Musings: Different View

For your Saturday viewing — and reflecting — pleasure, I offer this amazing video, with thanks to yogini extraordinaire Patricia Howard for the link.

And a different view of this great big beautiful world!

Have a wonderful day!

Musings: Karma's a Bitch

Kauai resident Eddie Ben-Dor is facing criminal prosecution for operating a vacation rental in Hanalei without a permit.

Ben-Dor, a New York diamond broker, is set to be arraigned Sept. 10 on a misdemeanor charge of violating the county zoning ordinance. He allegedly continued to operate Hanalei Villa, an unpermitted TVR on Weke Road, after the county had ordered him to cease and desist.

Though the VRBO site for Hanalei Villa has been shut down, I found it on Flipkey, offered by his daughter, Maile, now a Realtor in Southern California. The availability page showed it is booked right through Daddy's arraignment date, and the Christmas holidays, too.

The four-bedroom, three-bath, sleeps-12 TVR is billed as having two full kitchens and two living rooms, and can be rented as a multi-family dwelling, which is also illegal: “The house can also be broken into smaller private suites to fit parties of all sizes.” The full house rents for $5,800/week during the low season, while the Plumeria, Gardenia and Hibiscus suites average $2,000 per week.

As a disgruntled renter wrote regarding a cockroach-and-mold-infested May 2014 stay:

[F]or over $2000, you expect a minimal level of quality. Here, the owners are cashing in on a near-beach location - they have absolutely no interest in putting any of their money into fixing this disaster zone. 



In the end, we have complained to VRBO and will be seeking a refund through Amex. Interestingly, the Hanalei Villa website no longer works and the VRBO listing has disappeared. Very odd; I just hope the health inspectors have closed the property and that the owners will be obligated to sort the place out. It's an absolute disgrace.

Ben-Dor is the first person to actually be served a criminal summons as a result of the county's TVR enforcement crackdown, which was prompted by this blog's Abuse Chronicles series.

“We've filed charges in some other cases, but the issue is finding the person to serve them the summons,” said Prosecutor Justin Kollar. “Most of them do not have local owners.”

That's right. Many of the TVRs are owned by mainland investment consortiums, whose members get tax benefits from flipping these commercial properties — at the community's expense.

But Ben-Dor, who built that horrid monstrosity on Manoa Stream, adjacent to Haena Beach Park, does live here. So he got nailed as the Planning Department and Office of Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) worked together to identify offenders who won't come into compliance.

“We haven't given up on the case with out-of-state owners, [we] just have to be persistent,” Justin said.

I presented a few questions to Planning Director Mike Dahilig, via county spokeswoman Beth Tokioka, and got this reply:

Planning initiated the investigation and referred the matter over to the Prosecutor's office given the severity of the infraction (TVR with no certificate).

Planning is actively pursuing three other illegal TVRs with no certificates.Whether they are referred to OPA will be dependent on the evidence gathered.

We cannot speak to Justin's prosecutorial discretion, but Planning has other means with which they can deal with infractions (such as civil fines), and they will not be hesitant to use them in situations where they need to compel compliance. This past year Planning collected close to $150,000 in fines for violations of our codes — the majority from TVR violations.

If convicted — and let's hope the OPA doesn't work a plea bargain — Ben-Dor faces a $1,000 fine and/or a year in jail. The fine seems pretty meaningless, since the house starts at $882 per night. A jail term, on the other hand, would issue a strong warning to other scofflaws. The courts regularly send desperate drug addicts to jail. Why not a money addict? Or in this case, an arrogant person of privilege.

Speaking of which, I was amused to see Andrea Brower — daughter of privilege and darling of the anti-GMO “red-shirts” — write in a piece for the Common Dreams website:

We will only challenge the cruel modern structures of privilege and poverty if we overcome our collective disempowerment...

Andrea, who was living on her parent's million-dollar, non-farming ag estate before jetting off to New Zealand for graduate school, rants about the horrors of the capitalist system that has benefitted her so handsomely, before writing:

And perhaps most counter-intuitive, we are forced into apathy or fear of the “Other.”

This from the wahine who spent many months last year demonizing the chem/seed companies and their workers as the dreaded “Other,” who intentionally whipped up a frenzy of fear and a cult of ostracism by accusing them of wantonly poisoning the aina and destroying the health of their fellow citizens.

She goes on to write:

Yet despite the savagery that our system demands, we still do not abandon our most innate drives for mutual-aid, compassion and solidarity. In fact, what is most evident all around us, all the time, is our incredible generosity, sensitivity to fairness and the wellbeing of others.

Really, Andrea? Where was your "sensitivity to fairness" as you lobbed totally undocumented accusations, exaggerated the level of support, led a movement that viciously savaged anyone who even dared to disagree?

Where was your concern about the "wellbeing of others" as you branded local farm workers "ecoterrorists," sought to destroy the livelihoods of immigrants supporting their families in the Philippines with jobs in the seed fields, thoughtlessly rent the tight-knit fabric of a community that once nurtured you?

So much easier to write the talk than actually walk it.

Meanwhile, fellow “fistee” Felicia Cowden, whose KKCR show supplied a steady stream of anti-GMO trash talk, posted this woeful lament on Facebook about her struggling County Council candidacy:

I need my friends to stand with me and walk in the communities that do not know me. It is a completely different reception when I am alone as I approach people from different communities and ethnicities than when I am with someone they trust. For the most part, people who believe in me from various communities different than myself have not been willing to walk with me. People that are clearly rooting for me are not available when I am come to town. I also need to be more organized and do not have the support of a campaign machine. The strong, new challengers are financed by their industry that remains unclaimed on the candidate's statement papers.

Poor Felicia. It must be so scary to leave the rarified white air of the North Shore and actually face all those brown people who don't listen to KKCR, whose livelihoods she still seeks to destroy, whose spirits she helped trample, whose interests she claimed to represent.

As Chuck Lasker noted in re-posting Felicia's whine-a-thon:

note that she has all these "supporters" who won't help her (that's called "not a supporter")

I know, some of you will brand me mean to call out Felicia and Andrea (though I doubt Eddie will get much sympathy). But please, spare me your anonymous denouncements and take off your blinders instead.

Because, as the saying goes, karma's a bitch.

Musings: Foodies vs Farmers

Dawn in the high desert arrives cold. Venus rising, glowing like a campfire through a dip in the rounded hills, waning moon streaked with wispy clouds, Orion's belt and Makalii (Plieades) making their way west, as they do on Kauai, though here they are accompanied by a coyote's yelps and howls, rather than the clucking and crowing of chickens.

In an exchange of messages with a Kauai woman the other day she said all she knew of New Mexico, where I am, was what she'd seen on "Breaking Bad." Though I've never watched that show, I told her there are many similarities between New Mexico and Hawaii — economies based on tourism and military, vast income disparities, colonized indigenous populations (many of whom "lost" their land in the shuffle), rogue cops, rampant political cronyism, dwindling agriculture and brown people doing the dirty work.

The New Mexico police log is similarly filled with reports of drug-driven burglaries, domestic violence and substance abuse, though here as I walk I see tiny empty bottles of booze thrown in the bushes, instead of the mini zip-locks and Q-tips associated with meth use on Kauai.

The farmers' markets draw crowds of tourists and locals, as they do in Hawaii, and the produce sold there costs more than it does at Whole Foods. Still, people who can afford it seem happy to buy it as a way to support local farmers, none of whom display those ridiculous "gmo-free zone" signs in their booths, even the ones who grow organic. 

The small farmers in New Mexico are struggling, as they are everywhere, a reality revealed in a recent New York Times opinion piece, "Don't let your children grow up to be farmers."

As the writer, a shellfish and seaweed farmer on Long Island Sound noted:

The dirty secret of the food movement is that the much-celebrated small-scale farmer isn’t making a living. After the tools are put away, we head out to second and third jobs to keep our farms afloat. Ninety-one percent of all farm households rely on multiple sources of income. Health care, paying for our kids’ college, preparing for retirement? Not happening. With the overwhelming majority of American farmers operating at a loss — the median farm income was negative $1,453 in 2012 — farmers can barely keep the chickens fed and the lights on.

Others of us rely almost entirely on Department of Agriculture or foundation grants, not retail sales, to generate farm income. And young farmers, unable to afford land, are increasingly forced into neo-feudal relationships, working the fields of wealthy landowners.

Especially in urban areas, supporting your local farmer may actually mean buying produce from former hedge fund managers or tax lawyers who have quit the rat race to get some dirt under their fingernails. We call it hobby farming, where recreational “farms” are allowed to sell their products at the same farmers’ markets as commercial farms. It’s all about property taxes, not food production.

The food movement — led by celebrity chefs, advocacy journalists, students and NGOs — is missing, ironically, the perspective of the people doing the actual work of growing food. Their platform has been largely based on how to provide good, healthy food, while it has ignored the core economic inequities and contradictions embedded in our food system.

Doesn't matter if you're in New York, New Mexico or Hawaii, it's all playing out the same way: farmers struggling as non-farmers try to tell them how they should be practicing an occupation that few of us know anything about.

Is it any wonder that so many farmers silently scream when they hear the anti-GMO contingent in Hawaii keep perpetuating the fantasy that small farms, organic farms, self-sustaining farms, will take over the westside fields and feed the hungry masses — and all the tourists, too — once the nasty chemical companies are driven out?

That's just not gonna happen. Instead, golf courses, luxury homes and resorts will spring up in their place, all of them using significant quantities of pesticides to keep the bugs and weeds at bay.

I was happy to see Kauai mayoral candidate Dustin Barca finally admit, in The Garden Island: "I can’t just make the companies leave.”

His confession raises a very important question. If he can't actually stop the chem companies — and doesn't have a clue how county government functions — what possible value is he to the electorate?

Meanwhile, the mainland-based/funded special interest groups — Center for Food Safety, Hawaii SEED, Pesticide Action Network and Ceres Trust, none of which actually farm — continue to perpetuate the myth that it'll be all good if we let them seize control of agriculture in Hawaii.

In an excellent post entitled "Fear: The Deconstruction of Local Culture," Hawaii Farmers Daughter blogger Joni Kamiya-Rose noted:

These outside activists have even gone as far as trying to infiltrate our agricultural communities by bringing in their fellow Filipinos to try and split them apart. Here’s a flier that was posted around the internet to demonstrate this.

And I thought, gee, if Kauai is supposedly already “ground zero” for GMO, why would we be interested in taking “lessons from the front lines?” Shouldn't we be teaching them?

Yes, Kauai, and Hawaii, could be doing a lot more to feed itself and achieve food self-sufficiency, and no, I don't think anyone wants to see a lot of pesticides sprayed in the Islands, whether it's by agriculture, pest control, golf courses or citizens.

But agricultural reform is a complex issue, involving land costs and property taxes, pressures to use ag land for non-ag purposes, shipping expenses, competition, economies of scale, available labor, water systems, consumer tastes, limited local fertilizer sources, marketing and the overall high cost of living in the Islands. It's deceptive and counter-productive to try and reduce it to a simplistic question of pro- or anti-GMO, or even pro- or anti-chemical agriculture.

Meanwhile, the county has allocated $175,000 to defend Ordinance 960, its flawed pesticide/GMO regulatory law, and that's just the beginning. I'm willing to wager the island would've been a lot better off at the end of the day if that kala had been spent on agricultural initiatives, rather than legal fees. But then, that wouldn't have satisfied the agenda of mainland activists, high-end Realtors and the politicians — most notably Councilmen Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum — who serve them. 

Never forget that's what this fight is really all about.

Oh, and if you're interested in Hawaii agriculture — as in the real producers, not just those who rhapsodize about it — check out the new publication, Farmers & Friends.

Musings: Constructive Criticism

It has come to my attention that Kauai County Councilman Gary Hooser is displeased with me and my blog.

Gary didn't tell of his unhappiness directly. Instead, he expressed it on Facebook while upbraiding a woman who had commented, on my posting of Sunday's blog:

I was waiting for your post. Whole heartedly agree with each word!!

In his reply to her, Gary wrote:

Criticism intended to add value and improve performance is important and yes for some even well intended criticism is difficult to accept. It is the vitriolic and personal denigration that I have issues with. As you know so very well, certain bloggers have personal agenda's to grind. For whatever reason they use their poison pen to spread rumor and innuendo, and to pound on their subjects real or perceived personal shortcomings - with no intention of "improving performance" but only intending to mock, belittle and break down. These bloggers and the anonymous posters they foster are not hopeful that the performance will improve but rather are hopeful the performer will trip and fall so they can jeer loudly and encourage others to join in the mockery of the performer. I think Hilary Clinton coined the phrase, "the politics of personal destruction". This is what is being done here. To say you "Whole heartedly agree with each word!!" only encourages the personal destruction and adds nothing of value toward improving performance, nor is it intended to.

I have a personal opinion but don't personally and publicly attack and denigrate people by name. I welcome help and support via constructive suggestions delivered in a positive spirit."

Hmmm. I could, of course, avoid naming people. But I happen to believe that elected officials, and those seeking public office, should be held accountable, which is hard to do without naming names. Besides, if I were to refer obliquely to “a Councilman with jowls and a paunch” that actually would be a personal attack, and it would also be unclear as to whom exactly I was referring.

So let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

In truth, I don't want to help or support Gary or his son, Dylan, because I think that as politicians, they're harmful to Kauai. And I don't want to see them trip and fall so I can mock them, but so they'll be defeated, as they deserve to be. Still, I'm happy to offer some constructive suggestions:

First, stop lying. Like, next time you start to utter that hackneyed sound byte about how the chem companies are suing Kauai for the right to spray poison next to schools, bite your tongue. Because you know that's not why they're suing, and you also know they had already created buffer zones around the schools before Bill 2491 was passed.

Second, stop fear-mongering. Instead of repeating anecdotal evidence about birth defects on the westside, why not ask the state Department of Health to update the birth defects registry? Why not use your position as a Councilman to ask the CDC to come in and do a study? Why not actually gather some quantifiable data and take steps to ease the fear of your constituents, rather than inflame it?

Third, be more inclusive. Remember when we were talking and I said it really put the other Councilmembers on the spot when you dumped Bill 2491 in their laps, and you replied, “Do you think I give a shit?” and I said, no, but it would've made the bill stronger if you had worked with others to craft it? And sure enough it split the Council and the community and made a big, ugly mess.

Fourth, when you draft legislation, go for something that has a chance of withstanding a legal challenge, and that can actually be enforced. Yes, I know that you don't care if Bill 2491/Ordinance 960 is enforced, because, as you told me, “all that matters is getting it passed.” Call me old-fashioned, but legality and enforcement do matter. Unless you're only doing it for grandstanding and personal gain. Which leads me to....

Fifth, trim your ego. Yes, I know you loved leading that parade of red shirts — what is it up to now, 100,000? — on Rice Street last summer, hearing chants of “Gar ee, Gar ee” as you stood triumphant on the Council steps and seeing your name in the national news, but it's really not about you. It's about public service, and making Kauai a better place.

Sixth, teach your followers how to build an effective political movement, instead of misleading them into believing all they have to do is wave their fists and post copiously on Facebook. Help them field candidates who have a chance to win, instead of your kid, a high school drop out and a flaky radio show hostess, all of whom are doomed to lose, leaving your followers with nothing but frustration and political disillusionment.

And Baby Hoos, if you run again, try come up with a solid platform instead of using social media ads to malign your opponent. Negative campaigning and preaching to the choir won't get you elected.

Seventh, think about the consequences of your actions. Yeah, you promoted the hell out of yourself, but you also created a political climate that is giving Grove Farm a grip on the Council so they can rezone to their heart's content. But then, that might help your real estate buddies, right?

Eighth, be transparent. Who is funding the HAPA group you lead, and what is their agenda for the island? What is your relationship with Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and Pesticide Action Network?

Ninth, be yourself. Like don't change Realtor to “entrepreneur” on your bio.

Tenth, don't try to shut up or shut down the people who know the truth about you and speak it. Because it only makes them ever more determined to shine the light on the darkness. 

And that, Gary, is my only agenda.

Musings: Beyond the Echo Chamber

Mayoral hopeful and political novice Dustin Barca may have been baffled by the election results, but that's what happens when you live in an echo chamber.

Dustin, a former pro-surfer/MMA fighter whose campaign was funded by Hawaii Life realtors and off-islanders, apparently thought he was going to waltz into the Round Building with a platform of platitudes and minimal campaigning. Because, after all, he was on “a mission from God.”

But Dustin and the other candidates who emphasized an anti-seed company platform fared poorly. Dustin got just 30 percent of the votes in his race against Mayor Bernard Carvalho, and Dylan Hooser was similarly trounced by Jimmy Tokioka in the 15^th House District race. 

County Council incumbents Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum, who co-sponsored pesticide/GMO regulatory Bill 2491, came in sixth and seventh, respectively, and Mason Chock, who was brought in to override the mayor's veto of the bill, looks likely to lose his seat, with a dismal tenth place showing.

Meanwhile, incumbents Mel Rapozo and Ross Kagawa — the only two Councilmembers to oppose the bill — took first and second place, respectively, and were joined in third place by pro-seed candidate and Grove Farm employee Arryl Kaneshiro in his first bid for office.

Newcomer and pro-seed company candidate Arthur Brun also edged out anti-seed company candidate Felicia Cowden for eleventh place, despite her advantageous connections to “community” radio station KKCR.

Equally interesting is the vote spread. Mel was 2,300 votes ahead of incumbent JoAnn Yukimura, who took fourth place, and nearly 4,000 votes ahead of his nemesis Tim Bynum, who has former Councilman KipuKai Kualii and Police Chief Darryl Perry nipping at his heels.

While Kauai typically lags behind the state in voter turnout, things were different this time. Some 47 percent of Kauai registered voters cast ballots, compared to the statewide total of just 38 percent. Absentee votes accounted for 28 percent of the figure, with the remaining 19 percent going to the polls. That poll voting made a difference for Gary and especially Tim, who was seriously lagging in the first return of early walk-in and absentee ballots.

Still, despite all the talk of “change,” it's apparent that folks don't really want any, since the incumbents did so well. The only exception was Gov. Abercrombie, who was soundly defeated by Democratic David Ige. It's hard to say whether folks were tired of the guv's acrimonious personality or his decades of slurping at the public trough, but in any case, he's out and good riddance.

Other notable results: Though Rep. Derek Kawakami easily won re-election to his 14^th District state House seat, which encompasses parts of Kapaa and the North Shore, some 25 percent of the Democratic ballots were left blank in that race.

Looking at the precinct returns, (which start on page 331) Dustin, Felicia, Gary, Tim, Jay Furfaro, JoAnn, Mason and newcomer Tiana Laranio were the top vote-getters in Hanalei and Kilauea, as expected. But their gains began to erode in Anahola, and in Kapaa, Arryl started showing up in the top five and the mayor was beating Dustin.

In Hanamaulu, the tide had solidly turned toward the final results — a trend that continued around the island, including Koloa, and becoming more pronounced as the vote moved westward. 

Which tells us three things: the anti-GMO movement is indeed North Shore-based, a reality that they repeatedly denied; the movement is smaller and less powerful than has been claimed (or feared), and the westside vote is still critical to a candidate's success.

Given the results, perhaps some of the waffling Council members will find the courage to grow a backbone and consider the interests of the entire island, rather than a vocal minority.

As for Dustin, if he truly likes to "strive for perfection," perhaps he could start by getting an education so that he could more successfully formulate and articulate his views. Dylan, meanwhile, can go back to raping the sea of sunrise shells, and hopefully Felicia no longer fancies herself the voice of Kauai.

Musings: Nuclear Madness

Just this morning I was walking through the wild lands of New Mexico and thinking of this state's uranium deposits and troubled history with atomic research, nuclear storage facilities and workers disabled by their exposure to this deadly stuff. And then I checked my email and found this unexpected, and eerily timely, guest post by Kauai writer Jon Letman. Mahalo, Jon, for your research and thoughtful commentary:

From Nagasaki to Natanz: America's 70-year nuclear addiction

Today is August 9, the day the U.S. dropped the word's first plutonium bomb on Nagasaki in 1945. That bomb killed an estimated 60-80,000 people, gravely injuring untold thousands more. You might expect that August 9 and the anniversary of Hiroshima three days earlier, would move people—especially Americans—to think seriously about our atomic past and future.

But people have a lot on their mind these days—Ebola, Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, government surveillance, police brutality, climate change, the economy, summer vacation, school supplies for the kids and so on. Who's got time to think about nuclear weapons? Besides, aren't those a thing of the past? Some people seem to think so.

As I learned recently, analysts who spend much of their careers closely following the manufacturer and movement of nuclear weapons, are concerned that most people—at least in the United States—really don't give much thought to nuclear weapons.

Earlier this summer, over a period of about seven weeks, I spent a fair amount of time listening to defense analysts and reading about America's multi-billion dollar efforts to modernize some of our own nuclear weapons as research for this article published at Truthout.

I heard a range of opinions from one defense policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who insisted nuclear weapons are "fundamentally a force for good" to an anti-nuclear advocate and director of the Peace and Economic Security Program with the American Friends Service Committee who said bluntly, "These are weapons that should not exist,” calling them “the most fundamental violation of basic human rights.”

One of the most insightful and measured voices in the world of nuclear weapons analysis today is Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. I spoke with him on the phone for about one hour in May, asking him very specific questions about the B61-12, America's most common and now most expensive nuclear gravity bomb.

I found Kristensen by chance when I happened upon an article he had co-authored which was posted on the Twitter feed of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The piece was about the B61-12 and how it was being redesigned for the twelfth time to make it more accurate so that with "just" 50 kilotons (kt) it could, at least in theory, be used to "hold at risk" the same targets which today require a 350 kt yield bomb (by comparison, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was estimated to have been around 15 kt and Nagasaki was destroyed by an estimated 20 kt bomb).

As Kristensen and I discussed the B61-12 and its $10 billion (and rising) price tag, I wondered what exactly this bomb was designed to destroy. Did its producers (primarily Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, Lockheed Martin and Boeing) see B61-12 as something that could destroy a major world capital or sprawling metropolitan area? Might it some day be used to threaten a city in Bush's "axis of evil?"

"These are not [targeted] against cities," Kristensen told me. "Generally speaking the U.S. military is not very happy about targeting cities with weapons. It's just so controversial," he said.

Besides, Kristensen added, nuking a major population center is "kind of pointless." Why would you want to fry millions of civilians? The real targets of these bombs are key military and political leadership and critical infrastructure, command and control facilities or a weapons lab and such.

But Kristensen pointed out that there is always the chance that such targets could be in or close to a city or other heavily populated area. After all, aren't most leaders based in cities—Tehran, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Washington, London, Paris...? So even if the U.S. wanted to take out a Iran's Natanz Enrichment Complex for example, it would still be bombing a facility less than 20 miles from a city of 12,000 with Iran's first and third largest cities, Tehran and Isfahan (combined population 9.3 million) less than 200 miles away.

Even a low-yield nuclear bomb (Kristensen explained that "low-yield" refers to a bomb 10 kt or less) would almost certainly have grave environmental, social and psychological consequences for people downwind of any nuclear detonation.

Looking back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can see that from the beginning of the nuclear age, the first targets were (at least by official accounts) primarily military in nature. Both Japanese cities (in fact, a third site called Kokura was intended to be bombed after Hiroshima and only spared when bad weather forced the U.S. to destroy its backup city Nagasaki) experienced unimaginable suffering as a result of the atomic bombings.

Despite this and all we've learned about the effects of radiation over the last seven decades, America and other nuclear nations continue to build newer, more accurate, more "useable" bombs. The U.S. alone is forecast to spend as much as $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next 30 years.

This pursuit is not only maddening, it's also sheer madness. And quibbling over a few billion dollars or a few extra kilotons is meaningless if you live in a society that is being robbed of real security (universal healthcare and education, a well-funded public infrastructure and robust environment and climate protection) when you and your children are perpetually in the shadow of a country with an insatiable appetite for the bomb.

To learn more about America's nuclear weapons past and present check out this FAQ page from the American Friends Service Committee

Musings: Blow Hards

As Hurricane Iselle bears down on the Islands — curious, how the ones that have hit all start with an “I” — the question is both how much damage it will inflict, and how it will affect turnout in Saturday's primary election.

On Kauai, it could affect the race between Democrat Rep. Jimmy Tokioka and challenger Dylan Hooser. Though initially the contest seemed a slam dunk for Jimmy, he's apparently feeling a bit of heat as the vote draws nearer, taking the unprecedented step of personally asking people to vote for him, and their friends and family, too.

As I've stated earlier, the voters in that district will lose no matter who they pick. Jimmy is a good ole boy to da max, while Dylan is a tepid political novice who already has a pile of enemies at the state house due to the intense antipathy toward his father, former Senator and current Councilman Gary Hooser, and Dylan's own “shame” banner tactics there earlier this year.

Speaking of Gary, he's barely campaigned, though it's unclear whether it's due to indifference or arrogance. He can't possibly want another term on the Council, especially since he's ready to capitalize on his anti-GMO agenda as director of the nonprofit HAPA. If he's defeated, it will play right into his victim rhetoric, as in the big bad chemical companies succeeded in driving him out.

Uh, no. If Gary loses it will be because his fellow citizens have had it up to here with his grandstanding and self-serving antics at the expense of the county's social fabric and coffers.

Because isn't that what this election is really all about? Determining just how big the "silent majority" really is, and just how powerful the “red shirt” contingent that pushed through the pesticide/GMO regulatory Bill 2491/Ordinance truly is?

I'm predicting Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. will handily defeat Dustin Barca, newcomer Arryl Kaneshiro will show in the top seven, Arthur Brun will do well and Councilman Tim Bynum will be pushed out.. Councilman Mason Chock is also going to have trouble holding on to his seat, in large part due to the sketchy way he got appointed — the secretive, "you're only in if you'll vote to override the mayor's veto of 2491" action that is now being challenged in court by the seed/chem companies.

Speaking of which, it was disappointing to see Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura oppose changing the Council's process of filling a vacancy. Picking the eighth-place candidate from the last election may not be the best bet, but how can JoAnn honestly say the Council has a process that works, when its actions with Mason caused such huhu and raised questions of illegality?

I'm still off-island, and hoping Kauai is spared the wrath of a hurricane. But just in case, as an Iniki veteran, I offer this tip: bring your screens inside. Flying debris does a number on the mesh, and the mosquitoes were fierce in the hot, humid, wet aftermath of Iniki.

Musings: Farming Rights

In perusing the Sunday New York Times, I noticed that Missouri voters are being asked to decide whether to add a “right to farm” amendment to their state's Constitution.

Proponents apparently believe it will stave off laws that dictate how livestock and crops are raised in the state, which has some 100,000 farms. They seem to be unaware of the fight under way in Hawaii, where anti-GMO activists are challenging seed companies and farmers, despite the “right to farm” statute in state law.

The Hawaii statute reads:

165-4 Right to farm. No court, official, public servant, or public employee shall declare any farming operation a nuisance for any reason if the farming operation has been conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a farming operation does not constitute a nuisance.

The proposed Missouri amendment reads:

That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri's economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri's economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.

North Dakota is the only other state to adopt a similar Constitutional amendment, which passed with 67 percent of the vote in 2012.

As the Times reports, it's sparked an emotional debate in Missouri, home of Monsanto, where it's pitting people — including farmers — against one another and attracting big money on both sides. One of the primary opponents is the Humane Society of the United States, which previously supported strict regulations on the state's horrid puppy mills. The amendment is partly in response to what some farmers consider “meddling by outsiders,” though it's hard to see how puppy mills could be considered “farming.”

The Times quoted Blake Hurst, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau:

“When you look across the country, you see a lot of ballot initiatives that are making decisions about how farmers can farm,” Mr. Hurst said. The proposed amendment “doesn’t change regulations we have now, and it can’t possibly change federal law. We’re trying to stop ballot initiatives that limit farmers’ ability to use technology.”

As I read the article, and reflected on how communities like Kauai have been torn apart by the issue, I was reminded again that we need to be having a thoughtful, reasoned, national debate on food in this country, one that addresses humane treatment of livestock and environmental and human health, while also considering consumer demand for cheap, abundant food and the realities of farming today.

But we're not having that discussion. Instead, we're embroiled in emotional, often fear-based conflicts that at best take a piece meal approach to a complex issue while ensuring that lawyers have plenty of work in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, the Small Business Regulatory Review Board has completed its required review of the proposed rules for Ordinance 960 — Kauai's pesticide/GMO regulatory bill, which is on hold pending a court review. The Board's comments were succinct, and primarily addressed the bill's impact on small farmers, as opposed to the chem/seed companies:

Pesticide buffer zones will make tracks (sic) of land uneconomical for growing purposes;

Establishment of an emergency/medical hotline will be costly for small farmers to maintain;

The civil fines proposed for the failure to file annual mandated reports are high and will be costly for small farmers, should they miss a deadline; and

The ordinance will curtail the economic viability and future growth of the agricultural industry as well as create business and economic uncertainty that will lead to less land investment and planning for future use.

The county has scheduled a public hearing on the rules for Aug. 26. According to Beth Tokioka in the mayor's office:

Once the public hearing is complete and provided that there are no substantial changes to the rules, the OED Director [George Costa] shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rules. The Director may make his decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when he intends to make his decision.  If the Rules are approved by the Director, the Rules will be submitted to the Mayor for his approval as required by HRS 91-3.

Musings: On a Few Things

For today, I'd like to direct you to Luke Evslin's wonderful blog, Ka Wae, where he discusses the challenges of fulfilling Gandhi's admonition to “be the change that you wish to see in the world” and gets real about “Off-grid hypocrisy” and “The journey to sustainability. Whatever that means.”

His post does a beautiful job of skewering the sanctimony that so frequently accompanies discussions about sustainability and environmental degradation, as if we aren't all — every single one of us, and don't pretend otherwise — contributing to the decline.

I especially liked this:

As I wait for my coffee to boil, I give one last glance at my completed absentee ballot, and then stuff it in its envelope.  Voting for change, but knowing none is possible.

Sorry, folks, but no real change is possible through the ballot box or our perverted, dysfunctional political system, though I don't want to dissuade anyone from voting against Abercrombie and for candidates who have a chance of ousting a few Council incumbents who really should not be returned for yet another term. 

What made far more sense to me was a saying I spotted somewhere, and will paraphrase here:

If you want to change the world, find something about yourself that needs fixing and start there.

The world is the sum of its many parts, the product of our imagination. We can change it, but only by changing ourselves, and most especially what we believe and think. Because thoughts become actions, and it all goes from there.

Speaking of dysfunctional political systems, I was finally able to get on the campaign spending website and check out Rep. Jimmy Tokioka's delayed contributions report for the first half of this year. Interestingly, most of his donations came from off-island sources.

His biggest donors were Sen. Ron Kouchi and G.A. Morris Inc., who each gave $2,000. Peter Antonio of Honolulu contributed $1,750, Ironworkers for Better Government gave him $1,200, Hawaii Carpenters Council of Carpenters PAC Fund gave $1,100, Same Time Next Year kicked down $1,000 and DuPont donated $800. Overall, he took in $26,925 cash, with Altria Client Services, Inc. of Richmond, VA, donating $2,000 in the non-monetary category.

And finally, since someone asked, I did a public records request and learned that Councilmen Tim Bynum and Gary Hooser billed the county for $206.20 and $200.20, respectively, for airfare so they could attend the July 26 court hearing on Ordinance 960 in Honolulu.

They were the only Councilmembers to attend, missing part of a Council meeting — including a vote on a bill that Tim introduced — to be there. 

What do you think? Should the taxpayers foot the bill for this clearly non-essential travel? 

Musings: Toxic Links

A report by University of Hawaii researchers shows that Island golf courses use significantly more pesticides than the seed/chem companies. And though these golf courses are typically adjacent to homes and drain into streams, only the seed fields have been targeted for disclosure, buffer zones and other regulations.

The report, last updated in 1999, estimated that 119,867 pounds — nearly 60 tons — of pesticides are used annually on golf courses in Hawaii.

By comparison, approximately 2.5 tons and 5,884 gallons of restricted use pesticides were applied to Kauai's “ground zero” seed fields in 2012, according to the county's new GMO/pesticide regulatory law. Councilman Gary Hooser, who introduced the bill, initially claimed 18 tons were being used — a figure the state Department of Agriculture later determined to to be inaccurate. However, it is still widely cited.

The pesticides applied to links in Hawaii include Chlorpyrifos, Dicamba, 2,4-D and Roundup — the same herbicides, fungicides and insecticides used on seed fields. These chemicals are all linked to human and environmental health problems, yet only those used on the seed fields have been singled out for scrutiny and blamed for illness.

A study conducted on Long Island, New York, found that golf courses use seven times more pesticides than comparable land used for agricultural purposes. Other mainland studies found mercury concentrations from pesticides and fertilizer in bodies of water up to five miles away from a golf course.

Additionally, these pesticides are applied in various combinations, creating the same “toxic cocktails” that have generated fear of the seed fields. But no one has demanded any testing to determine whether pesticides applied to golf courses are also drifting into homes and entering streams and coastal waters.

Furthermore, according to a report from the anti-pesticide organization Beyond Pesticides:

78 million households in the U.S. use home and garden pesticides.(i)

Herbicides account for the highest usage of pesticides in the home and garden sector with over 90 million pounds applied on lawns and gardens per year. (ii)

Suburban lawns and gardens receive more pesticide applications per acre (3.2-9.8 lbs) than agriculture (2.7 lbs per acre on average). (iii)

Pesticide sales by the chemical industry average $9.3 billion. Annual sales of the landscape industry are over $35 billion. (iv)

Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides 19 have studies pointing toward carcinogens, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 15 with neurotoxicity, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 27 are sensitizers and/or irritants, and 11 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system. (vii)

Scientific studies find pesticide residues such as the weedkiller 2,4-D and the insecticide carbaryl inside homes, due to drift and track-in, where they contaminate air, dust, surfaces and carpets and expose children at levels ten times higher than preapplication levels. (ix)

Certainly Hawaii, with its year-round growing season, numerous golf courses, rapid vegetative growth and propensity for manicured resorts and yards, uses at least comparable amounts of pesticides for landscaping purposes, if not more.

But again, no effort has been made to even quantify, much less regulate, residential and landscaping uses of pesticides in the Islands. All the attention has been focused solely on seed crops, to the complete exclusion of any other uses.

Additionally, only the seed fields have been blamed for “stealing water,” though the average golf course in the United States uses 300,000 gallons of water per day.

Is it any wonder that some of us are questioning why the seed fields have been singled out? Especially when high-end Realtors, like Hawaii Life on Kauai and Mark Sheehan on Maui, are actively backing anti-GMO initiatives and candidates.

If their goal truly is to protect environmental and human health, wouldn't you think they'd be aggressively pursuing stricter controls of pesticides everywhere, especially among the biggest users, like golf courses? (Which, btw, is what some of us asked Gary to do, but he chose to focus solely on the GMO fields instead.)

That would seem to be the logical, safe and prudent course of action. Unless, of course, their true objective is to destroy agriculture in Hawaii in order to free up the land for more pesticide-using golf courses, resorts and luxury homes.

Musings: Money is King

Temperatures plunge, black sky rumbles, cracks, flashes, and the deluge hits with nickel-sized hail, a rush of brown water coursing through dry washes. Next morning, the cool air is heavy with the fragrance of sage, coyote tracks appear in the sandy mud of the arroyo.

It's monsoon season, a time when the desert — hot, dusty, dry — is transformed into a very different place, at least for a while, and the dramatic contrasts of nature, of life, become vividly clear.

I thought about contrasts when I read a National Public Radio blog post on how some food manufacturers are quietly developing GMO-free products, even while fighting labeling proposals. It stated:

Right now, non-GMO food fetches a premium. Purdue University agricultural economist Chris Hurt says that premium is likely to come down if this part of the agricultural sector gains more traction and an efficiency of scale can kick in.

Ultimately, the consumer is king. And the question of whether or not consumers will want non-GMO products is still up in the air.

Ultimately, money is king. The food-makers don't want the costs associated with labeling, but they do want to be ready to cash in on the growing “GMO-free” market, which “is one of the fastest growing sectors of the natural food industry, representing $6 billion in annual sales,” according to the Non-GMO Project.

Then I got a news release from the National Center for Public Policy Research, a “free market corporate activist group” that has been sending its people to corporate shareholders' meetings, trying to convince them to oppose labeling. Most recently, they prevailed at Safeway, where 90 percent of the shareholders rejected a proposal to label all GMO ingredients.

The group maintains that anti-GMO activists are using “fear-mongering and deceptive narratives” to advance their cause, which is funded in part by the organic food lobby. It's now trying to get food manufacturers like Kraft to start promoting the benefits of GMOs to counter the activists.

And the activists on both sides are making money off their activism, using the issue to raise cash for themselves and their causes.

Meanwhile, I followed a link to a Scientific American blog post about a study, published in the journal Environment and Development Economics, that delved into how anti-GMO opposition has impacted the development of “golden rice.” Syngenta, after figuring out how to insert the Vitamin A -producing gene from carrots into rice, had “handed all financial interests over to a non-profit organization, so there would be no resistance,” according to the post.

Twelve years later, however, opponents have prevented the cultivation of that rice. As the post notes:

 [The researchers] quantified the price of that opposition, in human health, estimating that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children.

These are real deaths, real disability, real suffering, not the phantom fears about the human health effects of Golden Rice thrown around by opponents, none of which have held up to objective scientific scrutiny.

One of those opponents is the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The nonprofit organization played a big role in drafting Kauai's GMO-pesticide regulatory bill, Ordinance 960, and is currently helping to defend it against a legal challenge mounted by the chem/seed companies.

As I've reported previously, CFS gets the bulk of its funding from the Rockefeller clan via the Cornerstone Campaign, which recently created a website.

So I visited that site, and found this, under the heading of Biological Pollution (emphasis added):

AS WE CONTINUE the difficult task of trying to control and eliminate a multitude of chemical environmental pollutants, from pesticides to global warming gases, corporations using genetic engineering are imposing a new form of pollution on us—biological pollution caused by the release of gene-altered microbes, plants and animals into the environment. This biological pollution presents fundamentally different problems than chemical pollution. Chemical contamination whether an oil spill or factory exhaust, while harmful to human health and the natural world, generally becomes diluted and less concentrated over time.

By contrast, the biological contamination fostered by genetic engineering increases over time as the polluting organism reproduces, disseminates and mutates.

in other words, oil spills and even climate change pale in comparison to the evils of biotech, according to those who benefit from the sale and consumption of fossil fuels.

Ah, yes. There we have it: Big oil vs big chem, with consumers and activists the witting and unwitting pawns.

And then I read further and found this:

The drive for corporate profit cannot be allowed to foster and control a technology which threatens human health and the balance of nature upon which all living things depend.

What an interesting sentiment to be espoused by those living on fortunes derived from the drive for corporate profit and the exploitation of a resource that threatens human health and the balance of nature.

I can't say for certain if GMOs are harmful or helpful. Like most of what humans have developed, biotech is part good, part bad. I do have my concerns about the technology, and those who control it. 

Yet I also have my concerns about the distorted and deceptive campaign that is being waged against GMOs by the scions of oil barons and an organic food industry. It can't possibly be argued that they're neutral, or concerned only about human and environmental health. Not when such hefty profits are to be made by the demise and denigration of GMOs.

As we continue to discuss and debate this technology, and particularly its application in Hawaii, it becomes ever more important to look beyond the rhetoric, resist the aggressive fear-mongering and consider the many agendas at play here.

Because ultimately, it's all about money, and money is king.