• The dumbing down of our electorate • Conservation was the Hawaiian way The dumbing down of our electorate I write this letter truly stunned by the “information” provided by various writers as to the “facts and figures” purported to
• The dumbing down of our electorate •
Conservation was the Hawaiian way
The dumbing down of our electorate
I write this letter truly stunned by the “information” provided by various writers as to the “facts and figures” purported to reinforce their political beliefs or the paid political advertisements we too often see littering our media and attempting to sway public opinion.
We have become a society represented by “bullet point” and headline driven arguments replete with hyperbole or vapid opinions that fail to delve into the concrete data and researched material behind the “story”.
This weekend’s TGI editorial, In Our Opinion, says is all — “The public at-large has a responsibility to educate itself with hard facts before making crucial decisions.” More often than not it just doesn’t happen.
This is not newsworthy in itself (just an observation), but after receiving the recently mailed Elections Division absentee voter packet of information I was in shock. It seems that even the sources that should be fair, balanced, educational and transparent, fall far short of a basic standard of care. I have been unable to find, online, any definition of the Elections Division’s practice in providing voter information or the requirements thereof at the County or State level. However, the one page, County of Kaua‘i Charter Review Commission — “Explanation of County Charter Amendments Proposed in the 2010 General Election” is a sad reflection of the current state of affairs.
How is the voting public supposed to become educated on any such proposed amendments? There is a very simple Heading for each proposal, followed by “Vote YES or NO” and then the Background and Explanation. This should only be the start. This information needs to be fairly presented to the public in order for them to make an informed decision. If this is the page of information prepared by the Commission, should it not be expanded upon by the Elections Division or other third party group for further objective analysis? We should all better understand the following kinds of information:
1) What does a YES vote or NO vote actually mean?
2) Background should provide us with a true background on the issue, not a simple one line statement. What is the reason or the thought process for the group (in this case the Charter Commission) actually proposing this? WHY are we being presented with this decision?
3) History of any previously proposed amendments (identical, similar or otherwise) with dates of prior election years, passed or voted down should be provided so one will know if they have voted on this or something like this before.
4) If a Commission or Board is proposing such amendments, how did that body vote on it (e.g. how many in favor or against)?
5) Financial cost or business impact of the proposed amendment actually being passed so one has the ability to quantify the dollars if implemented.
6) Arguments in favor of or against the proposal so one can better understand the perspective or opinions of the group(s) proposing or opposing (e.g. public testimony) to provide a bi-partisan analysis.
I fear that our election cycle has become nothing more than a popularity contest of favored causes or ideas “du jour.” How many of us take the time (or have the time) to understand every issue that is presented before us upon which we vote? Do we actually delve beyond the mailer, paid advertisement, or in this case the one pager from the Charter Commission so we can make an informed voting decision? I hope so but I don’t have much faith in things getting better unless we make them so.
Please care, please educate yourself and demand clear, concise and balanced information. In order that we each make a difference we must move beyond rhetoric and simply require better from our government (elected, appointed, paid, volunteer, or otherwise) and then make an intelligent voting decision.
Jeff Demma, Wailua
Conservation was the Hawaiian way
“Let’s concentrate on our quality of life and survival.” I couldn’t agree more by the statement made by Mark Stiglmeier in his Oct. 24 letter.
I do how ever disagree that no restrictions are necessary.
I have taken personal responsibility to educate myself on the issues concerning fishing and those who use the ocean for recreational and commercial purposes.
Having attended the meetings held by NOAA, Kaua‘i fisherman and DLNR I feel the most important information I obtained was from a book called “The Hawaiians of Old,” written by Betty Dunford over 30 years ago.
Conversation: The Hawaiians of old did not only think about the food they needed for today. They thought about the food and fish their children would need in the future. The Hawaiians never caught baby fish or the ones spawning or caring eggs.
A fisherman (lawai‘a) never took all the fish from a fishing ground. He fed the fish and took only what he needed. The Hawaiians had many laws about fishing. At certain times inshore fishing was forbidden. Hawaiians could not fish or gather shellfish in these area. A coconut branch was set up on shore to tell the people that all fishing was forbidden in that place. Hawaiians could not catch aku in the summer and ‘opelu in the winter. These kapu or laws were good and helped save the fish and made certain that there would be enough. Conservation was part of the Hawaiian way of life.
Thelma Hill, Hanalei
