fed by the antis, that pesticides are being sprayed recklessly, with no regard for neighbors. Neither is true.
In fact, the seed companies met with all their neighbors to offer them disclosure prior to spraying, and only a few requested it.
It's also BS that the state isn't protecting you from pesticides.
Please provide a citation for your claim that "a golf course on Oahu lost a suit by a neighbor who claimed their children were being harmed by the pesticides!" I don't think that's true.
8:09 AM Go sue you like sue! Good luck proving it! All I saying, no let these damn transplant Haoles dictate our life. Have respect, no bullshit, cause it all has a way of flying back in your face. Like Hooser and Bynum, the shit all flew back in their face. They lied, they accused, and now what? All a waste of time, money, and tearing our community apart! Go blame the State, see if that kind of attitude works. All it does is pisses them off more and categorizes all of you who claim to be local in the same class as all those Hippie Haoles (look at the Maui County Fiasco picture). It is what it is! You act like them, no cry when you are categorized with them. Simple as that!
ReplyDeleteJoan, in the fact based world of science you advocate please show me proof of "mana" or that "a sucker is born every minute".
ReplyDeleteDon't strain our patience with your pismire quibbling, 10:22.
ReplyDelete8:09@ You should talk to Ross Kagawa and join forces. Great minds think alike. Not.
ReplyDeleteSorry to step in Joan, but I am compelled to respond to 1/10 @ 10:22 AM.
ReplyDeleteThere are areas where a fact based world of science is necessary, and others where it is not. In the areas of pesticides and genetically engineered organisms, fact-based science is used as the basis for product development, federal registration, regulation of products, evaluation, etc. In the areas of mana or where God exists, science is not going to provide factual evidence, so it is up to each person to decide for themselves, yet groups of people can have a shared consensus.
As far as the quote you mentioned, I laughed so hard that you chose it I actually wondered if you are trying to make it easy to be discredited?
Eh, 10:43am....watch South Park's Going Native Episode...that episode is about you.
ReplyDelete@11:16 watch Once Were Warriors. That's about you.
ReplyDelete10:43am Mel Rapozo and Ross Kagawa, local boys, were correct on Bill 2491, Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum, Transplant Haole boys, got it wrong. The Bill is Invalid. What's your point? Does passing shitty Bills make your smarter? Should we expect government action based on fear mongering from the Hippy community? Why don't you run against Mel and Ross, let's see how smart you are?
ReplyDelete10:43@ Ross and Mel are chest thumping, arrogant, self-rightous, big body ignorant racist pricks who speak out of both sides of their mouths. The passing of Bill 2491 has resulted in Kauai being a safer, healthier place. Hooser and Bynum are both in a better place now than being stuck in a room with those other two assholes.
ReplyDelete@12:03
ReplyDeleteThen why was Hooser so eager to get back in that room?
And I challenge you to name one way in which Kauai is a safer, healthier place due to 2491. Because there isn't any. Even if the bill itself hadn't been overturned, it would not have made any difference in health or safety. That was the big charade, and one of my chief criticisms of it.
Kauai might be "safer" from passing Bill 2491 for smug, sanctimonious transplants who think their way is better than that of the community THEY MOVED INTO, who brought their riches earned NOT IN AGRICULTURE so they could live in their North Shore ghettos, and who demonize the seed companies and conventional farmers without even bothering to talk to them.
ReplyDelete12:03 And you are a racist Haole who thinks that because you are white, that your are somehow better than the locals (Barf...) Thank God for Ross and Mel, somebody has to tell people like you "No!" straight in your face. They are not typical politicians, if assholes is the description, thank you Ross and Mel for being assholes to the arrogant Haoles who treat locals and local values like shit!
ReplyDeleteFrom a disgraced cop to car dealer, to pawn shop owner, to community leader. Local Style
ReplyDelete11:08 You stepped in it as a poor proxy for Joan "In the areas of mana or where God exists, science is not going to provide factual evidence". That's because no evidence exists. Science has not going to provided factual evidence that astrology, astral projection, or mind reading exists either but that does not make it any more true than god or mana. Joan uses "fact based science" as a weapon to bully others "beliefs" and ignores it when she sees fit.
ReplyDelete"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
— Bobby Henderson
I think this whole pesticides/agriculture discussion is a lot like discussing religions. Don't overstep your boundaries by trying to convert people to your religion (organics). It's fine to live your life the way you want to but don't expect others to want to (or have to) live it the same way. Stop preaching. There are other religions and even non-believers, so if you don't like what's going on around you ... move.
ReplyDeleteI wonder who Tina Silvia voted for?
ReplyDelete@1:44 The reference to "mana" came from Hooser and the article. I just satirized it. I fully support people's right to believe in things that can't be proven, like God. What I object to is when they have false beliefs about things that can be and have been proven.
ReplyDeleteAs for your quote from Bobby Henderson, he was being facetious.
1:44 PM, thanks for conveniently overlooking the first part of my post, and for missing the point.
ReplyDeleteChlorinated water is "safe" to drink. Our drinking water is chlorinated to make it safe for us to drink. It is a pesticide and it kills bacteria.
ReplyDeleteit is known among historians. egyptologists that the best and most effecient weed control , as quoted in the bible, is beer. egyptians used beer for medicinal and ag purposes. holy moses used beer to quell the strife of his flock. and it has been disproved that jesus turned water into wine and confirmed by the vatican that it was actually beer. evidence shows that most households in the beginnings of culture had a home brew area close to the hemp fields. there was harmony of life and no wars were raged among the true believers. it is ingrained in our dna to seek out more beer and hemp. amen
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, 1/10 @ 1:44 PM, you have a very selective and hypocritical definition of the term bullying. If you think writing about what people like Hooser, Achitoff, Chun, Rosenstiel, DiPietro, Maupin, et. al. have actually said, done, or posted on social media is "bullying", you are to be pitied.
ReplyDeleteThis blog and its comments are open season on anybody Joan doesn't like but she won't print anything a commenter writes that puts down anybody she likes. That proves to me she has an agenda.
ReplyDelete@7:57 Get off it. I publish comments that are critical of people I like.
ReplyDelete7:57 am : Yes she does post comments of people she likes. Dan Hempey, Trask, DeCosta are the "quid pro quo boys". Trask, Dahilig, Jung are the NKOTB (new kids on the block). You can read 9 years of her blogs and see for yourself.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on people's looks, weight, and clothes is not relevant to your difference of opinion with others on the issues. Why you gotta be so mean?
ReplyDeleteThe article on Hooser is in the Lookbook section, and it's heavily focused on his appearance and clothes, which makes commenting upon them relevant to this post.
ReplyDeleteJoan 12:10 This quote indicates Joan does not understand science at a fundamental level. Joan said "What I object to is when they have false beliefs about things that can be and have been proven."
ReplyDelete"The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely."
"Proven" has no place in science
Those, like Joan, who would teach science and yet fail to understand this basic tenet of science give succor to creationists, anti-GMO advocates, and others by making unscientific claims like "can and have been proven". She is misinforming people she is trying to inform - Higgs Boson
@9:41 -- Except I am neither teaching science nor claiming to be a scientist.
ReplyDelete1/11 @ 9:41 AM, Joan has never claimed to be a scientist. I easily understood her to be using the term "proven" to indicate that properly designed and analyzed, peer-reviewed science has been performed and repeated to demonstrate that the claims made by people who oppose pesticides and genetically engineered organisms are demonstrably false. Going forward, perhaps she will adjust her writing to reflect that yes, very little is proven in science, and many theories are well accepted by scientists (such as the theory of gravity) based upon the published science. But that's her choice and in my view, not something to nitpick.
ReplyDeleteC'mon Marjorie. When the Star Advertiser prances out "Senator" Honey Booboo as a so-called fashion setter, of course we're going to chime in about how he really looks. Emperor's clothes indeed.
ReplyDeleteI think you should stick to the issues. There is no need and nothing to gain by getting personal and nasty about someone's looks. It may feel good for 5 minutes to attack someone on this way, but in the end the negativity and hostility can't be good for you. Just saying...
ReplyDelete"science has been performed and repeated to demonstrate that the claims made by people who oppose pesticides and genetically engineered organisms are demonstrably false" when funded by the companies with the most to gain.
ReplyDelete@12:17 Actually if you read the history of this particular column it is more about "what different people in Hawaii wear to work and play". They feature all kinds of people to show all kind of styles as representing various Hawaii lifestyles and occupations. Hooser is a politician and politicians wear Ryn Spooner and Sig Zane (at least many of them do).
ReplyDeleteThis is not science. There is scientific evidence that everyone is full of shit. That is why we all do the 22222222222222's.
ReplyDeleteMarjorie Ziegler said...I think you should stick to the issues.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this Joan's blog? Can't she write about whatever interests her?
And is obviously of interest to others, including me?
Joan can be snide and critical when it's deserved, but she isn't cruel. Which is more than can be said about Hooser and many of his followers.
Of course, and we are free to comment on Joan's blog (unless she blocks us), and she is free to post our comments or not.
DeleteThe existence of pesticides 100 miles away from me does’t affect me directly as all. Drinking a gallon of atrazine will probably kill me. are two extremes. The balance comes somewhere in between but it seems the discussion always comes down to the extremes. How dull.
ReplyDelete1/11 @ 1:24 PM, again you pull out the discredited retorts. We all see right through you. Obviously you don't know about the studies done by independent labs that were NOT funded by the companies yourselves. What's even better is that the organic associations and activist groups in the EU and US have not been able to publish any credible studies that show otherwise... and they are well funded!
ReplyDeletemarj. same bull shit comment, different day. a shit load of you makes the same comment MANY OF TIMES!!! for the short amount of years, I've been reading this blog, it's no secret. it's her blog. and she said it before, don't attack her with vulgar language. she won't post it.
ReplyDeleteMarj. go to another blog. Dam!!! ALOHA!!! meaning BYE!
No vulgar language on my end, what about you? Who are you, by the way? And so far,Joan has posted my comments, even though we don't always agree. I appreciate that.
ReplyDelete11:46, I've been vulgar all my life. I'm not changing for you. plus, it is vulgar to you, but it's not directed directly at you, it's my way of articulating my thoughts. Been reading this blog only a couple of years. But I do remember what I read about what Joan will not post, and comprehend the bigger picture of her post's.
ReplyDeleteEven with my vulgar posts, she lets me on her post.
So!!!! if Joan posts your comments, why do you write "Of course, and we are free to comment on Joan's blog (unless she blocks us), and she is free to post our comments or not." Using the word lair is a harsh word, so pick one not as realistic for you to use. I guess I'm assuming that Joan posted "ALL" your comments.
In your own words, you claim she blocks "us". you're part of "us" Yes! Well she didn't block any of your posts, but you make the claim anyway. UMMMMMMM! Ok. Marj! (redundant comment, but needed)
Feel better! look Mom! no vulgarity! So much for appreciative respect for this blog. "I appreciate that." (sarcasm!)
And! you poke at Joan, but you appreciate her letting you poke her. Funny!
Good thing it's almost the weekend.
Find a more congenial blog, Marj. You are becoming a tiresome twit. Brevity is your only strong suit, but even that is too great a price to pay for your posts.
ReplyDelete.This is going to be a tough comment to make, since it addresses remarks Joan made in both her Jan 9, and Jan 12 blogs. I just spent a week in DC. I was asked to answer questions about cover crops, carbon sequestration by using notill and cover crops, carbonomics, and the economic returns to farmers for using cover crops. This information is going to be used to evaluate the economics of growing cover crops to reduce greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Prior to that meeting, I had a briefing on how the current EPA has modeled the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change.
ReplyDeleteNow, the fact that surprised me the most, was which gas is the largest man made greenhouse gas. In fact, this gas varies so much in the amount the atmosphere contains, that the EPA excludes it from its' greenhouse gas models. Further, they exclude other environmental factors like ET (evaporative transpiration), cities paving over farm ground, forest fires, drought, notill vs conventionally tilled farm ground, rain fall, pasture ground being converted to farm ground, and new highways/railroad expansion. All of those factors contribute to global warming, but are excluded from the models. Therefore, the way the EPA extrapolated the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment has very little correlation to the actually environmental factors causing climate change. Their models go beyond pseudoscience and are really junk science in many ways. You can't base a model on 5-10% of man's impact on the environment and use that model to set 100% of our nations energy environmental policies. That's like a blind man trying to hunt a deer: his odds of being successful are going to be much less than a person that has good vision. Further, a model that sees clearly all the contributing factors will be more successful addressing needed changes to protect/improve the environment.
While Trump's pick for head of EPA maybe unpopular, at least he understands the flaws of the current model. It has become clear that the current EPA staff has become too indoctrinated in their own cause, and are too closed minded to accept a new perspective on how humans are impacting a continually changing climate. Without some new blood in the EPA to address the faults of the current models, we will continue to waste time, money, and resources by addressing problems that are (probably) not as detrimental as the EPA's models claim. Further, there are ways to combat climate change that are being ignored and we could be using those resources to make a real difference on the future of our plant's ecosystem and environment.
That being said, I hope people can have an open mind as a new perspective on man made climate change emerges and are open to a new direction for addressing the many problems facing our ever changing planet.
Bradley, this is why I'm so glad you participate in this forum. Your thoughtful comments always add some new — and best of all, informed — insights to the conversation. Thank you!
ReplyDelete