I’m late. And perhaps have little to say this morning. Blame it on the cat. In this case, the El Felino Malbec, a wine from Argentina that was among consumed last night during an extended meal at the home of friends in Waikiki. They had returned from a trip to Argentina with an appreciation for the region’s grapes, and we were enjoying sampling the fare. At some point in the evening I took this blurred photo with my Treo phone and emailed myself the evidence. I think it all got blurrier after that. Although we managed to roust ourselves just in time for the sunrise walk, I didn’t manage my usual pre-dawn session at the computer. Instead you get this lame excuse.
Hmmm. It’s been two and a half months since I addressed a message to Governor Lingle with a few questions about the administration’s response to allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct during official foreign travel by state-sponsored delegations. No response. Not even a courtesy reply, or one of those empty “thank you for your letter, i take all feedback seriously, i have asked my staff to blah blah blah” missives. Just silence.
Why do I bring that up here? Because that letter was prompted by the failure of the corporate media to put any of the hard questions to the governor and to hold her feet to the fire. Lingle said she wasn’t going to discuss the issue and no one seems to have pressed the point.
Now after reading today’s uncritical reporting of the governor’s latest comments on the Superferry, I realized that it’s all happening again. No one is pressing the governor with the difficult questions or, if they are, it’s not being reported. I haven’t really thought through what I would ask the gov, but a few things come to mind immediately. Let’s find out from Governor Lingle when she first heard there was an issue of whether or not the state would require an environmental assessment. How did she learn of this? Did she or anyone else in her office discuss it with Superferry representatives? If so, when? Who was present? Did she offer personal assurances to anyone related to the Superferry that no environmental review would be necessary? If so,when? How? Who? On what basis? Did she meet with representatives of J.F. Lehman & Co., the primary investor in the Superferry? When? Where?
The point is we’re really most reading or seeing carefully orchestrated spin, and the people we rely on to at least occasionally cut through that are being far too polite in failing to challenge the spin. Where are those kick ass editors we see in the movies pushing their reporters back out to get the “real” story from the governor? I hope they’re hard at work behind the scenes right now to do just that.
Enjoy your Saturday.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have found the silence is most deafening in this administration when the AG appears to be at fault.
Have to agree with you here, and was most disheartened to see yesterday’s headline about the Governor being “heckled.” It’s, again, an echo of our being called “unpatriotic” to protest the war in the Middle East. As if we should all just be polite, shut up, and let the Bushies decide for us (Lingle being one of them). I celebrate those young people’s loud voices and raw emotion. They are the same generation of 19 and 20 year olds that are being sacrificed by this administration, and will continue to be.
But, I also feel that the true impact of the so-called Superferry is not being discussed in any venue. It’s about the cars. Bringing a steady stream of new traffic to these fragile neighbor island communities has much wider impact than anyone is copping to. Look at Kailua-Kona – you could easily mistake it for some cheesy place in Florida now. Look at how hard we have to fight for any preservation of lifestyle or open space anymore, even on Oahu.
She has sold us out. I do hope that someone, somewhere picks up this story. Honolulu Weekly? Are you reading this?
You’re right — the media have really failed us on this issue, and still haven’t gotten anything from Lingle except the “we were right all along” line, not even acknowledging (except in sneering ways) that the state’s high court interpreted that not to be the case.
But the other big failing has added to anger over the troubles the Superferry is facing. For the months preceding the announced launch date, the two dailies were total project boosters, writing article after article about how great the superferry would be, hardly mentioning that legal challenges remained.
Almost none of those articles mentioned that there was a pending court challenge that could change the pace of events. I happen to recall that several days before the Supreme Court issued its order, the Advertiser had an article about riding on the superferry and the Star-Bulletin had a headline “Superferry CEO sees Smooth Sailing Ahead,” in a story that didn’t mention the court appearance the following day. There were one or two articles in the month before about the court challenge, but they were isolated. Every article about how great the Alakai should have had one line, somewhere, saying that the EA issue was presently on appeal.
That led the public to the expectation that the Superferry was coming, SOON! No one really knew about the court challenges. That was the spin machine operating at full force, and I guess it really bit them in the behind.
Imagine if the media had kept alert to the court challenges (all public records) that the Superferry was facing. The articles would be: Smooth sailing on the Alakai, for now, Potential Launch date set: pending court action. Etc. It would have never gotten to this flash point. Hawaii Superferry would have been forced to respond, rather than treating the legal challenges, as they apparently did, as small little back-alley issues that were being dealt with appropriately, outside of the public view.
So, they have a lot of catching up to do, still.
According to SuperFerry’s Reply Statement of Position filed 12/08/2004 in the PUC docket by its attorney, “Applicant has requested that DOT issue a declaration of exemption for the harbor use because this action falls within several defined categories of actions that are exempt . . .” It goes on to say “The question of whether the proposed harbor use would fall within the scope of the environmental review process prescribed in the Hawaii EIS Law was discussed with high-level representatives of the DOT, the Attorney General and State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control during meetings held in November 2004.” Seems like this was occuring when MARAD had already determined that HSF was a “major federal action” that triggered NEPA. Later documents show that MARAD changed their decision and gave HSF a catergorical exclusion based on the DOT’s exemption determination.
Who was driving the bus to get out of both NEPA and HEPA requirements?
I would like to know of any communications between the executive branch and the “NotSoSuper” Ferry coordinating media management. [not that it takes much to manage the local media which is acting like it owns shares in the little boat that couldn’t]