Too Much, Too Little, Too Late

Instead of hurriedly setting sail to bridge Hawaii’s outer islands, perhaps the Hawaii Superferry needed to first make its maiden voyage a trip back through time.

If bringing together the Hawaiian Islands was one of its goals, the Hawaii Superferry would have realized it has already been badly beaten to the punch. Any local can tell you that Hawaii’s world-renowned icon King Kamehameha fulfilled this unifying task long ago.

The Superferry once again attempts to alter what history has already written as its lobbyists push for Hawaii’s lawmakers to hurry through a bill that would allow for its operation, despite previously mandated laws that require an Environmental Impact Statement to first be completed.

Though the Hawaii Supreme Court has already made its decree providing an injunction to halt the Superferry’s activities until a thorough and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is made, Superferry and friends caught a break in the current that seemed to be pushing them toward a more permanent closure. Governor Lingle, a long time supporter of the ferry company, has disturbingly mounted increasing pressure on legislators to expedite a bill that would allow her to set environmental conditions for the ship’s operation, allowing for it to continue to “rebuild our marine highways,” without the necessary and extensive environmental impact research mandated by current law to ensure the well-being of the islands’ natural habitat.

Without conducting an in-depth study, Hawaii’s marine wildlife unnecessarily remains at greater risk. Hawaii’s waters are home to a host of sea creatures and without proper environmental regulation, these creatures will be threatened by the Superferry’s operations. Environmentalists have been raising concerns regarding such issues, citing potential damage to inhabitant whales and the possible transportation of invasive species hidden inside and under vehicles. However, just recently ferry lobbyists, along with others, were given the opportunity to legitimately voice their concerns. The public was given the opportunity to provide their opinion before legislators met in special session through the delivering of closely time-monitored, sound-bite length testimonies to state legislators at informational briefs.

While informational briefs are advertised as an information gathering process so that public ideas can be incorporated into proposed legislation, Hawaii’s legislators seek to use this notion to their advantage. These legislators, many of who remain concerned with their fate given the upcoming elections, have disingenuously engineered such informational briefs and scoping meetings to merely appease stakeholders who feel as if they have been left out of the entire decision-making process. Though a thorough and comprehensive study of the Superferry’s impact on the environment is expected to take up to two years to complete, legislators have instead deliberately chosen to base their decision on a mere two minutes of testimony given by an allotted number of concerned experts and citizens on limited occasions.

Surely, any legislation created on such limited information has the potential to create further problems and have haphazard results. The legislation concocted by State Legislators merely seeks to skirt the earlier court rulings requiring the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement before the permitting the Hawaii Superferry to resume operations. The Hawaii Sierra Club believes that the current drafted legislation still fails to incorporate important operating stipulations, including the reduction of speed by the Superferry, thereby failing to “adequately protect our environment while exempting the Superferry.”

If the Hawaii Superferry truly wishes to “rebuild” marine highways with respect for the environment, the company should do so with a more genuine effort by respecting past laws requiring an environmental impact assessment to be made before resuming its operations. Rather than further disaggregating public sentiment by pushing forward in its attempt to circumvent a number of court rulings, the company should seek to adopt a policy that is responsive to both the comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement as well as the public’s concern.

This prolonged feud between the Hawaii Superferry and concerned citizens has already brought the ferry a barrage of negative advertisement and will certainly hurt the company’s image and business. This battle has dragged on long enough that perhaps the Superferry should start thinking in terms of damage control. Because in this battle, it is likely that even Kamehameha would have struggled to emerge a winner.

Growing Pains

It was an unusual battle of epic proportions--pitting a flotilla of surfers atop their boards against a mechanized, sea faring giant. Kauai's recent bout with the Hawaii Superferry attracted throngs of people, onlookers and activists alike, exhibiting perhaps one of the oddest, yet most advantageous and eclectic mix from all walks of life. From the modern day aristocrat and intellectual, to the everyday beach bum—these islanders gathered, each feeling the need to become intrinsically involved in the fight to protect their island. And such a display of unity in diversity could not have come at a more opportune moment.

The latest face-off between disgruntled islanders and the first inter-island car-carrying monstrosity has finally pushed many of these locals far beyond their comfort zone. As a few entrepreneurial spirits herald The Superferry as a blessing for business, others (and rightfully so) are ironically threatened by the thought of a bolstering economy for their sleepy island.

Though the prospect of inexpensive inter-island traveling, coupled with an increase in tourism and the luring of big-name business may seem like quite the blessing from an outsider’s perspective; for locals, this could only mean one thing: their eventual displacement from the island which they have always called home due to an economic disparity.

The island of Kauai may already have its fair share of tourism which perhaps, in some ways, benefit the island’s economy. However, the seduction of alleged wealth and commerce associated with the Superferry’s coming must not allow locals to fall victim to another ploy engineered by the selfish individuals who seek to benefit from the Superferry’s future voyages.

Yes, with the Superferry’s ability to offer quick and convenient transportation between islands, the island will be more accessible to outsiders, and the prospect of opening bigger businesses becomes a real possibility.

Yes, such businesses may stimulate the economy by creating more jobs and providing more opportunities for residents and non-residents alike. Ideally, the Superferry may even place Kauai on the map, bolstering tourism and possibly even earning Kaui the coveted title of the most desired Hawaiian vacation destination.

But before getting carried away with the host of endless possibilities that can be sparked by the docking of a mere boat, let us not neglect some of the negative economic repercussions that locals may expect remorsefully.

The increase in big business will inevitably increase competition, and smaller businesses that have faithfully served the island’s community may be annihilated. Their pockets are simply not deep enough to survive price wars that accompany competition from business giants.

The increase in visitors and business investors are likely to find more interest in the island, thus causing the invasion of not only the business market, but also the real-estate market. Already, big names like Pierce Brosnan have already purchased land in some of the most breathtaking areas of the island.

While this not only prevents access for islanders from prime beaches and the like due to the sales of property sales, consequently it is a growing and disturbing predicament for many locals. Future surge in the real-estate market will displace the islanders themselves, due to the pricing in the housing market that will exponentially rise because of wealthy transplants.

The displacement of locals in exchange for a bolstered economy—it seems to reflect the recent paradigm of paradise. Parallels could be drawn between the current situation that threatens the local islanders of Kauai to that of other islands elsewhere. For example, the islanders on Guam face a similar plight as complacent Guamanians are already preparing for the incursion of a large military contingent. The influx will likely cause similar repercussions on their island’s economy, while they leave the battle to vociferous and efficacious activists.

While Garibaldi, a former Hawaiian Airlines chief financial officer who says that the airlines too once faced a similar predicament, believes that the Superferry has the support of the silent majority of residents throughout the island; one should be wary to accept such claims offered from such partisan interests. Though activists have already led the fight against the docking of the Superferry on the island of Kauai, others must not hesitate to continue the battle against what could ultimately force the very progeny of many islanders to be priced out of their own lands. Silent locals must take heed to what is going on—for the Superferry’s outcome will soon determine many of their own destiny.

Lest We Forget the Foundation of a Great Nation

17-year-old Andrew Larochelle, earlier this week, schooled some of our nation’s highest government officials. Through a simple letter written to his congressman, Larochelle reminded leaders of the very tenets of our nation. He requested that a flag be flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of his grandfather for his “love of God, country and family,” providing his congressman, along with many others, a sense of true American nostalgia. Though such a petition has left some to scoff at the entanglement of church and state through the inference of such a religious dedication, his request harkens back the long lost memories of this country’s humble beginnings through a few simple but powerful words.

He reminds U.S. lawmakers, who too often remain overly preoccupied in their partisan battles within the halls of congress, of their earlier roots. This country was founded by a diverse group of families, each with its unique history and purpose of moving to America. More particularly, Larochelle reminds that many of these families immigrated into America to escape religious persecution, in addition to a host of other reasons. America has since prided itself in its pursuit of such freedoms—whether it is the freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, or to petition the government. Therefore, this country was essentially founded on the very expression that Larochelle addressed in his letter—for the love of God (religion), country, and family. Thus, it is America’s responsibility to uphold such ideals, and re-affirm Larochelle’s request to have a flag raised atop the Capitol in honor of his grandfather for his “love of God, country, and family.”

While some criticism over architect Stephen Ayers’s decision to include the word “God,” on certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol may remain, such a reaffirmation in policy is needed to remind leaders, along with others, that the true colors of our nation are reflected through none other than the will of the people. Representative Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) affirmed that through the allowance of certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol to include the word “God,” the people have “won a great victory for American traditions, religious freedoms and freedom of expression.” In such divisive times as these in which lawmakers remain in deadlock due to opposing idealisms, it is important that individuals like 17-year-old Andrew Larochelle continue to challenge the government and its leaders to stick to core American traditions and values, reminding them of who and what they truly stand for.

Cast Ye the First Stone

It is nothing new, this time around, as Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke recently made a statement that he would deny communion to Republican Presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani. Good ol’ Burke just can’t seem to keep his nose out of the limelight, or at least, for the time being, politics which is now somewhat synonymous given the age of heightened media coverage. It was just last presidential season when the Archbishop made it public, reverberating that he would refuse to give Holy Communion to the Democratic Presidential hopeful, John Kerry (who later lost his presidential bid).

After reading this article, one is left to consider if Archbishop Burke is merely trying to uphold vague church doctrine, or if he has an ulterior motive of meandering with the upcoming elections by influencing the rather conservative Catholic voter base, which has taken the pro-life stance. While some U.S. bishops contend that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to receive communion, Archbishop Burke publicly and adamantly continues to believe otherwise. He even went further by publishing an article in a church law journal exploring the church’s right to deny communion. In his defense, the Archbishop stated that the denial of Communion is not a judgment because, “What the state of his soul is, is between God and him.”

Well, if Burke believes that the state of one’s soul is truly between God and himself, then why does he repeatedly wedge his personal views between such an intimate relationship? Why does he continually seek to draw public attention to the matter by freely speaking to the press about his decision to deny Holy Communion to various presidential hopefuls who hold beliefs contradictory to his? Burke’s argument stating that any ordained priest or lay minister is morally obligated to deny Holy Communion from politicians who support an abortion-rights position remains not only contradictory, but moreover, hypocritical of his core belief: that the state of one’s soul is between God and himself. Let it be up to the individual to discern whether or not he/she is worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ.

It is one thing to see such drama happening exclusively in the political arena (especially during election time), but it pains me to see religious and church officials get so intimately involved in the election fray. Those like Archbishop Burke should not seek the limelight after using his discretion to deny Holy Communion to politicians, especially since the issue of the denial of Holy Communion still remains unclear in church doctrine, left to be later debated among bishops in the coming months.

In a world where morality is a constant battle, it is apparent that crimes of passion are not discriminatory and has repeatedly managed to invade the confines of the non-secular world. Given the international focus on the indiscretions of even those robed with the Holy Cloth, Burke’s true colors show forth in his quick passing of judgment onto others.

Perhaps Archbishop Raymond Burke should learn a lesson or two from those he criticizes most. Giuliani, in his response to the Archbishop’s statement stated that “Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know…everybody has a right to their opinion.” However, he cautions others about against being so quick to judge, recalling a story in which Jesus said that only someone who was free of all sin should try to stone an adulterous woman. “Don’t judge others, lest you be judged,” Giuliani went on to say.