Wednesday, September 4, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 49

    Dear Legislature: Pay your debts, save for a rainy day and give us a big tax rebate

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Dear Legislature: Pay your debts, save for a rainy day and give us a big tax rebate

    By Keli’i Akina

    Imagine your brother was facing a bad financial situation. 

    Things looked bleak for a while, and the family came together to help him out. Eventually, he got through it, thanks in part to generosity from his siblings. Now, not only is he out of trouble, but he has money to burn. What would you tell him to do with his extra funds?

    Chances are you would tell him to pay down his debts, put some away for a rainy day and give some back to the family that helped him out. 

    The last thing you would suggest is that he go shopping or spend it on a few shiny new toys.

    Keli’i Akina

    It’s basic economic common sense, and it applies just as much to our state government as it would to the hypothetical brother.

    Just over a year ago, things looked bleak for Hawaii’s finances. The coronavirus lockdowns had devastated our lives and economy. Lawmakers were expecting drastically lower revenues and preparing for major budget cuts. In the panic, they seized the counties’ share of the transient accommodations tax and hoped that federal relief funds would help bail the state out of its financial crisis.

    At the time, my colleagues and I at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii repeatedly advised lawmakers to focus on policies that would grow the economy. Under the circumstances, even a slight bump in the economy would have led to a dramatic increase in revenues.

    And that’s just what happened when the state finally did start opening up the economy. Tax revenues started pouring in, and now the state is sitting on a surplus of $4 billion. 

    Simply allowing the market to operate helped create a windfall in state revenues, though there were other contributing factors, such as the funds from the TAT, the $750 million the state borrowed and added to the budget as “revenues,” and $1 billion in federal relief funds.

    There also is the current inflation rate of 7.5%, which is boosting tax revenues due to businesses increasing their prices and thus paying more in taxes.

    What is going to happen to that surplus? Will it be used responsibly or will it be spent on our ever-expanding state budget?

    As the legislative session draws to a close, this has become the $4 billion question.

    At the beginning of the year, Gov. David Ige called for a tax refund of approximately $100 per taxpayer. The Grassroot Institute applauded the idea, but suggested that the refund be substantially increased so that approximately $1 billion of the windfall be returned to the people.

    After considering and rejecting a different refund bill, the Legislature has returned to the issue in SB514. But the amount of the refund remains undecided.

    On Thursday, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser quoted the institute’s testimony on the bill, in which we reiterated our support for a higher refund:

    “‘The governor hoped to add about $110 million to the economy via a refund of $100 per taxpayer and dependent,’ said Joe Kent, the organization’s executive vice president. ‘However, we suggest that, given the amount of its budget surplus, the state return at least one-third of the windfall, or about $1 billion, to the taxpayers. That would equal approximately $1,361 for each of Hawaii’s 734,673 taxpayers. As we noted, the state can afford to do far more than a mere $100 each for Hawaii taxpayers, who have gone through so much in the past two years.’”

    In addition to giving money back to taxpayers, the state should also pay down some of its unfunded liabilities. After all, $750 million of that windfall is borrowed, and paying it off earlier will save us money in the long run. 

    Some of the money could also be used to pay down the state’s unfunded pension and health-benefits debts. Think of it as investing in the future. This way, our children and grandchildren won’t be stuck with a higher bill.

    Then there’s the rainy day fund. If we have learned anything from the lockdowns, it is the importance of having a healthy rainy day fund.

    Some legislators claim that the refund has to be small, due to federal rules about how coronavirus recovery funds are spent. Those rules restrict the states from using the funds to offset a reduction in taxes. 

    However, two recent court cases — Ohio v. Yellen and West Virginia v. Yellen— have successfully challenged the mandate at the district court level as an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. The cases are now at the appellate stage, but the early wins suggest that Hawaii lawmakers should not be shy about returning some of the windfall to the people.

    Pay your debts, save for a rainy day and give back some of the excess. It’s as true for the state’s windfall as it would be for any of us. 

    Just because the state’s budget goes into the billions of dollars doesn’t mean our lawmakers should not be held to the same principles of responsible spending and saving as the average family — especially when the money they are spending comes from our pocketbooks in the first place.
    _________

    Keli’i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Auditor Persecution Continues

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Auditor Persecution Continues

    Hi there! This is the Hawaii State Tax Watch Doggie. Today I’m playing a real person who testified before the House Special Investigative Committee.  The Committee was supposed to be looking into problems at the Department of Land and Natural Resources because of a less-than-glowing report by the State Auditor. But guess who got slammed by the Committee just as much, if not more? The Auditor.

    Here’s the link to the report:  

    Over one-third of the Committee’s report was on the Auditor’s Office (which was never supposed to be part of the Committee’s focus according to the House Resolution authorizing the Committee).  It was also telling that the Committee issued its draft report before even hearing the testimony from all of the scheduled witnesses.  That sure makes it seem like the Committee had predetermined a lot of things.

    I was called by the committee chair’s office to meet with her and some of her committee members twice and was later subpoenaed to testify before the full committee on October 21, 2021.   I not only testified for several hours at each meeting/hearing, but also submitted numerous documents, including memos, emails, staff reports, and other information to substantiate my testimony about DLNR Land Division’s  (“LD”) mismanagement of State lands.

    Yet, despite all of this, the Committee did not cite any of my testimony or documents in its report.  My last submittal (which was in response to the draft report) included LD’s own billing invoices and ledgers that clearly showed LD had failed to bill/collect the proper base rents for the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel lease and failed to collect over $500,000 in percentage rents covering a period of 3-4 years.  This response was included as an appendix to the report; however, the Committee did not even mention any of this in its report.   Instead, the Committee accepted LD’s explanation that this was “an inadvertent oversight” despite documentation I submitted that shows I had given written warnings to LD administrators about this problem back in 2016.  And as of January 2022, over six years later, LD had yet to address the flaws in its Hilo Hawaiian Hotel lease.

    Again, none of my testimony or documentation was mentioned or cited in the Committee’s report, yet DLNR’s responses (excuses) were constantly cited throughout the report.

    I also found it telling that the Committee’s featured witness was a former City Auditor who went so far as to call Les Kondo “the poster child for poor auditing.”  That specific quote was included in the Committee’s report.  Personally, I found that to be unprofessional, in poor taste, and reflecting badly on the character of the witness.  And by the way, under his watch, the City failed to uncover any of the corruption that has since made news headlines, such as bribes accepted by Department of Planning and Permitting staff, the scandals involving HPD Chief of Police Kealoha and City deputy prosecutor Katherine Kealoha, the police commission’s $250,000 payout to Chief Kealoha, and federal indictments of high-ranking city officials including its corporation counsel, chief of staff, and police commission chair.   With all that going on around him, I would hardly consider the former City auditor to be a credible witness to testify on sound auditing practices.

    This has been the Hawaii State Tax Watch Doggie.  I’m playing a real person, not because anyone’s name needed to be protected but because I wanted more air time!  The real person’s remarks were edited for length and clarity, and when I wanted to put in juicy stuff!  As I said before, watchdogs have to watch out for each other too,  When one of us gets attacked, we all suffer.

    Free-fall – “We Can Fix It “ – A series of postings offering perspective and commentary on art and global environmental issues

    Guest Contributor
    -
    0
    Free-fall – “We Can Fix It “ – A series of postings offering perspective and commentary on art and global environmental issues

    A friend and I were recently discussing the prevailing state of affairs
    dominating world news and the human outlook. After we got past Covid
    and the raging war in Europe, we couldn’t avoid the recently released
    United Nations report on climate change.

    IPCC: “Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing”
    United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called the report’s
    conclusion “damning.”

    “This report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of
    broken climate promises. It is a file of shame, cataloging the empty pledges
    that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world.”

    My friend said she was disturbed but was certain that . . . “we can fix it.”

    Really?

    Natural habitats, ecosystems and living species that have evolved over
    millions of years, only to be quickly and casually annihilated in the wake of
    human profit driven activity, do not bounce back with the application of
    quick technical fixes. They disappear and do not resurrect. The best that
    we can try do is slow it down, stop further damage. However . . . we
    haven’t skipped a beat but rather have intensified destructive activity
    moving us ever closer to an extinction scenario.

    Given the reality, of a world, controlled by profit -driven industries and
    governed by their political/legislative stewards, the possibility that
    humanity will somehow awaken and with near unanimous intent, rally and harness all of its ingenuity and effort to retool civilization toward a path of
    sustainability that might tip the balance toward survival rather than
    extinction, seems, at this point . . . unlikely.

    The window is closing. The wakeup call is blaring. We even have a new war.

    Earth’s environment, like any other natural system, will seek and ultimately
    find a new balance. Which, if any, of the elements of this cycle will be
    carried forward into the new, is completely unknowable.

    Moral sentiment, notions of judgement . . . good / bad . . . right / wrong
    seem misplaced. The issue is more one of success or failure, on an
    evolutionary plane. Simple reduction : survival or extinction. Free – fall.

    The lower world – as it was – as it could be: lush, alive, fertile, balanced. A
    leonine, male figure holds a mask of man . . . passing a snake (symbol of
    fertility, rebirth and renewal) through it.

    The female figure, representing understanding, emotional maturity and
    regeneration balances a diminished, grandstanding, little man on a clock. His
    time is drawing to an end.

    A bridge spanning the gulf between the worlds is . . . broken.

    ****************

    Joseph Carlisi – Biography     

    Born and raised in New York City, he earned BA and MA degrees in Philosophy at Hunter College of the City University of New York and then continued his graduate studies in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence at Massachusetts Institute of Technology working under the mentorship of Marvin Minsky. Joseph worked as a part time content and copy editor for Harvard University Press (science and medicine) while attending M.I.T.     

    After ten years as a university lecturer, researcher and administrator, he started and managed an advertising / public relations firm in San Diego, CA that handled a wide range of commercial accounts. On the academic side, he published a series of seven articles on animal behavior for Harvard Magazine and two books: “A Guide to Personal Power” and most recently “Playing God on the Eve of Extinction”.

    Joseph Carlisi creates oil on canvas paintings that can be described as vivid, surreal and unexpected. His paintings have been exhibited and sold in: Honolulu, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York City, Miami, Tokyo, Yokohama, Amsterdam, Berlin and Salvador Brazil.

    Joe’s art is available for purchase.

    Contact him at carlisijoseph@yahoo.com.

    Minimum wage ‘a really blunt tool’ to help the poor

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Minimum wage ‘a really blunt tool’ to help the poor

    By Keli’i Akina

    Before our legislators vote on whether to increase Hawaii’s minimum wage, I encourage them to ask three very important questions:

    >> Who are we trying to help?

    >> Who would actually be affected?

    >> Is the minimum wage the best way to help low-income families?

    Clearly, many people believe that increasing the state’s minimum wage level would address poverty and income inequality. But numerous studies conducted over several decades say something very different. 

    Rather than help struggling single mothers escape from poverty, an increase in Hawaii’s minimum wage is more likely to pad the paychecks of upper-middle-class teenagers or recent college graduates on their way to well-paying careers.

    That’s what I learned recently from David Neumark, economist and co-director of the Center for Population, Inequality, and Policy at the University of California, Irvine, who was my guest on “Hawaii Together” on ThinkTech Hawaii.

    Neumark is the author of “Minimum Wages,” published by The MIT Press, and is considered the nation’s foremost expert on the topic.

    He said supporters of minimum-wage increases often claim that the findings of minimum-wage research are uncertain, showing a wide variety of effects. But this is a mischaracterization of the data.

    Instead, he said, a review of almost all of the relevant studies since the 1990s shows that mandatory wage hikes have an overwhelmingly negative effect on jobs and labor in general. In other words, as the minimum wage goes up, people lose jobs, income and work hours.

    There was one much-ballyhooed study in the early 1990s that showed positive effects from a wage hike, but that, said Neumark, has since been discreditedfor its poor data-gathering techniques. Ironically, it was produced by one of the three economists who were awarded last year’s Nobel Prize in economics.

    David Neumark

    Neumark said that for businesses, a minimum-wage hike is like a tax on labor, with predictable results.

    “Taxes tend to discourage the use of the things you’re taxing, unless it’s something you absolutely can’t do without,” he said. “So as long as there are substitutes for lower-skilled workers, a higher minimum wage effectively will [make] using that labor more expensive, and that’s what creates the trade-off at the end of the day.”

    Neumark acknowledged that some people benefit from minimum-wage hikes. After all, they get a pay raise, so it must do some good, right? Unfortunately, the pay increases don’t necessarily help the people they are intended to help, such as struggling single mothers trying to put food on their tables.

    He said even if you assume there are no negative effects due to the minimum wage, only 15% of minimum-wage increases typically go to families at the poverty line, versus about 40% for families with above-median income.

    “Nearly half the benefits go to families in the top half of the income distribution, and it’s exactly because there’s a lot of young workers who are on minimum wage, just because they’re young and they don’t know anything yet,” Neumark explained. “They’re not going to be poor later. They might be an MIT engineer later on, but they have to have some job in high school making coffee, … so they get the benefits when you raise the minimum.”

    In other words, Neumark said, “the minimum wage is a really blunt tool to try to affect the underlying problem.”

    Instead, he said, lawmakers should focus on programs that target government benefits based on being poor or low income. Policies that encourage people to work, rather than discourage it, also are valuable, he said, “because we know that people’s earnings and wages grow with labor market experience.”

    Neumark also championed the earned income tax credit as a way to directly help needy families.

    My own recommendation is that our legislators focus on cutting taxes and growing the economy to make Hawaii more affordable. A general excise tax exemption for food, medical services and other necessities would help, as would removing barriers to more housing, to help lower the cost of putting a roof over your head.

    Here in Hawaii, there still are a few bills alive at the Legislature that seek to increase the state’s minimum wage by almost 80% within the next few years. The rationale is that it would help low-income workers in Hawaii.

    But the data doesn’t lie: A higher minimum wage would, indeed, help some workers. But others would be hurt by it, and most of the people it is intended to help would not benefit at all.

    “What does a higher minimum wage do to the poverty rate or some other measure of the instance of low income?” Neumark asked rhetorically?

    “Essentially,” he said, “you can’t find any strong evidence, I think, that minimum wages reduce poverty. It’s probably largely a wash, whereas, obviously, a policy that is intended to reduce poverty, the instance of low income, ought to have an effect.”

    Long story short, if we really want to help Hawaii’s working families, we will have to roll up our sleeves and work together to lower the cost of living and make Hawaii more prosperous.
    __________

    Keli’i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Hawaii’s Wildlife is Dying of Thirst, On Purpose

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    Hawaii’s Wildlife is Dying of Thirst, On Purpose

    It has just been revealed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) that Hawaii’s wild food resources, including sheep, goats, and pigs, are deliberately and inhumanely being denied water, causing untold suffering, disease, and death, made worse by current drought conditions in many parts of Hawaii. 

    This is a tragic abuse of animals and a waste of an important food resource.  

    Depriving Hawaii’s wildlife of water is more than cruel. Many people in Hawaii rely on hunting to feed their families. On the Big Island, for example, hundreds of thousands of pounds of meat are harvested each year by hunters.  Many of these people who hunt are in poverty. This means that a reduction in the numbers of these animals harms these people disproportionately, making game animal management a social equity issue, in addition to an environmental and  humane issue. 

    Native resources are also damaged by animals who leave Game Management Areas in search of water. Some of these animals will damage trees by seeking water in bark, while others will go to roads and highways looking for water, creating a traffic hazard. 

    Fortunately, the DLNR has the ability to remedy this problem. 

    Unfortunately, the DLNR is the cause of the problem, deliberately keeping empty watering units that had once served this very purpose, at a time when the DLNR cared about protecting and supporting these animals. 

    In some places, there are watering units still kept full for birds, but these are fenced so no land animals can drink. Families of goats and sheep are literally dying of thirst outside a gated watering unit. 

    The DLNR is mandated by Hawaii Revised Statute 183D to properly manage and support game animals. Game Management Areas have been designated for these animals to live, and provide hunting resources for the public. According to the law, the DLNR is even supposed to introduce and propagate new species for hunting. And as a positive side effect, fire hazards are reduced by having grazing animals controlling weeds. 

    But about a few decades ago a new mandate was given to the DLNR. Native resources were suddenly deemed more important than food resources, and these same animals were suddenly labelled “invasive” for their potential harm to native ecosystems. 

    This means the DLNR has duel, contradictory mandates which require that they both protect and kill Hawaii’s non-native wildlife. However, they have forgotten their older mandate to protect, and now promote the destruction of these animals, even by depriving them of water. 

    There is no excuse for this reprehensible, inhumane, wasteful, and depraved attack on wildlife by the DLNR. There can be both fenced and protected native ecosystems as well as Game Management Areas where wildlife can have ample food, water, and space to live and raise their young. Keeping game animals happy and healthy keeps them where they belong, and avoids unnecessary damage to native resources as they search for water and food. 

    It also means greater food security and social justice for Hawaii’s residents who still practice the traditional lifestyle of hunting and gathering. 

    This point is particularly poignant given food insecurity worldwide, caused by inflation, the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. President Biden has publicly warned the US about looming food shortages and high prices. Having sheep, goats, pigs, and other wildlife is food in the bank. 

    It is clear that social justice, animal justice, and legal justice demands that the DLNR care for these animals, and immediately provide them water. Empty watering units can easily be refilled. Adequate food must also be available for these animals, who have been limited to low quality environments that currently suffer from drought. 

    Hawaii can have both native resources and food resources. The DLNR needs to better balance its dual responsibilities and stop being the worst enemy of Hawaii’s wildlife. 

    There is currently a Bill, HB1872, being considered by the Hawaii Legislature. It’s purpose is to reaffirm the value and benefit of game animals in Hawaii, and remind the DLNR of their responsibilities. It’s scheduled for the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday, April 5. 

    A Tax Game-Changer for Nonprofits

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    A Tax Game-Changer for Nonprofits

    This week again, we spotlight some legislation that has the potential to change our tax system in very bold ways.

    Our focus is on  Senate Bill 3201, which fundamentally changes how the general excise tax (GET) applies to nonprofits.

    Under federal tax law, exempt organizations such as charities are still taxable on certain kinds of income, called “unrelated business taxable income“ or UBIT. The idea is that if a tax-exempt organization is conducting a business activity that competes with a for-profit organization, it should pay the same tax on that business activity as the other organization does.

    In contrast, our GET allows tax-exempt status to a number of organizations, including what we know of as charities, but then taxes almost anything that is considered “fund raising.”  If the primary purpose of the activity is to raise money, the activity is taxable even if the money supports the charitable aims of the organization.  So, under the GET, if someone buys a $100 ticket to a fundraising dinner, the charity is taxed on the $100 even though the stew and rice dinner that the ticket buys is worth $8, and everybody knows that all or most of the $100 is intended to be a donation to the charity.

    In both the federal and state systems, income that is importantly related to the purpose of the charity, such as tuition charged by a school, is exempt.

    A lot of people who help with or lead nonprofits get stuck here. Most people who have financial training know what UBIT is, so they have some idea of when federal income tax needs to be paid. Not so with “fundraising“ and the GET. That subject isn’t taught in schools, especially schools outside of Hawaii. Some people who are told the true scope of what the GET covers can’t believe what they’re hearing.

    That’s where SB 3201 comes in. It would change the GET law so that income of a charity’s unrelated business would be exposed to GET (as it is now) but other “fundraising” would be left alone. 

    Bill similar to this one have been introduced in the legislature before but haven’t made it very far. This one, as of the date of this writing, has crossed over to the House and, as of this writing, has cleared two of three House committees.  It shows some promise of being able to reach the finish line.

    If enacted, this bill would make it much easier and simpler for nonprofits to understand where tax begins and ends. This would be a big help to the nonprofits, many of which operate on a shoestring budget and can’t normally afford sophisticated financial advisors like attorneys and CPAs. But—and this may be the point the legislative committees are trying to make—the difficultly in drawing that line shouldn’t be an excuse for not doing anything about the problem.  We have a social problem in that our tax system is regressive.  It hits people harder when they have less of an ability to pay it.  How do we address that problem in a fair and thoughtful manner, as opposed to simple-mindedly saying that we should enact more and larger taxes that really beat the heck out of those who have some money?

    Sex RE-Education 101 

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    <strong>Sex RE-Education 101 </strong>

    For Those Who Thought They Knew What a Woman Is

    It’s more than Supreme Court Nominees, like Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson, who do not know what a woman is. Judge Jackson’s response to Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s question to define a “woman”, asked during Judge Jackson’s senate confirmation hearings, was essentially that being a woman depends on context. Further, she excused herself from definitively saying what a woman is because she is not a biologist.  This sent some into a lather, as confusion with the term “woman” is seen by many as a sign of the end of civilization, especially when coming from a Judge nominated for the US Supreme Court. 

    The problem is that we are in the midst of a cultural revolution, which, among other things, is redefining gender identities, roles, and equality, and conservative factions of society are not yet onboard with the progressive agenda driving the revolution. In fact, they think it’s crazy.

    But it’s not crazy.   

    To understand why it’s so hard to tell who is a man or a woman, you need to first open your mind, tilt your head to the side, and shake your head vigorously to let all the old cultural programming about sex and gender fall out of your ear. 

    Go ahead and do it. I’ll wait.

    Okay, now that your head is cleared out of preconceptions of what a man and woman are, let’s ask a simple question which should reveal the source of the problem. 

    If a man identifies as a woman, what clothes will “she” wear?

    This question may seem silly. A man who identifies as a woman will clearly wear women’s clothing. 

    But what are women’s clothing? At different times in history, women dressed differently than they do today. So did men. At one time, men and women wore corsets, wigs, make-up, cologne, jewelry, and high-heeled shoes. We may think of these as women’s attire and accessories, but not necessarily.  In some cultures, men and women wear the same clothing.

    So a man wanting to look like a woman will wear whatever fashions and clothing items exist currently for women. This might include a bra, frilly blouse, dress, high-heeled shoes, and accessorized with cosmetics and jewelry. 

    But what if women started dressing like men had been dressing, so clothing and other aesthetics essentially became unisex? How would a man who identifies as a woman dress if women and men dressed the same?

    Of course, it would make no sense to be a cross-dresser if both men and women dressed the same.  In this case, the man desiring to look like a woman will need to find some other way men and women are differentiated, and imitate whatever that is for women.  For example, if only women wore an earring in the left ear, while men wore it in the right ear, then a cross-dresser would focus on earring placement.

    The point is that a culture differentiates between men and women by using arbitrary, and sometimes outlandish, symbols of sex identity. These symbols include clothing, hair style, cosmetics, and even styles of speaking and moving one’s body. Being a man or woman means thinking and behaving along the cultural lines drawn for such behavior at this current time in the culture’s history. 

    This means being a man or woman is a fashion statement. It is a product of culture, not of biology. And cultures change, as it currently is doing.

    However, if man and woman are basically relativistic terms, reliant on cultural context for their meaning, then we really can’t say, for sure, what constitutes a man or woman. It’s all relative. 

    I believe this is what flummoxed Judge Jackson when asked about defining a “woman”. What she should have said, however, is that she can define what a female is. 

    Whether a person is a male or female is not relative. These are biological terms, not cultural ones. A male human has different genetics than a female human, relating to the presence of an “X” or “Y” chromosome. Men have XY while women have XX. 

    Of course, people are born, rarely, with multiple Xs or Ys, and have non-standard sexual identities. While not perfectly fitting into either male or female categories, they have had to chose a  cultural identity and dress like a man or a woman. Now there are more categories being made to accommodate these people.

    What you can see is that there are two factors at play here. One factor is the biological reality of what genetics you have. The second is the current cultural identification of a person as either a man or a woman. 

    This means that a biological male might identify as a culturally-defined woman, and a biological female might identify as a culturally-defined man. This is why both males and females can present themselves as women, or men.  Absurdly, if a male identified as a woman and started to dress like one, but fashions changed and women started to dress like men and men started to dress like women, then the male identifying as a woman would have to again dress like men used to dress, since that is how women now look. The look changed, the biology didn’t.

    This leads to the seemingly absurd conclusion that a man can menstruate and have babies, and a woman can have a penis.  It makes sense once you realize that male is not synonymous with man, and female is not with woman. Of course, only females can have babies, and only males have a penis. Biology is less flexible than culture. 

    This all may sound confusing to people who were raised on the notion that there is no difference between a man and a male, or a woman and a female. When the culture ignored people who did not identify with their own sex, it was much simpler. You could be sure that someone dressed like a woman was a female, and those dressed like a man was a male. In fact, you never even questioned it, until you picked up a cross-dresser at a bar and discovered a woman can have a penis. Most women don’t have a penis, of course, but you need to treat people with respect for their uniqueness and be sensitive to those women who stick out from the crowd.  

    From now on, you need to realize than the person who you believed was a man may actually be having his period, and may be feeling irritable and having cramps, so have some compassion for him, too. 

    Just remember that culture covers over our biology. Beneath the wrapping may be a package you didn’t expect. Be open to that, because if you’re not, you will be cancelled. 

    Maui County unanimously approves resolution seeking Jones Act waiver

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Maui County unanimously approves resolution seeking Jones Act waiver

    The measure seeks relief from the law for oil imports from U.S. sources, because otherwise they are too expensive, which is why Hawaii is so dependent on foreign oil in the first place

    HONOLULU, April 1, 2022 >> The Maui County Council unanimously approved today a resolution urging the federal government to grant Hawaii a temporary waiver from the Jones Act for oil imports.

    In doing so, it became the first of Hawaii’s four county councils to request such a waiver, adding its voice to similar requests submitted by U.S. Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii and the nonprofit Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Keli’i Akina

    “This is a historic moment in grassroots efforts to obtain relief for Hawaii from the burdensome federal Jones Act,” said Keli‘i Akina, president and CEO of the institute. “Especially now, with Hawaii losing access to as much as a third of its oil imports from Russia, Hawaii residents need speedy and inexpensive access to U.S. oil sources, which the Jones Act has made uneconomical because of its rules against shipping competition.”

    Resolution 22-90, introduced by Councilmember Mike Molina, says because of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine in early March, the Maui County Council “supports actions by the

    Mike Molina

    United States to implement sanctions against Russia, including the ban on imported oil.” 

    However, it notes, “the people of Hawaii are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the burden [of those sanctions] because of artificially high prices caused by the Jones Act, a federal law that requires the transport of goods exclusively on a limited number of domestic vessels, resulting in higher costs for Hawaii consumers.”

    Hawaii’s only refinery, Par Hawaii, has said it will be replacing those Russian imports with crude oil from “South and North America.” But, says the resolution, “for both strategic and economic reasons, the best replacement for Russian oil imports is domestic supply.”

    Hawaii should “no longer be forced to rely on foreign actors for energy in the current geopolitical climate,” says the resolution, “and its citizens should not be excessively impacted when there is an ability to mitigate the harm.”

    Thus, the Council wants the federal government to “waive Jones Act requirements and allow foreign-flag vessels to engage in coastwise trade in the interest of national defense.”

    In addition, it says, “temporarily exempting Hawaii from Jones Act requirements could help stabilize costs for fuel, building materials, affordable housing, delivery costs for small business, household items like batteries, canned food and toiletries and other goods and services.”

    On other Jones Act fronts …

    Hawaii County Council member Matt Kanealii-Kleinfelder said today he also is planning to introduce a resolution soon seeking a Hawaii waiver from the Jones Act.

    Matt Kanealii-Kleinfelder

    “As finance chair for Hawaii County and a small business owner, I have seen firsthand the impacts of rising costs associated with COVID-19 and other global concerns,” said Kanealii-Kleinfelder. “An exemption from certain requirements of the Jones Act for Hawaii could provide significant positive change across many different economic sectors in our state.”

    In Washington, D.C., White House officials said yesterday that President Joe Bidenis planning to release 1 million barrels of oil per day for the next six months from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help shore up global supplies.

    But transporting SPR supplies to Hawaii also would benefit from a Jones Act waiver, to make available adequate transport vessels and keep down operational costs.

    “Given the historic volumes we plan to release, it is also possible that Jones Act-qualified vessels may not always be available to carry additional shipments in a timely manner,” said a senior administration official.

    “When that is the case, the administration stands ready to promptly process Jones Act waiver requests to ensure orderly and timely delivery of oil.  Several agencies have already coordinated to make this process work smoothly. We will be receiving requests seven days a week, and we will work to process any waiver requests quickly with the goal of providing a response within two days.”

    The Grassroot Institute’s testimony

    In written testimony submitted to the Maui County Council on Resolution 22-90, Ted Kefalas, Grassroot Institute director of strategic campaigns, said, “Our islands already are suffering from a run up in fuel prices” because of the fuel shortages. AAA Hawaii reported yesterday that the average regular unleaded gas price for Hawaii is $5.20, which is 11 cents higher than last week and a new record for the state.”

    A waiver from the Jones Act, he said, “would give Hawaii much-needed purchasing flexibility and help ensure its energy security. This would allow Hawaii to access less expensive oil from other U.S. states as opposed to foreign countries.”

    In oral testimony, Kefalas suggested a few amendments to the resolution, but, “otherwise,” he said, “we feel that this resolution excellently conveys the severity of the current situation.”

    Two lessons we learned from the COVID-19 lockdowns

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Two lessons we learned from the COVID-19 lockdowns

    Photo by Charley Myers

    By Keli’i Akina

    We are finally breathing a little more freely. 

    As of Saturday, March 26, 2022, Hawaii’s mask mandate was officially lifted, two years after Gov. David Ige first declared a COVID-19 state of emergency. 

    Masks are still required for TheBus and TheHandi-Van, airlines and other forms of public transportation, in accordance with a still-existing federal mandate. But for the most part, Hawaii’s mask mandates are over.

    At the same time, we have a long way to go before we fully recover from Hawaii’s two years of coronavirus lockdowns, and the end of masking seems like a good time to consider a couple of the main lessons we learned and how we can benefit from them moving forward.

    You can’t just flip a switch

    The first lesson concerns how we view our economy. Throughout the coronavirus lockdowns, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii warned that it is not possible to turn an economy on and off like a light switch. 

    Keli’i Akina

    That’s because Hawaii’s economy is really just the combined actions of everyone who lives here. Each of us has our own dreams and plans; our own families, businesses or communities that we engage with; and our own ways of making a living and seeking to prosper. We are independent, but also interdependent, bound together by the complex web of property rights and contractual commitments that the government is supposed to protect by providing a stable legal environment.

    If one day the government steps in, for whatever reason, and forces us to stop interacting with each other, it is plain to see that our “economy” is going to be damaged. The longer people are ordered to stop interacting with each other — from working to produce goods and services, earn a living and serve each other — the greater the damage will be. For some people, their life plans will be ruined. For many others, their lives will never be the same. 

    And so it was that many small businesses in Hawaii closed forever because of the lockdowns. Others are still suffering and almost 30,000 workers are still unemployed. There is no switch you can flip that will immediately restore, if ever, these people to their former standing.

    That’s why throughout the coronavirus lockdowns, the institute urged the Legislature to cut spending, keep the budget under control and give local businesses the best chance possible to survive this enormous economic setback. 

    The good news is that UHERO (the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii) is projecting tourism to rebound to 90% of its pre-lockdown level by the end of this year. But that should not be a green light for the Legislature resume its usual practice of high taxation, debt and spending.

    Instead, we need policies that will help reduce Hawaii’s high cost of living, increase entrepreneurial and labor opportunities, and enable Hawaii residents to thrive and prosper, rather than flee in search of greener pastures elsewhere.
     

    We must restore Hawaii’s constitutional balance of powers

    The other main lesson we learned during the past two year is that Hawaii’s emergency-management statute is seriously flawed and needs reform. The law seemed sufficient for hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters, but its writers obviously did not account for the possibility of an ongoing health emergency. 

    For example, the law says clearly that Hawaii’s states of emergency are to expire after 60 days. But because that law doesn’t mention what should happen if that 60-day limit is ignored, the governor has interpreted that to mean he can extend the COVID-19 emergency indefinitely, without any consequence. 

    Just two days ago, the governor extended the emergency again, this time so Hawaii beneficiaries of a federal food-assistance program can continue to receive emergency allotments for another two months. 

    A good cause? Sure. But just as the governor decided to extend the emergency to extend federal emergency food-assistance benefits, so can he reinstate the mask rule at any time. In fact, in a March 8 news release, the governor said that he would reinstate the mask policy if COVID-19 cases surge again.

    In other words, there is no real limit on the governor’s emergency powers, and this is why we need to reform the state’s emergency-management statute.

    To be clear, this is not about the mask mandates, second-guessing the executive or questioning the governor’s desire to save lives. It is about restoring Hawaii’s constitutional balance of powers and restoring the voice of the people.

    As I write this, there are still two bills alive in the Legislature — HB1585 and SB3089 — that would help achieve this goal. Both would allow the Legislature to terminate an emergency by a two-thirds vote, as well as require that any emergency powers be consistent with the Hawaii Constitution and any suspension of laws be justified. 

    You can make your voice heard on this issue by writing to your legislators through our website here. Hawaii’s lawmakers need to know that, even though our emergency restrictions appear to be waning, the people still feel strongly about not repeating our experience of the past two years. 

    The masks may be gone, but the threat of endless emergencies will remain until we work together to fix the state’s emergency-management statute.
    ____________

    Keli’i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

    If Breasts Could Talk: Further Revealing Results of the International Bra-Free Study

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    If Breasts Could Talk: Further Revealing Results of the International Bra-Free Study

    Sydney Ross Singer, Medical Anthropologist

    Soma Grismaijer, Medical Anthropologist

    Ken L. Smith, Breast Health Facilitator

    March 31, 2022

    Of all the body parts, the breasts would probably have the most to say, if they only could.  But even if breasts could talk, would women listen? 

    In modern western culture, breasts have taken on more than their biological role as mammary glands to feed babies. Breasts are cultural icons, sexualized and fetishized through the use of a special garment constructed to alter the shape and position of the breasts on the chest wall, to limit breast movement, and to hide the nipples. The garment, of course, is the brassiere, or bra. 

    But how do the breasts feel in a bra? 

    Are they comfortable being compressed, constricted, and reshaped?  When a bra leaves marks in the skin, it is from compression. This interferes with circulation in the breasts of blood and lymph. The result is pain, cysts, and ultimately, breast cancer.  (See references, below.)

    Of course, most women are introduced to bra usage when they reach puberty, as a rite of passage into womanhood and a future of needing to manage their breast appearance. The “training bra” breaks the girls in, as they get used to the discomfort of having a tight band around the chest. After that, girls don’t think about the discomfort so much, or at least they learn to subordinate their breast discomfort to the mandates of fashion and society. 

    In other words, girls become desensitized to the feeling of their breasts through the use of bras. The chronic constriction of daily bra usage, however, does take a toll on breast health, leading to lymphatic stagnation, or lymph-stasis, with associated tissue toxification and eventual deterioration. 

    You can’t have healthy breasts if you have poor circulation from wearing tight bras daily. Circulate or deteriorate. The choice is each woman’s, although the fashion industry would like to make that choice for all women, turning breasts into fashion accessories. Meanwhile, the breasts are crying for help, but are told to just shut up and put up with it. 

    Culture has usurped the breasts for fashion.

    Women are culturally compelled to wear bras to be socially accepted. A fetish garment for the breasts that serves no biological purpose, and can also cause harm, is the standard of dress for women, even for professional women whose work has no relevance to a breast fetish. The cultural programming needed to achieve this remarkable commitment to breast obsession has resulted in a cultural blind spot to the hazards of wearing tight bras.

    As a result, the bra has become the leading cause of breast disease.  Circulation of blood and lymph are essential for health, and any tight garment interferes with circulation. Women wear bras daily, often for 12 or more hours and sometimes 24/7. Over time, the constriction takes its toll.

    And since bra use is universal throughout the culture, it’s hard to find bra-free women with whom to compare breast health with those who use bras. In order to see the problems caused by wearing bras, you need to have a comparison with bra-free breasts. 

    How can you tell if a bra is causing harm? 

    There is one real way. Stop wearing a bra and see how it makes you feel. If bras have been harming you in some way, you will feel better when you stop wearing them.

    Eliminating the bra is the basis for the International Bra-Free Study, which we began in 2018. Our goal is to create a cohort of women who are bra-free, and to document their bra-free experience.  We ask about changes they feel in their breasts and overall health, their relationships, self-esteem, and even fashion sense. Participation in this ongoing study is free and available online at BraFreeStudy.org. 

    In the Study, we ask participants to stop wearing bras, and we then follow their progress. We now have participants from Albania, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Curacao, England (UK), France, Germany (Deutschland), Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands (Holland), New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Scotland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (ROC), and the US.

    We have reported before on the early results from this Study. Many women shared that becoming bra-free was life-changing, and life-saving.  We want to share the comments of some of these women, who have rediscovered their breasts since freeing them from bras. 

    These comments are presented as written. They were in reply to open-ended questions about their experiences after becoming bra-free. 

    Participant Comments

     I did have slight breast pain when I first went bra-free, but it disappeared within a month of going bra-free.

    My breasts seem slightly firmer than they were 6 months ago.

    I now find wearing a bra to be so uncomfortable & restrictive, I find I care less what people think. My comfort and freedom to breathe are more important than what thoughts others may or may not have about my body. But I have to admit, I do still feel self conscious about nipple protrusion and bouncing breasts, depending on the circumstances. More & more often now, I find myself saying.. ‘’who cares” when those thoughts come up. “Women have breasts, these are mine and they move when I do, if you happen to notice that & you find it unusual, then get over it!” Because I now find a bra so uncomfortable, I have had to become more confident. To keep my confidence up, I have my mantra – women have breasts, these are mine. If you don’t like the way they look, that is definitely not my problem. I have gained a lot of self confidence that I would not otherwise have found. 

    I can tell you that I have been staying bra free. Last fall I attended a wedding and thought I needed a bra with the dress. When I took the bra off I was in pain. I vowed never to try that again. Visible nipples versus days of pain is worth being braless. I dress conservatively for work as it is a more corporate office, but no bras. 

    I joined a gym with my husband. I was wearing a looser fitting sports bra, but have been trying it without a bra. Since I joined the facebook  group “Free the Boobies” I asked what would be good to wear to the gym. It was suggested to go braless. Now I wear a stretch fit tank top and it has been great. I am going to continue doing this at the gym. Treadmill, elliptical, weights and all.

    Since it has been winter and a cold spring I have worn bulkier layers. So with regards to day clothing no one really sees me being braless. I believe as the weather warms it will be a bit more apparent. In the past couple of years I have worn an additional layer (a tank top or Camisole), but this year I want to try one layer as it is cooler in the heat and sweat evaporates. I also wonder what people’s reactions will be like. No one has said anything to me at the gym to me so far. It has been a great experience. Let’s see what people say in public outside of the gym.

    With regards to how I feel, it has been wonderful. No back pain, the straps of bras, particularly racer back sports bras cut into my shoulder muscles and cause shoulder pain. I use to go to physical therapy for it. If only I had known what I know now about bralessness and breast health. So perhaps going to the gym and ditching the sports bra is a good move. Being is C cup is not large, but big enough. The gym and the right gym clothes is still a bit of a challenge for me sometimes.

    I have noticed since going braless the ptosis that I had from wearing a bra (where they looked flat on top) has reduced greatly. I have a lift in my breast tone, and lifting weights along with other exercises helps greatly. I have noticed less monthly pain in the breast. With less lumpiness. So this has been a very positive change. Physically I feel like I look better too. Some of my friends can’t believe I am braless.  However, with that being said turning 47 this year I may be starting peri-menopause. My breasts have been very sore in particular the nipples. Nipple massage as well as breast massage is greatly helpful. I can’t imagine wearing a bra with this soreness.

    It feels wonderful to be bra-free. I have been working on going bra free for workouts, and intend to try it bike riding.

    When I use to wear bras and would take them off the top of my breast would be almost flat. They are not flat anymore and I attribute it to having a braless lifestyle.


    I feel much more confident now. Breast massage has become something important for breast health. And I feel better about wearing clothing I might not have chosen when I started going braless.

    I had physical therapy, but realized it was the sports bra cutting into my neck and causing shoulder pain.

    I occasionally get migraines which are associated with monthly hormone levels. But regular headaches were a result of my bra causing pain in my shoulders and tensing my back and neck., the result was headaches. Those are virtually gone. 

    I actually like the (breast) movement and it is less now that my ligaments are stronger.

    I am more confident, I like my breasts now, and I want to advocate for girls and women to understand the link between bras and cancer and how easy, rewarding and healthful it can be to feel this comfortable. I am more empowered now too.   

    I am more noticibly uncomfortable, every time I put a bra on I wonder why we (society/women) do this to ourselves _

    extremely uncomfortable, restricting, unnatural

    I like that I am overall healthier and putting my body first. Not putting a society expectation for how my boobs should look above my health is important. That being said, my brain still associates perky boobs with high cleavage as desirable. So unfortunately, I don’t “like” the shape of my boobs.

    A negative side effect that i have noticed and i do think should be passed along for bra free people to take note of is… my posture. I allowed myself to use my posture to “hide” my chest. This was totally subconscious, i have only recently notticed and made the conection. I had originally assumed that bra free would hep my posture, as im sure it can. However, with the insecurity i have had with my nipples showing in public, i believe i started hunching and bringing my shoulders forward a bit. In reality I know this doesn’t actually hide anything, however, lifting or holding my chest upright seemed too bold of a posture.

    I have forgotten I’m not wearing a bra 

    My husband doesn’t care if I go bra less,_he actually likes it, “Free the Ta Ta’s”

    I’m very uncomfy in one (a bra) now from those months of bra-freeness so not sure what I’d do if I had to wear one! We went to my brother’s funeral in Jan & I didn’t wear one & was most comfy with a warm sweater over my top; didn’t even think of being bra-less cause I’m so used to it now & don’t even consider wearing one, even for something like that.

    All is well with me and my bra-free boobs! best thing I ever did, should have done it years ago.

    I wore a loose, lacy, non-supportive bra that was still tight around the band. It felt HORRIBLE! I went back home and took off the bra and changed my outfit.

    I’m six months in now. My breasts have gotten much larger, I’d say 2 cup sizes. I’ve had no problem with pain or soreness. They look rounder, which actually feels less obvious than before (they’re sort of a “typical” breast-in-bra shape now).

    Do you currently experience breast pain or cysts?No, but a couple of months ago I had breast pain and I thought it was because I wasn’t wearing a bra. So I went to bed with one and it only got worse. I decided then to never wear one again.  Haven’t worn one since. I’d wear a bra just to go out but realized it was too tight.

    When I stopped eating meat I thought that’s why my breasts were not engorged any more but it was because I stopped wearing a bra all the time.

    I have always had back pain from my endometriosis so this has not changed.

    I did have a problem with one of my back ribs popping out and my chiropractor mentioned it could be from my bra. This was a few years ago and I had bought two new bras which were tighter than my old ones. The problem continued for a few years, even into my early bra free days. The problem seems now to have gone away – my rib stays where it should 🙂

    I haven’t seen too much family due to the pandemic, but in the past when I saw my mother she would comment. Things such as, “I can tell you are not wearing a bra.” I have however shared with her the link between bras and breast cancer and she is wearing them less and less. My father will comment about her not wearing a bra (not me though), as he “likes the way her shape is in a bra” and she has told him too bad 🙂

    Fantastic!! Freeing!! I cannot believe I was talked into wearing a bra! 

    I’ve been braless for 20+ years; as a human freedom from constriction is my right !!

    I LOVE not having painful breasts anymore! It’s usually only the week before my cycle now! Thank you!!   

    I hadn’t realized exactly how confining a bra really is!      

    I am much more active without the restriction a bra causes. I feel relaxed and therefore am less tense with others. 

    I started wearing a bra at 10 years old.  I was frankly sick of wearing them.  They really are not comfortable.  I try to hide the fact that I don’t wear them because I know it’s not socially acceptable….but at this point, I don’t think wearing a bra should be socially acceptable.  You know, after I stopped wearing them, I realized that there had been a lot of tension in my chest.  I felt all bound up in the upper half of my body.  Removing the bra from my life (mostly) has not just freeing in terms of just the breast, I feel freer all over. 

    I have been bra free my entire life.  I can’t stand wearing one.  I am 60 years old

    I LOVE  being bra-free.


    I’ve definitely noticed that my breasts do not seem to bounce as much bra free as they used to…..either that or I’m just more used to not wearing a bra now, either way going without the bra is so much more comfortable and I wish I’d done it sooner.

    I love that they no longer feel like they’re moving/flopping around as much. Maybe I’m not as self conscious as I used to be also.

    I’m loving it. I’m glad I finally took the plunge to do it. Wish I hadn’t waited so long.

    I love having pain free shoulders and no boob sweat around the band.

    I had been bra free before discovering this study (almost 3 years now).

    I had cysts in my breasts, infected cysts in my armpits, shoulder pain, digestion issues and regular shortness of breath.

    All these symptoms faded away when I stopped wearing a bra.

    I have less pain in my breasts during my menstruation period now compared to 6 months ago

    A year after going bra free (in 2017) my cysts disappeared

    My nipples are higher. Breast are not sagging at all.

    I had regular acid reflux, gas and constipation. No longer.

    Overall I feel less self conscious. Also, the strategies given by your bra-free website helped.

    You know that overwhelming sense of relief you have when you get home after a long day and remove the bra? I have that all day now. 

    Much more comfort. People look. Some judge. Overall the experience teaches me to get over other peoples’ opinions of me. 

    Mainly I feel reassured that my health is better protected and I feel grateful for this.

    I took the decision to ditch the bra when I came home one day and found a deep wound due to the wire jamming in my skin. General discomfort, short breath, back pain, itchiness around the breasts.

    No more feeling like there are grains inside (like pressing on a bag of rice). Now they feel smooth and soft to the touch, more “fluidy”. They are bouncier, look fuller and higher on my chest.

    My overall appearance has improved (posture). My breathing has gotten  lot better. Less back and shoulder pain. Self esteem and confidence are way up allowing me to be more socially confident. Don’t feel so restricted while moving around. my postures improved leaps and bounds. My breathings alot better and deeper now. 


    I have what looks like stretch marks underneath each breast & they kept developing while I was wearing a bra. One of those marks was inverted & growing into one of my breasts. Within the first year of not wearing any bra that hole that was created is totally gone. The smaller looking stretch marks are getting better but I think it will take a lot longer than the most indented one was. These I have now are flat like putting a bandaid over your skin but they are getting lighter & smaller if that makes sense.  

    My breast health now?  Fine.  Just fine.  Not floppy.  Not saggy,  Not mammoth.  No aches, no pains, no weird sensations.  Just nice.

    I am back to being 100% bra-free as I went back to wearing a bra for about 6 months ago because I wanted to wear a white blouse.  Around September 1st of this year, I decided being bra-free was a much better choice and that is what I plan to do from now on.  It feels so much better without the straps falling down and the tightness around my chest.

    At first when I was bra-free, I was concerned over my nipples showing through my blouses, but I tried to wear a scarf or not look down at my breast to cause other people to look at them.  Now, I realize that people are so busy that they are not paying any attention to my nipples and if they are they don’t say anything.  I don’t worry about them protruding through my blouse anymore.  It feels so much better to be bra-free and my nipples feel free, too.

    My bra-free experience is great and I do not plan to every put on another bra.  It is the best way of life and I plan to stay bra-free.

    The best thing that I told one friend to become bra-free that our grandmothers did not wear a bra and they had less health problems than a society that dictates that you must wear a bra to be accepted.  Men don’t wear bras; so why should I?

    Bra-free has mad me more confident, has helped my back because I stand up straighter, and has made my feel better that I can make important decisions that affect my health and to not worry what anyone else thinks.

    Conclusion

    These comments are representative of the kind of experiences women have been having since becoming bra-free. Fortunately, comfort is now important to young women, who are ditching the bra. Sexist fashions which demean women and cause them discomfort and harm are now being seen for what they are. Today’s woman is more independent and self-confident, and she does not think her identity should be dependent on her breast shape, especially at the expense of her comfort and health. With bra-free fashions being the latest trend, lingerie companies try luring back customers with less constrictive designs. 

    But too many women have now heard the call of their breasts, asking for freedom from the bra, for the trend to reverse. Once women feel for themselves what it’s like to be free of bras, they rarely go back. They have become empowered. They have experienced freedom. They have come to hear the voice of their now bra-free breasts quoting Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  and shouting, “Free at Last! Free at Last! Thank God Almighty, I’m Free at Last!”

    References:

    Bras Cause More than Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the International Bra-Free Study

    How the COVID-19 Quarantine Will End the Breast Cancer Epidemic

    Bra-Free at Work: Ending Sexist and Illegal Dress Codes

    HOW BRAS CAUSE LYMPH STASIS AND BREAST CANCER

    SOME STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THE BRA-CANCER LINK

    (Taken from BrasAndBreastCancer.org.)

    • 1991 Harvard study (CC Hsieh, D Trichopoulos (1991). Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 27(2):131-135.). This study found that, “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users…”
    • 1991-93 U.S. Bra and Breast Cancer Study by Singer and Grismaijer, published in Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Second Edition, Square One Publishers, 2018). Found that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men. 24/7 bra wearing increases incidence over 100 times that of a bra-free woman.
    • Singer and Grismaijer did a follow-up study in Fiji, published in Get It Off! (ISCD Press, 2000). Found 24 case histories of breast cancer in a culture where half the women are bra-free. The women getting breast cancer were all wearing bras. Given women with the same genetics and diet and living in the same village, the ones getting breast disease were the ones wearing bras for work.
    • A 2009 Chinese study (Zhang AQ, Xia JH, Wang Q, Li WP, Xu J, Chen ZY, Yang JM (2009). [Risk factors of breast cancer in women in Guangdong and the countermeasures]. In Chinese. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2009 Jul;29(7):1451-3.) found that NOT sleeping in a bra was protective against breast cancer, lowering the risk 60%.
    • 2011 a study was published, in Spanish, confirming that bras are causing breast disease and cancer.  It found that underwired and push-up bras are the most harmful, but any bra that leaves red marks or indentations may cause disease.
    • 2015  Comparative study of breast cancer risk factors at Kenyatta National Hospital and the Nairobi Hospital     J. Afr. Cancer (2015) 7:41-46.  This study found a significant bra-cancer link in pre-and post-menopausal women.
    • 2016  Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer     Adv Oncol Res Treat 1: 105. This is the first epidemiological study to look at bra tightness and time worn, and found a significant bra-cancer link.
    • 2016 Brassiere wearing and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis  World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2015; 3(4): 193-205  This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between 8 areas of brassiere-wearing practices and the risk of breast cancer. Twelve case-control studies met inclusion criteria for review. The meta-analysis shows statistically significant findings to support the association between brassiere wearing during sleep and breast cancer risk.
    • 2018 Lymph stasis promotes tumor growth Journal of Dermatological Science “(t)hese findings come as no surprise to us who for a long time have been aware that alterations in regional lymphatic flow may produce dysregulation in skin immune function and consequent oncogenesis. In fact, since 2002, our team has held the view that lymphedematous areas are immunologically vulnerable sites for the development of neoplasms as well as infections and immune-mediated diseases. In recent years, increasing evidence has confirmed this assumption.”
    • 2019  Wearing Brassiere – A Less Well Known Factor Associated with Breast Cancer in Women Nurs Midwifery J 2019, 16(12) 891-901. Wearing of brassiere is also a lifestyle-related habit that has sparked many debates today as a risk factor for breast cancer in women. This study was conducted to determine the behavioral Habits of wearing brassiere in women with and without breast cancer. Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed differences in some behavioral habits of wearing brassieres in women with and without breast cancer. So, in preventive interventions for breast cancer, women’s education should be considered in order to be aware of the proper behavioral habits in wearing brassieres.

    Join the International Bra-Free Study at BraFreeStudy.org. 

    1...484950...2,035Page 49 of 2,035

    Recent

    Most Commented

    Popular

    Contact us