I've Been Saying It All Along...

I'm not one to toot my own horn, but in this particular instance, it appears that a recent study has backed up what I have been saying for the last 7 months: Hawaii drivers are the worst in the country.

"Hawaii drivers are among the least knowledgeable about the rules of the road," according to a study by GMAC Insurance. According to the results of the GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test, Hawaii ranked 50th in the nation with an average score of 73 percent correct.

While I can present plenty of empirical and anecdotal evidence to support the study's conclusions, I will just sit here quietly.  Perhaps this will make me feel better every time I see some crazy Hawaiian driver not paying attention to where he or she is going or randomly stopping in the middle of the road when there is no traffic light or stop sign (yes, I have seen these things happen multiple times).  I now know I'm not crazy.  For the longest time I felt like no one else noticed it and I that I was taking crazy pills (video).  Instead, Hawaiian drivers are just stupid. Phew. I feel better.

Are we even surprised anymore?

In fairness to Hawai'i, I wanted to write a post pointing out that there are terrible lawyers all over the country...and it is increasingly bothering me.   The Washington Post reported the other day that a Washington, DC judge declared a mistrial in a murder trial because the defendant's attorney was incompetent.  The attorney was a 2009 graduate of Touro Law School.  If you saw that and knew where Touro Law School was located without having to look it up, write it in the comments and let me know.  I had to look it up.  It is located in Central Islip, New York. I think the most insulting thing about this whole thing is that on the front page of their website, Touro boats, "all lawyers are educated. our lawyers are prepared."  They go further and state, "Touro Law Center graduates are ready to hit the ground running – and go the extra mile to get the job done." Apparently not, Touro.

Joseph Rakofsky graduated law school in 2009 and he couldn't get a job surely wanted to help people right away so he started his own law firm.  His focus?  Criminal DUIs, traffic tickets, and (so he claims) murder trials.  According to the Washington Post, "Judge William Jackson told attorney Joseph Rakofsky during a hearing Friday that he was 'astonished' at his performance and at his 'not having a good grasp of legal procedures' before dismissing him."  Why didn't this guy have a good grasp of legal procedure?  Probably because he got a shitty legal education from a fourth-tier, no name law school that is more interested in taking students' money than preparing them for practicing law.  Let's take a look at Tuition and Fees at Touro Law straight from their website:

Juris Doctorate

First Year Students

Full Time Students (12 – 16 credits) $20,475.00 per semester
Part Time Students (8 – 11 credits)  $15,330.00 per semester

Second Year Students

Full Time Students (12 – 16 credits) $20,055.00 per semester
Part Time Students (8 – 11 credits) $15,120.00 per semester

Third Year Students

Full Time Students (12 – 16 credits) $19,645.00 per semester 
Part Time Students (8 – 11 credits) $14,915.00 per semester

The school charges students more than $40,000 per year. How can a school that bad have the audacity to charge so much? Because there is no accountability and people are stupid enough to pay. Unfortunately, there are too many people out there willing to take out an absurd amount of loans to pay it and banks irresponsibly lend it out to people with no prospect of paying it back. So the cycle continues. Idiots like Joseph Rakofsky get to call themselves lawyers.

Now, what gets lost in all this, as I've written about before, is that Joseph Rakofsky doesn't suffer (though, he should be sanctioned).  No, only the defendant and the victim's family suffer.  If he's innocent, the defendant doesn't get a fair trial.  If he's guilty, the victim's family doesn't get justice.  The judge should be applauded for taking charge and dismissing the attorney.  Joseph Rakofsky took on a case that he was not competent to handle.  The legal standard for effective representation is frighteningly low, so a judge doesn’t declare a mistrial based on incompetency of counsel unless the lawyer is really, really, really incompetent.  The judge said that Rakofsky’s performance was “below what any reasonable person would expect in a murder trial.”  But think about that for a second.  Why just a murder trial?  Shouldn't clients in ANY criminal case receive the same level of representation.  Anyone convicted of a crime - whether it's excessive speeding, DUI, or murder - will have a criminal record that can prevent them from getting jobs, entering federal buildings, getting security clearance, or just from having a good reputation.  If Rakofsky should not have been trying murders, he should not have been trying anything without adult supervision.

How does the legal community allow something like this to happen?  Would a first year resident operate on someone alone? No, because that's how people die.  Young attorneys are the same.  Here we have a man, on trial for his life, facing life in prison, whose attorney doesn't even have a basic competency in criminal procedure.  Where would he learn that procedure?  Well, law school might be a good start.  And what was Rakofsky's response?  When asked about his website's claims that he has worked on "murder, embezzlement and conspiracy cases," Rakofsky simply replied, "when I say I've worked on those cases, that doesn't mean I've worked on those cases on my own . . . I was working with other lawyers, interning and stuff."  But Joseph Rakofsky isn’t special.  Thousands of lawyers - every day - claim attributes that they don’t have and take cases they are not ready to take. Nothing he did made him any more blameworthy than any of those lawyers: lawyers whose need to make a buck overcomes their judgment and ethics.

It's embarrassing that this stuff happens every day.  But how did Rakofsky respond? He bragged (click to enlarge).  I got this image from Military Underdog:

Crime Cameras Going Up On O'ahu

Don't look now, but Big Brother is coming to a paradise near you.  Camera-based crime-fighting is coming to high-crime areas on O'ahu in the next few months.  In a news conference tomorrow, the Honolulu Police Department is going to announce the start of Proj­ect PUEO ("Policing Using Electronic Observation").  The cameras are going to be placed in strategically located areas of federally designated "Weed and Seed" sites in Ewa, Wai­pahu and Kalihi/Palama/Chinatown.  Weed and Seed is a community-based strategy sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") that aims to prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in designated high-crime neighborhoods across the country.  The camera initiative in Hawai'i is aimed at deterring graffiti, illegal drinking and drugs, and illegal dumping in the "Weed and Seed" areas by monitoring and recording crimes in those areas.

I am conflicted by this news.  On one hand, if a person breaks the law, I advocate harsh and retributive justice consequences.  On the other hand, the level of government involvement in our daily lives is already absolutely ridiculous. It has gotten to the point where the police can stop you for anything they damn well please based on "anonymous tips" or police-defined "suspicious activity."  We already have traffic cameras to catch people who run red lights or exceed the speed limit with no evidence that these devices have reduced violators.  There IS evidence that there has been an increase in rear-end collisions AND increased revenue for the State.

My problem with camera-based law enforcement is the obvious risks to privacy. True, you don't have a right to privacy when you are outside or in a public place.  However, it bothers me that the government creates (largely) arbitrary laws, then places "strategic" cameras in poor, minority communities high crime areas in order to catch people "committing crimes."  On top of that, the police will be recording the activity.  How can we be sure that the subsequent footage is not going to be used to extort "criminals" into snitching on their neighbors' more illicit criminal activity that occurs in non-public areas?

I can't help but think this is the next step in a long line of oppressive government practices used to infringe on individual freedom.  This is something out of 1950s McCarthyism or Cold War-era Soviet Russia.  Make no mistake, this is the government spying on its own citizens under the guise of "crime prevention."  These cameras are meant to, among other things, "deter gang activity."  Don't forget that being in a gang is not, by itself, a crime.  Americans have a First Amendment right to associate and peaceably assemble.  What if the police, using these cameras, see a group of men hanging out in a park drinking from paper bags and decide to "investigate?"  The police roll up, ask some "general probing questions" and decide that these guys are about to rob a store or vandalize a car or whatever bullshit the cops invent?  With nothing more than camera footage of legal, but suspicious activity and subsequent harassment by the police (i.e. investigative questions), the police can hold these guys and possibly arrest them.

This isn't the only place where oppressive government security is being implemented.  In Ogden, Utah (and 20 other U.S. cities), the police are setting up a "real time crime center" to be operational soon after its Crime Blimp launches (not kidding). The center hopes to eventually be linked with the "thousands of private and government security cameras around town, including the city's own inventory of some 200 cameras." Planned at 52 feet long and 4 feet in diameter to hold a 20-pound payload of cameras, GPS gear, and telemetry, the blimp in Utah (set to be launched in April) will likely patrol the skies of an American city.

I have no doubt the police will be able to arrest people as a result of these cameras.  However, chances are the crimes for which people will be arrested are going to be petty misdemeanors.  This means no jail time, just fines.  In reality, these cameras will be used to harass minority communities and generate fine-based revenue for the State.  And they'll erode civil liberties while they do it.  I don't like it one bit.

Criminal Justice in Hawaii

The Judiciary's annual report - entitled Justice in Jeopardy - details the current state of the Hawaiian Judiciary and discusses the impact that furloughs and budget cuts have had on the operation of the court system.  The report itself is 14 pages long and is a very easy read if you're interested.  However, since I know most people 1) don't care, 2) don't like to read boring things, and 3) like interesting bullet points, here is something I think people might want to know - the criminal stuff.

Before I get to the facts and figures, I have to explain why I decided to highlight this.  Every time I get asked what kind of law I practice, I calmly (and quickly) explain that I work for a judge.  Then I get asked, "so do you do prosecution or defense?"  See, I have two theories as to why this is the case:  1) the person did not read my blog post on how the judiciary works, and 2) most people get their information about the legal system from Law & Order.  So no one really understands anything beyond criminal law.  Even if they've been to civil court before, people think the "plaintiff" is the "prosecution." Besides all that, the sexy stuff of the law is found in who's going to jail.

Here is a quote from an attorney in private practice about the current criminal justice system in Hawaii: “[A]s a practicing litigator, I can share with you the impact that the budget cuts on the Judiciary have caused.  Among my case load, I have a case that is about four years old that has been ready to go to trial since late last year.  It has been delayed because of the backlog of criminal trials and was recently reset to [redacted], 2011 - a year away.  Many of my colleagues are reporting similar occurrences. The Judiciary allows economic, political and social life to function properly and it must be spared any further budget cuts.”

So here you go:  In FY2010, the Hawai'i Judiciary was involved with:


◆ 68,041 criminal traffic cases including:
          • 13,593 DWI/DUI cases
          • 1,264 reckless driving cases

◆ 94,479 District Court criminal cases including:
          • 9,413 larceny/theft cases
          • 6,154 assault cases
          • 2,169 vandalism cases
          • 1,349 prostitution cases
          • 4,096 narcotics cases
          • 1,232 sex offense cases

◆ 17,220 Circuit Court criminal cases including:
          • 178 murder & manslaughter cases
          • 97 forcible rape cases
          • 1,602 aggravated assault cases
          • 1,235 burglary cases
          • 2,686 larceny/theft cases
          • 3,633 narcotics cases

American Judicature Society's Special Committee on the Effects of the Economy on the Judiciary

As I have written about numerous times HERE and HERE, the State of Hawai'i is having budget issues (to put it mildly).  The annual budget meeting was a few weeks ago and my judge was in charge of reporting what the judiciary was feeling with respect to budget cuts and furlough days.  When I say it was my judge's job, I think we all know what that means.

My judge drafted a survey that consisted of only four questions...presumably because most lawyers are too self-important to be bothered by such non-sense as answering a few survey questions.  Anyway, I found the responses pretty interesting if simplistically obvious.  The four questions, which were sent out to the 82 judges sitting on the Family Courts, Circuit Courts, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Hawaii Supreme Court (all state court judges) were:

1. Has your decision-making been impaired by judiciary budget cuts? If so, please explain.

2. Are you able to perform your duties so that your conduct and performance are not subject to undue pressures or criticism? If not, please explain.

3. Do you believe that budget cuts have impinged on the courts' effectiveness? If so, please explain.

4. Have the cutbacks impacted judicial independence? If so, please explain.

21 judges responded to the survey (25% response rate) and then we summarized their answers so my judge could present the findings to the American Judicature Society.  The results of the survey were used to help the Judiciary develop it's annual report on the State of the Judiciary.  In fact, today Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald delivered his first State of the Judiciary Address using a lot of the facts and figures found in the survey and report.

The report - entitled Justice in Jeopardy (pdf copy of the report) - echoes a lot of what I've written about here before - furloughs suck.  The Judiciary report sums it up a little more eloquently, though by saying "these reductions have had substantial negative effects throughout the judicial system, by reducing, delaying and in some cases eliminating important services. Notably, Hawaii’s families and most vulnerable citizens have been significantly impacted."  The report went on to discuss budget cuts by saying, "Adequately funding the state court system is an investment in justice, and an investment in our democracy that should not be compromised even during tough economic times."

Headnote of the Week

This week's headnote is topically relevant to something near and dear to my heart: the sad state of the American legal profession.  Specifically, the abysmal record of law schools scamming students into paying astronomical tuition rates, allowing them to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, with no real way to pay them back. Plenty of articles have been written about the fact that there are essentially no standards in place to force law schools to be accountable for their employment statistics.  In other words, students go to law school with dreams of making the "big bucks" and yet they are going to law schools that offer basically no hope of getting one of these dream jobs. Anyway, it has been suggested that law schools owe a duty of full disclosure to tell prospective students exactly what they're getting into before they sign up for 3 years and $120,000+ in student loans.  The New York Times wrote an amazing article the other day that touches on something anyone familiar with lawyers or law students already knows: law students are getting themselves into serious debt problems, with no plan for how to pay the debts back. The New York Times article profiles a number of recent graduates who are looking at a difficult legal employment environment. You can read the entire article here (and I recommend that you do because mark my words, student loans will be the next big bailout).  It has gotten so bad, in fact, that there have been many efforts to force law schools to disclose their actual employment statistics.  Not just "x number of students are employed/unemployed."  See, right now, schools count as "employed" anyone with a job, even if non-law related. Yep, that's right, to pad their numbers, they count as employed their former students who are nannies or mcdonald's managers. Spear-heading this effort is Law School Transparency.

But good luck. So far, only one school has agreed to comply with the request to release their information.  And today's Headnote of the Week may explain why:

Under Ohio law, law school did not owe its students a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Valente v. University of Dayton, 689 F. Supp. 2d 910 (S.D. Ohio 2010)

Taxes and Debt

This is going to be a rant.  It is also going to be long.  Sorry.  On the bright side, it will be controversial and may even spark a few comments.  This post was inspired by 1) the recent debate over the "Bush-era" tax cuts, 2) the vitriol that the media spews toward the "mega wealthy," 3) the emails I keep getting from the bank about re-paying my student loans, 4) an article I read on MSNBC today about the crushing increase in student loan debt plaguing the U.S., and 5) a need to fill my weekly "current events" quota.

Let me start with some quotes:
1) Americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards — a debt fast approaching $1 trillion with no end in sight. (Source: MSNBC)

2) The debate that’s now got Washington tied up in knots is whether to keep the Bush-era tax breaks in place for households with more than $250,000 in income; the super wealthy ($200,000 for individuals) (Source: Forbes.com)

3) At a time when this nation has a $13 trillion national debt and a widening gap between the very rich and everyone else, the dumbest thing we could possibly do is to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to some of the wealthiest people in America. (Source: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders via Washington Times).

4) Is this really the choice we currently face—between dour, flinty responsibility or profligate favors for the fortunate? (Source: Newsweek)

5) Message to Republicans: Tax cuts for the rich were so important to you that you took the country hostage, you refused to help the unemployed, you obstructed everything to get them. (Source: Huffington Post)

6) In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes. (Source: Tax Foundation)

First of all, I refuse to believe that if you make $200,000 you are in the top 3% of all income earners in America (or, at the very least, that you feel like you're in the top 3%).  But all right, let's assume that's true.  There is one thing that is never talked about when criticizing the "rich" for getting "unfair tax breaks:" Student Loan Debt. Here's my gripe: If you're super rich making $200,000 a year, chances are you went to college, and probably, grad school (i.e. law school, med school, or business school).  Also, chances are, you took out student loans at some point in order to finance your education.  The cost of acquiring a degree "has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value" of a college degree.  In fact, the average law student has $100,000 in student loan debt! (Source: Forbes). This does not even include undergraduate loans.  Student loan debt is so bad, in fact, that college grads don't pull even with high school grads in lifetime income until age 33 on average! (Source: same Forbes article).  I don't even want to think about what it is for people who went to grad school.

Still with me?  See where I'm going with this?  If you make $200,000, you took out significant loans to get the job that pays you that much.  On top of that, the rest of the country is pissed at you so they decide that you should be taxed more heavily than anyone else.  And they'll criticize you for it along the way.  Now comes the really f*ed up part.  If you make more than $70,000, you can't deduct ANY of your debt. Here's how that works:  The maximum amount of student loan interest you can claim as a tax deduction is limited to $2,500.  The deduction is also limited by your total income. If your income is under $55,000 (or $115,000 for married couples filing a joint return), then you can deduct up to $2,500 in student loan interest.  If your income is over $55,000 but under $70,000 ($115,000 to $145,000 MFJ), then your deduction for student loan interest will be prorated.  If your income is over $70,000 ($145,000 MFJ), then your student loan interest is not deductible at all. (Source: IRS)

So you're criticized for making a decent living. Then you're forced to fork over nearly 40% of your income, yet no one ever bothers to consider the crushing debt you incurred to get to where you are.  Never mind the hard work and personal sacrifice it takes to actually make that much money.  Are there some trust fund babies?  Of course.  But the vast majority (I'd say 99%) of the people I went to law school with were not trust fund babies.  In other words, they personally financed their education with loans (something anyone can do) to give themselves the chance to make a good living. Then, as soon as you start making money, the government says, "okay, you not only have to pay back your loans, but you also have to pay higher taxes AND you don't get to deduct that student loan debt AND by the way, your student loan debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy).  So it's not as simple as "rich people can afford it."  

I accept that the financial burden on someone making $200,000 (i.e 35% tax) is different than someone making $50,000 (25% tax), especially if you have kids (of course, here is where I would extol the virtue of condoms and keeping it in your pants until you are financially stable...but that's a post for a different day).  So I agree that if you're making that much money, you can afford a SLIGHTLY higher tax.  That said, if the desire is to punish trust fund babies (something I don't think we should do, but that seems to be where the hate comes from), then why not allow people with crushing debt to deduct their loan payments? You wouldn't be earning that much if you didn't incur that much debt. You should be allowed to deduct 100% of your student loan interest and, say, 50% of your student loan principal payments every year...no matter how much you make!  It is complete and total crap that someone making $150,000 with at least that much in debt has to pay higher taxes AND student loan payments AND get criticized for being successful. 

And you wonder why I get you that ugly ass sweater for Christmas...

Operating Budget

Today, the Governor released his proposed operating budget for the next two years.  I have some thoughts on this, and I will share them eventually, but for now enjoy the chart (click to enlarge):

Pineapple Express

No, this post is not about the movie celebrating stoners.  Instead, it turns out that there is a weather phenomenon known as the Pineapple Express.  Pineapple Express is a non-technical term for a meteorological phenomenon characterized by a strong and persistent flow of atmospheric moisture and associated heavy rainfall from the waters adjacent to the Hawaiian Islands and extending to any location along the Pacific coast of North America. Have you watched the news at all in the last couple days?  Surely you've seen that California is getting pounded with rain, snow, and mudslides.  Just yesterday I wrote about Hawai'i having issues with rain.  It seems as though this is something someone invented to explain the unexplainable a legit phenomenon.  


According to Wikipedia, "a Pineapple Express is driven by a strong, southern branch of the Polar jetstream and is usually marked by the presence of a surface frontal boundary which is typically either slow or stationary, with waves of low pressure traveling along its axis. Each of these low pressure systems brings enhanced rainfall."  Go figure. I only found this to be cool because it has been raining non-stop here the last couple days and the name of the cause is very closely associated with my blog.  I am pretty sure, in fact, that someone came up with the name only after reading my blog.  They saw my post yesterday, saw the name Pineapple Project, and invented "Pineapple Express."  See, who said blogging was a waste of time?  I am changing names of weather patterns.  Maybe one day I'll even get my own hurricane!  


Okay, not really.  It seems the Pineapple Express has been a thing since the 50s.  In 2006, The Puget Sound region from Olympia, Washington to Vancouver, BC received several inches of rain per day in November 2006 from a series of successive Pineapple Express storms that caused massive flooding in all major regional rivers and mudslides which closed the mountain passes. During the second week of January, 1952, a series of "Hawaiian" storms swept into Northern California, causing widespread flooding around the Bay Area.

Heavy Rain

Thursday night through Friday afternoon saw a major thunderstorm for the first time since I've been in Hawaii.  It made for a very wet furlough Friday.  Thunderstorms are pretty typical in the midwest so I wasn't all that surprised when I saw lightning and heard thunder.  However, in Hawaii those things are apparently rare.  The winter is Hawaii's rainy season, and it has rained a few times in the last month or two, but nothing unusual in my opinion.  The last two days, though, have been pretty crazy.  There has been a constant, heavy rain.  So much so, in fact, that the Department of Heath actually issued an advisory to Kaua'i, O'ahu, Maui and Moloka'i to stay out of any water that is brown.

The Department warning says, "The public is advised to stay out of flood waters and storm water runoff due to possible overflowing cesspools, pesticides, animal fecal matter, dead animals, chemicals, and associated flood debris. The health department warning says boaters, swimmers and surfers should stay out of coastal waters if they are turbid and brown."

I previously wrote about Leptosperosis and its prevalence in Hawaii.  I was fortunate that I did not contract it when I went cliff jumping at Maunawili Falls, but I think this advisory is enough to convince me that I won't be going back in the near future.

Hawai'i's 7th Governor

It's easy to forget sometimes just how young Hawaii is as a State (1959).  Today, I remembered when I found out that Neil Abercrombie was sworn in as Hawaii's 7th Governor.  To put that in perspective, Delaware, the First State, is on its 73rd governor.  The inauguration took place at 'Iolani Palace and there were about 5,000 people there.  I didn't walk across the street to watch because I couldn't imagine anything worse than trying to brave the inevitable crowd of confused people walking into each other.  I'm told he spoke for about 9 minutes and focused his speech on meaningless rhetoric improving the economy and promising to bring a "new day" to Hawaii.  You can read his inaugural message if you want, but one of the highlights is that he said, "our first job is to accelerate the economic recovery, restoration of good jobs, create good jobs, capitalize on new opportunities, work smarter, work in partnerships to optimize our jobs."  Are you scratching your head, too?  Yes, that grammatical and rhetorical train wreck is the work of a man who now runs an entire State.  I mean, nevermind the fact that the guy looks like a creepy pedophile.
  

Hawaii's New Governor

The governor didn't talk at all about how he would sustain government services while also fulfilling campaign promises to end government worker furloughs while dealing with rising Medicaid and state laborer health care costs.  I've written about furloughs before and how they suck for my wallet but give me two Fridays off per month.  I even have a label section dedicated to Furlough Fridays on the right side of the blog.  The furloughs that the governor talked about ending, though, don't apply to me.  The judiciary is controlled by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  As a result, the governor doesn't decide whether we keep our furloughs or not.

Abercrombie is your stereotypical career politician. He first ran for political office in 1970, challenging Republican U.S. Sen. Hiram Fong.  He also graduated from the University of Hawaii with a master's degree in sociology in 1964 and a doctorate in American studies in 1974 (he lost the Senate election in 1970).  His career also includes stints in the state House from 1975-1979, state Senate from 1979-1986 and Honolulu City Council from 1988 to 1990.  After serving a term on the Honolulu City Council, he ran for the U.S. House of Reps from Hawaii's 1st Congressional District.  He held that seat for 20 years before resigning in February to run for governor.

Four Loko

Here's your weekly current event post.  Attorneys general in some states are increasingly trying to make headlines speaking out about the dangers of alcohol-packed energy drinks (i.e. Four Loko).  You may have read in the news lately that Four Loko and other such caffeine-based alcohol is "gaining favor at college parties and bars."  Gaining favor?  Are they suggesting that college students and bars never mixed caffeine and alcohol before?  Yeah, prior to the attorneys general getting involved, college students surely never mixed a red bull/vodka or rum and coke.  Despite being thousands of miles away from the mainland hoopla, Hawai'i can't escape the hype. Officials here are already talking about regulating the marketing of the drinks.  Four Loko was discussed at the annual conference of Hawai'i state liquor commissions on Kaua'i last week to talk about whether the State should ban or restrict the drink's availability in Hawaii.

Hawaii News Now questioned students at the University of Hawaii who explained why Four Loko is popular.  They say price (under $3 for a 23.5 ounce can), colorful packaging, taste, availability, potency, and caffeine content are all reasons why Four Loko has made such a splash.  "It doesn't taste like alcohol you know. Like beer or hard liquor, you'll have like that taste and you won't be able to drink a lot of it, but Four Loko it masks the taste so much that you just want to keep drinking it. And it's good. It's like fruit flavored," said UH Junior Bryan Lewandowski.

These kids are morons.  And so are the people who say that Four Loko is causing car accidents, sexual assaults, and hospitalizations.  There have been several newspaper articles in Hawai'i saying that perpetrators of sexual assaults MAY have been drinking Four Loko.  Four Loko is 12% abv.  One 24-oz can is about the same as 3-4 beers.  Yes, if you pound 5 cans of Four Loko, you're going to be drunk and probably get sick and maybe do something stupid.  Going out and drinking 10 beers will lead to the same thing.  Getting drunk makes people stupid.  That's part of the fun.  But that's nothing new and Four Loko has nothing to do with people being stupid.  It is a mistake to think that banning Four Loko is going to stop college students from binge drinking.  It is also a mistake to think they will stop mixing red bull and vodka.  It is an even bigger joke that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is getting involved saying that caffeine is an unsafe additive to alcohol.  I really hate government intervention.  They always screw shit up.  This is no different.  All this hype is the best marketing strategy Four Loko could have possibly hoped for.  In fact, I had never even heard of it until all this hit the media.  I also never had any interest in trying it.  Until now.

What did I do as soon as I was told I might not be allowed to try something? I went out an bought some.  Yes, it was cheap.  But it also tasted like shit.  Anyone who says this stuff is addictive because of its sweet taste is lying or seriously screwed up.  It tasted like fruit-flavored piss in a can.  I tried the Watermelon (which tasted nothing like watermelon) and Cranberry Lemonade.  If kids drink enough of this stuff to get sick, they deserve what happens to them.  I just keep thinking about those experiments where the rat is lured to cheese that gives an electric shock.  Even the rat learns not to go back and do it again.  If college kids can't figure it out...well...Darwin had a theory for them.  In the end, I had a slight buzz from one and a half cans, but I wasn't running through the streets going streaking.

A Little Controversy To Start The Day

The other day, I wrote about Kill Haole Day and a somewhat recent federal appellate case.  Here is a little more information on that case and a few additional thoughts.  Last week, in Doe v Kamehameha Schools, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that white students could not bring a lawsuit anonymously against an alleged discriminatory private school system.  Though racial hatred and racially motivated assaults on white students are well documented, the court found that fear of reprisal was "unreasonable" and the students had to disclose their identities.


I thought this deserved an update because according to some, this is just the latest case in a longstanding debate about whether the Bishop's Trust (set up by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last descendant of the Hawaiian monarchy) can continue to exclude all non-Native Hawaiians from the Kamehameha Schools (Evans v. Newton, anyone??).  The long and short of it is that the Kamehameha Schools are for students of Native Hawaiian descent (read their mission statement here).  The Ninth Circuit says that these schools were established because by the time the U.S. had brought sophisticated technology, education, and resources annexed Hawaii, "U.S. and foreign settlement had brought economic distress, mortality and disease; the Native Hawaiian population had dwindled to 22,600 in 1919, from a population 10 to 50 times larger a century and a half earlier." Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 470 F.3d 827, 831 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).  Today, the prestigious Kamehameha school system has a private educational endowment worth $9.1 billion.


Despite the vast changes that have occurred over the last 100 years, students of other races are still virtually excluded.  But isn't this a private school system with a private endowment? Can't they do whatever they want?  No.  In Runyon v McCrary, the U.S. Supreme Court held that commercially operated private schools could not discriminate in enrollment on the basis of race.  Despite that ruling, in 2003, the Ninth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to the discriminatory enrollment policy of the Kamehameha Schools.  The case settled before it could be heard by the Supreme Court.


So why do I bring all this up?  Well, because it's news that is going on around Hawaii, for one.  Also, the Supreme Court may take the case (though, it's doubtful).  But also, it relates to the first case I was involved in when I started working here.  Specifically, the Hawaiian Homeland Act.  Although the history is far too detailed and complicated to discuss in any length, Hawaiian Homelands were lands dedicated to Native Hawaiians by legislation known as the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921.  The Act sets aside certain land that is only available to people with Native Hawaiian ancestry.  You do not have to be 100% Native Hawaiian, just have Native Hawaiian blood somewhere in your line. Among other things, the purpose of the Act is to "to enable Native Hawaiians to return to their lands in order to fully support self-sufficiency for native Hawaiians and the self-determination of native Hawaiians in the administration of this Act, and the preservation of the values, traditions, and culture of native Hawaiians."


In conjunction with that, there is also the pending Akaka Bill (named for Sen. Akaka of Hawaii).  The Akaka Bill proposes to establish a process for indigenous Native Hawaiians to gain federal recognition similar to an Indian tribe.  If the Akaka Bill passes, then I'm pretty sure the Kamehameha Schools would definitely not have to admit non-Native Hawaiians because it would essentially be a sovereign nation's school.  Supporters of the Bill actually hope this is the case.  So while currently I am sure the Kamehameha Schools' policy is impermissibly discriminatory, I can see a valid legal argument being made that if the Bill passes, the Schools might not be subject to the same rules and regulations that govern a typical private school.  For what it's worth, though, it looks like the Bill is as good as dead.  Although the Bill had a lot of support among the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, the Republicans spanked them in the mid-terms re-gained control of the House, which seriously hurts the Bill's chances.  And just for my Republican-hating readers, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes the Akaka Bill because it "discriminates on the basis of race or national origin."

Haole in Hawaii

Before I moved to Hawaii, I had a professor tell me how lucky I was to be moving to a place with so much racial and ethnic diversity.  He told me all about how President Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, painted a pleasant image of racial relations in Hawaii.  The book is not the only place Obama praised race relations in Hawaii.  He was also lauded for his speech, A More Perfect Union, which among other things, mentioned the way Hawaii's diverse population and racial harmony could serve as an example to guide the rest of America.  However, I saw an article today that exposes the notion of Hawaiian racial harmony as not exactly accurate...at least not if you're white.  Have I seen crotchety old asian women give me dirty looks on my commute to work?  Sure.  But when this happens I don't automatically assume they are racist.  I'm not Jesse Jackson.

If you've been watching Hawaii Five-0, then you've undoubtedly heard the word "Haole" (pronounced: HOW - LEE).  It means "white person."  Many Hawaiian locals in the show use it to refer to Steve McGarrett or his partner Danno in a derogatory or demeaning way.  It is not necessarily an insult, though.  It can also be used matter-of-factly.  For example, many people refer to Colt Brennan - the (white) University of Hawaii quarterback who led the Warriors to an undefeated season in 2007 - as "everyone's favorite haole."

More often than not, though, it's derogatory.  This became all too apparent to me this weekend when I learned a new phrase - "HTW."  It is uttered by non-white people (even white-wash Asians who grew up on the mainland but like to pretend they're locals) and means "Haole, That's Why."  You can hear it said if a white person does something inconsistent with Hawaiian culture.  For example, "Why doesn't she eat Spam?" HTW.  "Why doesn't he wear an Aloha (Hawaiian) shirt?" HTW.  "Why is he tall?"  HTW.

Now, I always shrug off suggestions of underlying racism, both when asserted by my minority friends back home and when people here claim haoles are treated differently.  If someone gives me a dirty look because I'm white...well...I have made enough racist jokes that I probably deserve it.  Such is life.  This article suggested, however, that haole-based racism may actually be a legitimate problem in Hawaii (insert minority roommate's comment: "wait, you're telling me racism in America is a problem? I'm shocked!").  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court with appellate jurisdiction over Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington) last week rejected a challenge to the Kamehameha Schools admissions practice that gives preferential treatment to native Hawaiians.  The lawsuit apparently includes a heated debate over whether four non-Hawaiian students would be subject to racial attacks if their identities were revealed.


Judges Alex Kozinski and Stephen Reinhardt wrote strongly worded dissents, referring to "Kill Haole Day" at Hawaii's schools and arguing that the four non-Hawaiian students would be endangered in a "racially charged environment."  What? Kill Haole Day? Surely this is just some silly myth.  Well, it turns out that the last day of school before summer is annually known as Kill Haole Day.  This is not to be confused with Kick a Ginger Day (which, as we all know, is just plain old good fun!).  Local school kids in Hawaii will harass and sometimes beat up on mainland young white kids. Tourists don't exactly get exposed to this part of the culture when they visit, but local people know all about it. It isn't discussed openly or written about in newspapers, but it has been part of island practice among some of the young people for decades, apparently.


From my perspective, I have never experienced haole-based racism...and I have some pretty embarrassing proof that such claims may be overblown.  As I mentioned earlier, I went to Sandy's Beach this weekend.  When it comes to parking, you have two choices: the paved parking lot or the grass/sand in front of the beach.  There is basically a big field in front of the beach that is preceded by a strip of sand maybe 5-6 feet wide.  Well, I pull up over the sand, park the car, and go to the beach.  No problem.  We come back from the beach, get in the car and prepare to leave.  I drive over the grass and am ready to pull out on the narrow, one-lane road in front of the beach, but there is a lot of traffic.  So everyone has to go slowly and take their time.  I, unfortunately, happened to stop right on the strip of sand.  I didn't think anything of it.  Finally, no cars were coming, so I gradually ease out...oh wait...no...the wheels start spinning but I go NOWHERE.  The following conversation took place in the car:


Me: uh oh, I think we're stuck
Passenger:  What?
Me: Stuck in the sand
Passenger: Just give it more gas.  
Me: Ok


Nothing Happens.  


Passenger: Try going in reverse  
Me: Ok...


Yep, goin' nowhere


Passenger: Haha, lol!
Me:  That's not helpful...

Notice the position of the cars...these are where the locals park

Now, I don't have pictures of this cluster f*ck, so I will try to be as descriptive as possible (you can sort of see the layout from this picture).  The road I was trying to turn on runs parallel to the beach (right behind the cars on the left side of the picture here).  The field is directly behind that. To exit the park, you're driving toward the beach and turn right onto the road.  All the local boys are parked perpendicular to the road/beach/field.  As I'm looking out the front windshield, I can see the beach and the entire row of about 15 cars/trucks filled with 4-5 local boys each who have now taken notice of my nightmare what is going on.  I am still spinning the wheels in a futile effort to go somewhere.  They ALL start yelling different instructions at me in an effort to help.  Of course, all the instructions contradict each other.  Some are telling me to give it more gas.  Some say turn the wheel.  Some say go in reverse.  Some just point in six different directions.  After a few minutes, I exit the vehicle to see what my options might be. HA!  The wheels were BURIED in the sand.  Yep, not going anywhere.

Example of a Local Boy

Well, wouldn't ya know it...after another minute of watching this haole idiot screw around with his car, a SWARM of these guys walks up to us.  They assess the situation and say, "ah brah, you're buried."  Ya think!?  A group of them have now boxed me out of the situation completely and discuss among themselves how to get the car out.  Within what seemed like an hour a minute or so, one guy goes over to his truck and pulls out some type of strap.  Now 3 or 4 guys are laying on the ground looking under the bumper screaming at each other, "hook it there!;" "no, it'll pull the bumper, brah, you gotta hook it there;" "nah brah, wrap it around here!"  


I'm just standing silently on the side thinking: sure guys, let me know if I can help.  After a few minutes, my truck is hooked up to a bigger truck.  Now EVERYONE is watching in amusement - including the dozen-or-so line of cars that cannot pass on the road because the bigger truck is blocking it as we are hood to hood.  He pulls me out pretty quickly and with my bumper still intact, I am on my merry way with NO intention of showing my face at Sandy's Beach Park ever again.  So while they all got a good laugh/story at the haole's expense, I certainly don't think I'd classify them as anything but friendly/helpful guys.


So I suppose I'd have to say that my assessment of Hawaii is a little different than Judge Kozinski's.

My Gripe With Legalization

Marijuana is still illegal to possess without a prescription in California as voters rejected Proposition 19 by a 54% to 46% margin.  Maybe the potheads just forgot to vote.  I can just see a bunch of people with "anxiety disorders" sitting around, partaking in "herbal therapy" watching TV and saying..."Dude, Prop 19 didn't pass...uh...dude, did you vote?"

Proposition 19 was California’s ballot initiative to legalize marijuana possession and use for adults over the age of 21.  It would allow people over 21 to produce and sell marijuana “in small amounts” (whatever that means).  In Hawaii, marijuana is decriminalized.  Here is a brief explanation of Hawaii’s policy.  If you want to look up your State, here is a State by State index. 

Advocates of legalization believe that legalization will generate a major budgetary windfall and unleash an economic boom in marijuana-related industries while reducing crime, corruption and Mexican drug violence.  Legalization would be a significant change in that marijuana production and sale would move above ground. State and local governments could then tax it. California is expecting $1.4 billion in additional tax revenue from legalization, along with reduced criminal justice expenditure.  Opponents argue that legalization will increase marijuana and other drug use via the gateway effect and spur the alleged negatives of use, such as crime or diminished health.

Look, if you wanna get high, who am I to stop you?  On one hand, there is some validity to the legalization movement (the hippie advocates aside).  Yes, there is no question that legalization of marijuana would allow States to tax it.  Yes, it would reduce burdens on the courts and prosecutors who go after dealers or users with small amounts of pot.  Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 847,000 individuals per year.  Yes, marijuana is probably less dangerous than two other, more popular drugs - tobacco and alcohol.  Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to cigarette smoking.

My problem with the legalization movement has less to do with legalization in principal and more to do with the practical effects and unintended consequences that seem to be too easily dismissed by its advocates.  First, if I choose to grow a small amount of marijuana in my room at home, how in the world is the government going to tax that?  Currently, I am a beginner homebrewer.  The government doesn’t tax the beer I make.  Second, what about industrial suppliers.  Where do people think marijuana is going to be grown?  I don’t foresee a burgeoning farming operation developing in the U.S.  Rather, suppliers will come from Mexico where operations currently exist in vast quantities.  Additionally, how will Mexican drug cartels react to legalization in America?  Will they simply charge less than legal U.S. suppliers creating a more attractive black market?  If it's legal to possess, how can anyone be upset how you obtain it?  I suppose one upside would be that all the illegal Mexicans currently in the U.S. might stay in their own country with so many new, legal jobs being created, right?  The ability to regulate this new market seems poorly thought out.  It seems more like a bunch of hippies who just want to be able to smoke themselves stupid while California is just looking for a quick fix to its budget crisis without thinking through the consequences.  Third, marijuana use impairs a person’s ability to drive a car, just like alcohol.  However, there is currently no effective way for police officers to test for marijuana impairment at traffic stops.  How can police officers effectively stop stoners from causing accidents on the road and putting people’s lives at risk if they can't test for it?  Fourth, has anyone considered the costs of rehab?  The U.S. currently spends millions of dollars in alcohol abuse rehabilitation.  Logically speaking, won’t the same be necessary for marijuana abuse?

While I certainly appreciate the legalization movement’s purported commitment to helping the country with its budget crisis, I am not convinced that it is anything more than an effort to get the cops off the backs of hippie patchouli wearers.