Wednesday, January 15, 2025
More
    Home Blog Page 6

    The New Epidemic of SAD

    Why we hate each other more now than ever, 

    and what to do about it

    I have a confession to make.

    Most of my life I have been an extroverted person, friendly, helpful, and communicative. I would enjoying making jokes with strangers, such as cashiers at the supermarket, or waiters in a restaurant. I could, and often would, easily strike up a conversation with anyone over just about anything. When I did converse, I would make eye contact and try making a real connection. In total, I was an affable, interesting person, willing to talk to and connect with strangers.

    Then came COVID-19. 

    At that point, my personality began to change. It wasn’t from the virus entering my brain, although that is a possibility. (See my article, Is the Virus that Causes COVID-19 Affecting Our Minds and Making us Mean?) I believe the cause of my newly developed attitude towards others was a direct result of how we were all treated by the government and its lockdowns. 

    I have always been a bit of a germaphobe, and have eschewed handshaking for years. But the fear of contagion from others during the pandemic sent my germaphobia into overdrive. People were no longer fun to be around. They became a personal threat to health and safety. 

    Masks didn’t make me feel any better about people, or safer being around them. I hated wearing masks, and knew that virus particles were not stopped by them. But what bothered me most about masks was the way it hid the face. As a communicator, I like to look at the person with whom I am talking, and look for body language and facial expressions for feedback. We all communicate a great deal of information about our thoughts and feelings through our expressions. But you can’t see these in someone who is wearing a mask. 

    Masks had a chilling effect on my banter with strangers. It was no longer fun joking with cashiers at the grocery store. First, everyone who is sick needs to eat, and will go to the grocery store sooner or later, making the supermarket a high risk area for getting infected. It’s hard to feel funny and make jokes in a place where you think you can get sick. 

    Second, it’s hard to joke with someone who is masked. Are they smiling at your joke? Did they understand what you said? There is only so much you can tell by only seeing the eyes, and it has a chilling effect on humor. 

    Of course, the ridiculous painted feet on the cement floor at the check-out, telling people to keep 6-feet away from others for “social distancing”, helped create further alienation from the other shoppers. And the Mask Karens, who liked to tell everyone without a mask to put one on, didn’t improve my humor, either. 

    But it wasn’t just the supermarkets that were dystopian. Everywhere you went there were masked people, frightened to be near anyone else. Social interactions were suddenly seen as life-threatening. Being friendly went out of fashion, since it’s hard to be friendly to people who threaten your life with deadly viruses. 

    And it wasn’t just your health that others threatened. It was also your freedom. Vaccine mandates were forced on people as a form of social responsibility, which meant that your freedom and personal health were subordinated to the interests of others. For freedom-loving people, like me, forced vaccinations to save others will simply result in resentment of others. 

    There was a time when public health officials would manage an infectious disease outbreak by quarantining the sick. However, with COVID, the healthy were quarantined, too. Since the “enemy” was a virus, and since the virus is harbored in people, it followed that people were the enemy, and needed to be isolated. And since the virus apparently could infect with no symptoms, everyone was suspect. We all became the enemy to one another, and were forced to shelter in place for years.

    Whenever I did go out for supplies, I was disgusted by the constant sight of masked people, all avoiding getting near other masked people. Our society had gone from social cohesion to social repulsion. And everyone in a mask was repulsive to me. 

    Perhaps the most disturbing thing was when we were all told to mask when outdoors. We were forced to wear masks even when going into Nature to heal in the fresh air and sunshine. This was pure insanity, but we were pressured to comply, and would suffer consequences if we did not do as we were told. 

    I am a free-thinking, freedom-loving, independent person, capable of making choices for myself. In fact, I insist on making choices for myself. And given my medical training, I could see the lies and misinformation coming from the government about the pandemic. All this made the forced, manipulative, stupid COVID mandates even more bitter and difficult to swallow. And it all resulted in increased resentment, and decreased friendliness.

    This COVID nightmare of lockdowns, lost freedoms, and social alienation lasted several years. Everywhere you went, there were people in masks. It got to the point where I didn’t want to go anywhere. Masks became a trigger for me, causing resentment, alienation, and a desire to escape from these masked people as quickly as possible. I wasn’t afraid of getting sick. I was just sick of seeing all these people with useless masks on, and sick of the need to occasionally don a mask to get through the store. 

    Eventually, I gave up on wearing masks, despite the glares from Mask Karens. But arguing with the Karens was useless. Everyone seemed like a Karen, telling everyone else how irresponsible they were for being mask-free, or worse than that, vaccine-free.

    Despite the mask mandates ending, many people were so brainwashed into believing that they needed masks that they continued to wear them. It became the age of the germaphobe. Nobody was shaking hands. Everything you touched was now considered potentially contaminated by you. The pleasure of human contact had been replaced by the terror of human contamination. We had mutated from people into vectors of disease, threatening the health and life of everyone. 

    And you could feel that prejudice from others wherever you went. We were social distanced to the point of social deterioration. And we are now seeing our culture and the world being torn apart with hatred, intolerance, and wars stemming from that decay of the social fabric. 

    Few people wear masks now. But I have changed. I find myself less interested in engaging with others, especially with strangers. Any remaining impulses to be extroverted and friendly are easily suppressed. The alienation from others over a three-year period of lockdown insanity has left me permanently emotionally and socially scarred. 

    There is a term that can describe this feeling. I call it “Social Alienation Disease”, or SAD. I believe this is a new social disease that has infected our society and is making all of us more lonely, isolated, and alienated from others than ever before in history. 

    I was bike riding in the park the other Sunday, and noticed how many lonely people there were. At one time in the not too distant past, you would expect to see couples strolling in the park hand-in-hand, maybe even seeing some couples being affectionate with one another. Not any more. Now, there were single men and single women looking alone and unhappy. It was what you would expect from SAD people who lost their ability to connect with others. 

    The social distancing efforts of the pandemic worked, and are still working. 

    SAD may help explain why national politics is so vitriolic and polarized these days, too. When you stop having connection with others, you find little reason for compromise. And it’s easier to hate others when you lose empathy and the ability to connect. Social distancing causes social polarization. You need to connect to compromise and be tolerant of others. 

    Of course, the entire world went into anti-social lockdown mode, resulting in international polarization and wars. While there are always geopolitical reasons for war, social alienation helps to make killing others easier and more desirable. That’s SAD.

    Of course, this is a disaster for society, especially for younger people. Children growing up during lockdown mania suffer from social, mental, and physical damage. These children did not learn to share and be kind to others; they learned to isolate and be afraid of others. 

    Making matters worse is the Internet, and what that does to social interactions. Kids were already having trouble with communication skills from using social media and not meeting people face-to-face. During the pandemic, the Internet was the only way to connect with others. This has made a generation of kids who are digitally-competent, but socially-incompetent. 

    Young adults who should be dating and meeting prospective spouses were already having trouble meeting and socializing in a world of social media. The pandemic lockdowns made matters worse, causing a new epidemic of lonely people who do not know how to ask for a date, or develop a relationship. 

    There are many more harms to us individually, and socially, caused by the lockdowns. Alienation from others is only one of those bad outcomes. But our social cohesion is the foundation of our society. We need to get over our SAD, and stop feeling socially-distant from our fellow citizens. We need to reconnect.

    Here are some suggestions of how you can reconnect to others:

    1. Smile at strangers and say “Hello”. Even a simply smile and nod can do the trick. It’s called being friendly.
    2. Remember that the stresses and impacts of the lockdown have not gone away. Just because the lockdowns are over, it does not mean that you have recovered fully from its impacts on your mind, body, or spirit. 
    3. Remember that others have suffered, too, from the lockdowns. We are all in the same boat. Let’s have some empathy for one another. 
    4. Work with others in your community to put on social events where people can mingle and meet in person. Let’s bring back ballroom dancing, line dancing, square dancing, and other ways of touching and connecting with one another. 
    5. Talk with others about how you feel and what the lockdowns have done to you. This can help you identify ways the lockdowns have affected you, and can help others discover how it affected them. This is a type of group therapy.
    6. Try getting schools to have more social activities for the kids, and to develop classes in communication skills. Kids don’t know how to talk to one another and need help.
    7. Avoid the Internet for socializing, opting for in-person social experiences instead. 

    I suppose the best antidote to SAD is love. So maybe I will add this last advice: Try being loving to others and set an example. What goes around comes around. We can avoid each other and dislike human contact; or we can embrace one another and find connection. I will do the best I can to reconnect with humanity. I hope you do, too. 

    Interview with Big Island filmmaker Zoë Eisenberg

    by Rob Kay and Cindy Ramirez

    Big Island-based filmmaker Zoë Eisenberg has crafted a body of work that reflects a deep connection to her island roots. Known for her multifaceted talents as a filmmaker—having produced, written, and directed—2024 has been a standout year for Eisenberg, with the release of her solo directorial debut, Chaperone, alongside the publication of her debut novel, Significant Others. The film won the Grand Jury Award for Breakouts at the 2024 Slamdance Film Festival and will be screening at the Hawaii International Film Festival (HIFF) on Thursday, October 10.

    Eisenberg’s creative journey is as diverse as her achievements. From co-founding and serving as executive director of the Made in Hawaiʻi Film Festival, which highlights local talent, to co-founding Aerial Arts Hawaiʻi, an inclusive circus performance collective, her work consistently champions artistic expression and community.


    Chaperone is set in Hilo, where the film’s central character, Misha, a 29-year-old woman, finds herself drifting through life. She works at The Palace Theatre and seems caught in a state of suspended adulthood, making choices that could be seen as carefree—or perhaps escapist. When she embarks on a romantic relationship with a high school student, Jake, she lets him believe she’s closer to his age, setting off a chain of events that pull her deeper into a life that feels increasingly out of her control.

    As Misha’s choices spiral, her actions become a precarious balancing act between liberation and self-destruction, drawing the audience into her world of blurred boundaries and unchecked emotions. While it’s clear that Misha is struggling, the film keeps us hooked, inviting us to understand her decisions without offering easy judgments. Chaperone masterfully balances this emotional tension, creating a compelling mix of unease and empathy, as viewers find themselves both rooting for and questioning her at every turn.


    There’s an undeniable thrill in watching Misha navigate this emotional labyrinth—her unpredictability is magnetic, making it impossible to look away as the consequences of her choices unfold.

    We recently sat down with Zoë Eisenberg to talk about Chaperone, the production process, and her experience as a filmmaker.

    Q: Chaperone begins as a character study but gradually builds tension, unfolding more like an emotional thriller. Was this shift intentional from the outset, or did the thriller elements emerge organically during development?

    A: The tension was definitely intentional from the outset, where by the third act the film feels quite different than it did in the first, though the hope is the build is gradual.

    Q: As both a published novelist and filmmaker, how did you navigate translating internal emotional struggles into a visual medium, especially in a character-driven film like Chaperone?

    A: For me so much of that comes down to casting. For me, some of the most emotionally impactful moments of the film are when we are with Misha (Mitzi Akaha) alone in silence, when she really has to face herself without distraction.

    Q: Chaperone centers on intense personal relationships. How did you work with the actors to bring out the exquisite depth and nuance required for this film?

    A: I was lucky to bring on Mitzi Akaha very early in the development stage, so we got to go back and forth with several different script drafts together and deepen our joint take on Misha. Our production was fast-paced and in constant flux, and I often relied heavily on Mitzi’s instincts to pivot when needed – no one knows Misha better than she does, at this point.

    Q: How does being based on the Big Island has influence the way you approach filmmaking and storytelling?  (Or does it matter?)

    A: I am a very community-focused filmmaker, in that I prioritize my relationships over the final outcome of my work, and in my opinion this is necessary for working in the islands.

    Q: The Jake/Misha scenes with the coqui frogs and the swimming were sweet moments. Were these locations and soundscapes already embedded in Misha’s story or did it develop during production?

    A: The coquis came about in development. As the story progresses and Misha’s behavior becomes more problematic, thematically I like to think of her as an invasive species entering a world without natural predators. An invasive species doesn’t realize they’re invasive, they’re just trying to get their needs met. I worked with Taimane to bring this to the forefront in our score, as well. That said, there is also a practical side of it — there is no way to shoot in the evenings on Hawai’i island without being joined by the coquis.

    Q: You have an established body of work as a writer and producer in Hawaii. What are the challenges or opportunities that come with being a filmmaker on the Big Island?

    A: It’s remote and the resources are minimal; opportunities for meeting folks who would like to support my work can be hard to come by. That said, it’s extremely important to me to be working to solve these issues for myself and other creatives in the community, so I like to view these challenges as puzzles to solve.

    Q: Your press material mentions that the genesis of the “Misha” character evolved from an incident that happened in your own life. Were any of the other characters based on Big Island people you know or composites?

    A: I have a long and lovely relationship with the Palace theater; I started producing circus shows there in 2017. A lot of the world I created for Misha at the Palace are composites of issues I’ve seen the theater address over the years.

    Q: Any advice for budding local filmmakers?

    A: In the beginning, work as cheaply and as quickly as you can. Make your first films with your friends, and give more than you take from your creative community.

    Rob Kay is a columnist for the Honolulu Star Advertiser who covers consumer technology and digital media. He is the author of guidebooks to Fiji, French Polynesia and the creator of  FijiGuide.com.

    Cindy Ramirez is an actor and writer who splits her time between Oahu and Northern California.

    Exploring Timor-Leste: A comprehensive travel guide to one of the least visited countries in the world

    Exploring Timor-Leste: A comprehensive travel guide to one of the least visited countries in the world, by Jonty Crane, is the first internationally available guide book to this remarkable country since the 2011 edition of the Lonely Planet guide.

    As one of the world’s newest and least explored nations, Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor) is now accessible to adventurous travellers seeking unique, off-the-beaten-path experiences.

    Although small in size, Timor-Leste boasts a wealth of natural beauty and adventure, from world-class diving and snorkelling to mountainous hiking trails and renowned coffee. Visitors will discover a country with a rich cultural heritage and a complex, triumphant history. After centuries of colonisation by the Portuguese, Japanese, and Indonesians, Timor-Leste achieved independence in 2002.

    The reef system in Timor-Leste is pristine.

    The country’s landscape is one of Southeast Asia’s most breathtaking, featuring near 3,000-metre-high peaks, picturesque waterfalls, rejuvenating hot springs, pristine beaches, and an array of diverse ecosystems. Its welcoming people, known for their warmth and hospitality, make visitors feel as though they are among the first to explore this hidden gem in the heart of the region. Located just north of Australia, Timor-Leste is easily accessible from Darwin, Bali, and Singapore.

    In 2019, Timor-Leste welcomed only 74,800 international visitors, placing it among the 20 least visited countries globally. However, the nation has ambitious plans to develop its tourism industry as part of a broader economic diversification strategy, aiming to attract 200,000 visitors annually by 2030.

    Timor-Leste affords the visitor a real opportunity to explore a culture that is just opening up to vistors.

    Until now, travellers have faced a lack of accessible, comprehensive information about Timor-Leste. Exploring Timor-Leste fills that gap, offering up-to-date, detailed guidance on planning a trip, including practical tips, must-see sights, and cultural insights. The Timor Leste guide book features more than 200 points of interest, over 100 stunning photographs, and helpful maps designed to make navigating the country easier.

    The goal of this guidebook is to shine a spotlight on Timor-Leste as an emerging travel destination, helping travellers uncover the beauty, history, and potential of this undiscovered paradise. By offering a thorough, engaging resource, Exploring Timor-Leste makes it simpler than ever to plan and enjoy a trip to this incredible country.

    Author, Jonty Crane

    The Timor-Leste travel guide is available as an eBook from Amazon.com for $2.99.

    About the author

    Jonty Crane has visited 75 countries and has been sharing travel stories and photography for over a decade at www.JontyTravels.com. He and his partner moved from Wellington, New Zealand, to Timor-Leste in early 2024 to volunteer through Volunteer Service Abroad.

    As well as writing this travel guide he has created www.ExploringTimor.com and posts regularly on social media about Timor-Leste at:

    https://www.youtube.com/@ExploringTimorLeste
    https://www.instagram.com/exploringtimor

    He is currently working on Exploring Timor-Leste on Foot: 30 Incredible Hikes, and a pair of photography books on Timor-Leste, focused on drone photography, and churches and other religious sites. He hopes to publish these by early 2025.

    Oahu beekeeping industry almost latest victim of overregulation

    By Keli’i Akina

    If you hang around Hawaii long enough, you’ll hear a lot of buzz about the need to diversify our economy, help small businesses and support agriculture.

    Yet, Hawaii often ranks poorly in surveys of state business climates, due in large part to our taxes and regulations. 

    All too often, we find ourselves defending those commendable goals against the very policymakers who claim to support them. 

    On the other hand, we sometimes come upon sweet opportunities to support legislation that would expand freedom in those areas. 

    We’ve found ourselves doing both recently when it comes to an unsuspecting topic: beekeeping.

    In exciting news, the Hawai‘i County Council last month unanimously approved — and Mayor Mitch Roth has since signed — a bill that liberalizes the county’s zoning rules for beekeeping. 

    Grassroot first heard about Bill 144 back in April and has spoken out several times in support of the measure, which now allows beekeeping in all county zones, subject to basic health and safety rules. 

    But just as Hawai‘i County lawmakers were working on freeing the bees, the Honolulu County Council began making an unexpected beeline in the opposite direction. 

    Early drafts of Bill 64, which aims to make sweeping zoning changes throughout Oahu, proposed placing heavy restrictions on beekeeping with no indication as to why. 

    Oahu beekeepers currently enjoy few restrictions, though there are limits on the number of hives permitted in non-agricultural areas, along with rules about how far hives must be from the property line.

    Fortunately, the Council listened to Grassroot and a swarm of beekeepers who testified in support of maintaining current rules. The latest draft of Bill 64 features only minor adjustments to setback rules.

    Unfortunately, Honolulu lawmakers nearly created a very sticky situation. There was no malice involved, merely an unsubstantiated concern about public safety. But it remains a cautionary tale of how easily small government actions can become immeasurable burdens for entrepreneurs.

    So why care so much about bees? Well, the state as a whole produced approximately 1.4 million pounds of honey in 2021, and has a lucrative trade in the export of queen bees, supplying about one-third of the mainland’s queen bees and as much as 75% of Canada’s. 

    Given their important role in pollination of crops, it’s no exaggeration to say that Hawaii’s bees help feed the world.

    They also help feed working families here at home. Hawaii’s beekeeping industry might not rival tourism in size or influence, but it is still a vital part of our economy.

    While both councils should be commended for supporting beekeepers, there is a lesson to be learned here: Heavy regulations that make it difficult to do business in Hawaii often start with good intentions. 

    Hawaii’s lawmakers should always proceed cautiously when making new rules, because even small actions can have big consequences. And we must continue to work together to make sure we don’t get stung by those consequences. 

    The result will be sweet as honey.
    _____________

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

    More on the Empty Homes Tax

    Our Honolulu City Council has once again taken up the idea of the “empty homes tax.”  Versions of this tax were considered in Bill 6 (2020) and Bill 9 (2022).  Bill 46 (2024) is the current version moving forward in the Council.

    The idea behind an empty homes tax is to impose an outrageously high cost on residential property that is unoccupied, to encourage owners to either live in the property or rent it out.  The theory is that this would alleviate the housing shortage here in Honolulu.  The current version of the bill would impose tax at 3% when fully phased in, or $30.00 per $1,000 of taxable value.  Compare that to the residential property tax rate of $3.50 per $1,000 of taxable value.

    As we have written before, however, the devil is going to be in the details.  How does one define an “empty home,” and how does one enforce the law?  The current drafts of Bill 46 define an empty home as any residential property not meeting any one of 15 or so exemptions.  The exemptions include that the owner lives on the property or rents it out; litigation over title to the property; death of the owner (but this exemption only lasts for the year of death and the following five tax years); that the owner is undergoing medical care or providing medical care as a caregiver, “requiring” the owner’s absence from the property for longer than six months; that the owner is deployed outside the city with the armed forces of the United States; that the dwelling on the property is not fit to live in, but the owner must have an application pending for a building permit under which the dwelling would be rebuilt or renovated to be lawfully occupiable; the owner is making “active efforts” to sell or rent the property, but the sale exemption can only be claimed for one year in a five-year period; or there is renovation work ongoing that “reasonably requires” the owner to reside elsewhere.  The terms in quotes, of course, could be open to interpretation.

    The exemptions seem straightforward enough, but how is a property owner to prove them up?  Is it sufficient that the owner have a homeowner’s exemption with respect to the property, or is other documentation going to be required?  Or, for a rental, is an open-ended rental agreement going to be enough?

    And, on the other side of the table, what is it going to take from the City & County’s perspective to enforce this new tax?  The City’s Department of Budget and Fiscal Services, part of which is the Real Property Assessment Division that administers current property tax law, has had misgivings for several years now that it will not be able to manage this additional tax with its current complement of people.  Earlier this year, the Department testified that it had concerns because the bill “may not fully recognize the required staffing, resources and timetable to properly implement this type of program.”  It pointed out that it had awarded a half-million-dollar contract to the international accounting and consulting firm Ernst & Young to have them figure out a defensible structure for the tax and how to enforce it.  Their report isn’t completed yet.  It’s due in June 2025. 

    So, why are we plowing ahead, expending high-level public resources, and getting the populace edgy with thrashing out an empty homes tax at the same time we are paying big bucks for a consultant to do the same thing?

    Perhaps it’s because some people, or some groups of people, don’t want to wait and are demanding action NOW.

    There are, of course, down sides for running ahead with half-baked ideas.  We hope that those at the forefront of this effort are ready for them.

    Bras, Booze, and Breasts: The Recipe for Cancer You’re Not Being Told

    If you are one of those women who like to dress to kill and go to a bar to meet friends, then you are at a high risk of breast cancer.

    Bras and alcohol are both lifestyle factors that increase breast cancer rates. But you will not hear much about this because our culture promotes bras and booze. When there are multi-billion dollar industries that make bras and alcohol, don’t expect to hear much about the problems there products cause. 

    You will, however, find lots of studies showing that alcohol increases many kinds of cancer, and is classified as a carcinogen. According to the Mayo Clinic

    “Most women are not aware that alcohol is a cause of breast cancer, though the link between alcohol and breast cancer has been known since the 1980s. The statistics are sobering: Alcohol alone is responsible for an estimated 14,000 to 23,000 cases of breast cancer yearly….Although the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend women limit alcohol intake to up to one drink daily, even this moderate level of consumption can be harmful. A standard drink contains 14 grams of alcohol, which is found in 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine and 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits. As little as one daily drink — or even a portion of a drink — is associated with a higher breast cancer risk. This begs the question, What is a safe daily amount of alcohol to drink? According to the American Cancer Society, none.

    Even the government gets this one right. According to the National Cancer Institute

    “Epidemiologic studies have consistently found an increased risk of breast cancer with increasing alcohol intake. Pooled data from 118 individual studies indicates that light drinkers have a slightly increased (1.04-fold higher) risk of breast cancer, compared with nondrinkers. The risk increase is greater in moderate drinkers (1.23-fold higher) and heavy drinkers (1.6-fold higher) (4, 9). An analysis of prospective data for 88,000 women participating in two US cohort studies concluded that for women who have never smoked, light to moderate drinking was associated with a 1.13-fold increased risk of alcohol-related cancers (mostly breast cancer).”

    But despite the evidence, you will not hear much about alcohol and breast cancer risk, because alcohol is something people consume daily, habitually and addictively, and the government makes money on this bad habit with taxes. The medical industry tells you not to drink, but your doctors is likely an alcoholic, so the message gets watered down. Meanwhile, as you try stopping drinking you find that billboards and other ads for booze are everywhere, triggering your thirst. And socializing is often done at bars, where booze helps lower inhibitions and allows uptight people a rest from our crazy cultural demands. 

    Essentially, we are a boozing culture, and blaming alcohol for breast cancer is an uphill battle. 

    Unfortunately, the same goes for bras. As a medical anthropologist breast cancer researcher, I performed the world’s first study that directly looked at the bra-cancer link, which was the 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study, described in full in the book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, (Second edition, Square One Publishers, 2018). There are many studies worldwide that now confirm our findings, which you would think women would hear about. But, again, there is a cultural problem. Women get hooked on bras at puberty, and many don’t want to hear that their daily breast support is too tight and is giving them pain, cysts, and cancer. 

    Our economy is also hooked on bras. Fashion has dictated bra usage, and clothing designs assume that the breasts will be artificially shaped and lifted for the garment to fit right.  Unfortunately, the fashion industry wants your body to fit their clothes, and not have clothes that fit your body. Meanwhile, many doctors wear bras, or their wives do, so they have a pro-bra bias. And for many, the thought of being without a bra is as troubling as the thought of being without a drink. 

    Unfortunately, the cultural bias towards bras has inhibited research showing the problems tight bras cause to the breasts. By changing breast shape, bras apply constant pressure to the delicate breast tissue, which impairs lymphatic circulation. The lymphatic system is the circulatory pathway of the immune system, and is responsible for removing toxins and fighting developing cancers. If a woman has marks in her skin around her chest from the bra, then the bra is too tight and is interfering with lymphatic circulation, which is known to increase cancer incidence. See my article, How Bras Cause Lymph Stasis and Breast Cancer

    When you combine alcohol consumption with bra usage, you get a double whammy to the breasts. The toxin alcohol enters the breasts and starts causing damage, while the bra prevents the lymphatics from flushing away the alcohol. This essentially concentrates the alcohol in the breasts, keeping it there longer than it would be if the breasts were not constricted with a bra. 

    Unfortunately, again, medicine does not recognize this problem. First, they don’t want to acknowledge the bra-cancer link, since it challenges the way they have been approaching breast cancer. They have been completely ignoring the effect of tight bras on breasts, which casts doubt on breast cancer research. It’s like studying lung cancer while ignoring smoking, or studying foot disease while ignoring shoes. (By the way, tight shoes cause cancer on the feet. See my article, How Tight Shoes Cause Skin Cancer on the Feet.)

    Medicine is just too focused on genetics and biochemistry to recognize that something as mundane as a tight garment can interfere with circulation and cause disease. Medicine treats breast cancer with drugs, radiation, and surgery. Removing bras is not a medical procedure. And, again, many doctors drink alcohol and wear bras, so there is a cultural bias at play, too, besides industry protectionism. 

    This means that research into alcohol and breast cancer is not showing the full picture without also addressing bra usage in these studies. Bras and alcohol both increase breast cancer risk, and this effect is probably made worse when these harmful habits are done together. 

    This is the problem with lifestyle medicine and the search for risk factors of disease that people can control in their own lives. Lifestyles do not exist in a vacuum. Industries produce alcohol and bras. These are BIG industries, and they are protective of their reputations and fight against evidence of health hazards caused by their products. Lawsuits tend to follow when consumers are damaged by products. Look at the price tobacco is paying for causing lung cancer and covering it up. Yet, people still smoke, and the government taxes cigarettes, so they are in on the take, too. The bra and liquor industries don’t want to admit the health hazards they create, and they generously fund medical research into the diseases they cause to make sure they prevent studies from looking at their products.  

    The bottom line is that you are on your own when it comes to lifestyle factors that cause disease. You are being sold products that cause medical problems, and then sold medical solutions that treat the resulting symptoms but ignore the real cause. This is a great business model for industry and medicine, but a terrible health model for people.

    Try being bra-free for one month. According to the preliminary results of the International Bra-Free Study, which I am conducting and includes women from over 40 nations, eliminating the bra will improve your health dramatically. It will not only eliminate breast pain and cysts. It will also lift and tone the breasts, as the natural suspensory ligaments in the breasts regain strength once the artificial support from the bra ends. Women also say they can breathe easier without a tight band around the chest. Many other surprising, positive changes also happen. See my article, Bras Cause More Than Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the International Bra-Free Study.

    And try not consuming alcohol, which is a toxic solvent that causes multiple cancers throughout the body. There are healthy ways to relax that don’t cause disease. 

    Finally, the breast cancer news this Breast Cancer Awareness month is that younger women are having a higher rate of breast cancer than previously. The cause has not been identified, but alcohol consumption is higher now in younger women than in the past, especially in the age group now showing higher breast cancer incidence. According to statista.com, “In 2022, it was estimated that around 63 percent of those aged 26 to 29 years in the United States were current alcohol drinkers, the highest rate of all age groups. Those aged 26 to 29 also had the highest rates of binge alcohol use. Although the legal age to consume alcohol in the United States is 21, around 31.6 percent of those aged 18 to 20 years were already current alcohol users.”

    Combine higher alcohol consumption with wearing tight bras, including tight sports bras, and you can see the link between bras, booze, and cancer. The rest is up to you to do something about it. 

    References:

    1. https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/women-health/alcohol-is-not-your-breasts-friend-busting-myths-about-drinking-and-breast-cancer/
    2. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
    3. https://www.academia.edu/36287546/HOW_BRAS_CAUSE_LYMPH_STASIS_AND_BREAST_CANCER
    4. https://www.academia.edu/114723280/How_Tight_Toxic_Shoes_Cause_Skin_Cancer_on_the_Feet
    5. https://www.academia.edu/40226963/Bras_Cause_More_than_Breast_Cancer_Preliminary_Results_of_the_International_Bra_Free_Study
    6. https://www.statista.com/statistics/354265/current-binge-heavy-alcohol-use-among-persons-in-the-us-by-age/

    Rent control is not the solution for alleviating Hawaii’s housing crisis

    By Keli’i Akina

    My heart goes out to our Maui ohana who are still struggling to find affordable rental housing in the wake of the devastating fires that razed much of Lahaina last year. 

    But I am dismayed that several groups have called on the local government to institute rent control policies in the hopes of stabilizing rent prices. 

    Last week, the Maui Housing and Land Use Committee heard testimony proposing various rent “stabilization” measures, including mandatory registration of rental units and caps on rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index.

    Many of those who testified shared heartbreaking stories of their difficulties in finding housing or coping with increasing rents. In response, Chair Tasha Kama promised to introduce rent control legislation in the future.

    But the reality is that such policies — as well meaning as they are — are more likely to harm the very people they are intended to help. Price control will always have the same effect: scarcity, a distorted market and higher prices.

    Consider what happened in Buenos Aires in 2021. When the government announced a plan to “stabilize” rents, rent prices increased 67% in anticipation of the new government controls. 

    After the new president of Argentina, Javier Milei, removed the rent controls, Buenos Aires experienced a rental boom, with thousands of new rental units returning to the market and a 40% decline in the real price of rental properties. 

    Ironically, rent costs are only now stabilizing in Buenos Aires after the disastrous government program made the city too expensive for renters.

    Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that, over the long-term, rent control measures drive up evictions, especially among lower-income tenants. They also reduce the supply of rental housing, and rent prices increase as the number of available rentals dries up. 

    In short, it is not surprising that economists overwhelmingly oppose rent control measures.

    Instead, Maui lawmakers should focus on what drove up the cost of housing in the first place. 

    It is indisputable that government barriers increase housing costs. According to the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaiʻi, our state has the highest regulatory burden for housing in the nation, which is directly correlated to higher housing prices. A more recent study, published by UHERO earlier this year, reported that regulatory costs make up more than half the market price of a new condo. 

    Hawaii’s strict, costly housing regulations have stunted housing growth across the state, guaranteeing that there are not enough units to meet demand. 

    Thus, there is only one solution that will bring down housing and rental prices: Remove the many regulatory barriers that hold back building. 

    If Hawaii’s politicians are serious about helping individuals and families who are struggling to afford a place to live, rent stabilization is not the answer. It will only make things worse and drive even more people out of Maui.

    The best way to help is to pave the way for people to build.
    _____________

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

    I. T. E. M. (Incompetence Takes Everyone’s Money)

    Our latest major government snafu comes to us courtesy of the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE).  Their teachers are underpaid enough as is, but through some mysterious turns of events, they wound up stiffing hundreds of teachers for multiple pay periods.

    According to the Hawaii teachers’ union HSTA, 377 teachers who were supposed to receive paychecks on August 20th didn’t receive one.  Teachers who called into the DOE to ask about the problem were told that it was due to a staffing shortage.  When HSTA learned of the problem, they immediately asked for a list of the personnel affected.  The department initially refused to give them that list, saying that they needed to get advice from their Attorney General on whether they could release that information. 

    In the meantime, DOE offered to give affected employees “placeholder checks.”  These were $2,000 checks, but they weren’t for the employees to keep; from some employee reports, the employees were required to go to their principal’s office and sign a promissory note for the money, pledging that they would return the money by September 30th. 

    We wonder what the geniuses who came up with the placeholder check idea were thinking.  Yes, it perhaps provided a solution for folks who needed to pay the rent or the electric bill or the credit card bill or face nasty consequences in the short term, but it couldn’t have been comfortable for a teacher to sign a promise to repay an employer who had already stiffed one or two pay periods with no guarantee on when the paycheck that the teacher already had earned would materialize.

    September 5, which is the next teacher payday, comes and goes.  Hundreds of teachers are skipped this time as well.  DOE said that the problem was caused by delays in “onboarding” new teachers, including verifying their credentials and performing criminal background checks.  But the math doesn’t add up.  There are only 330 new teachers, and 377 missed paychecks, so there are at a minimum 47 teachers who are missing paychecks and were not new.

    On September 19, HSTA announced a settlement of the issue.  The affected teachers, numbering about 500, would be paid on September 20, including any previously owed salary.  Teachers whose paychecks were skipped would get damages of $400 for one missed paycheck or $800 for two.  Teachers who took the placeholder checks and owed the DOE $2,000 as a result would be given additional time to repay or would be able to repay the amount in installments over time.  The DOE also agreed to retain an independent entity to conduct an audit of the DOE’s preboarding and paycheck distribution procedures.

    The promise of an independent audit sounds helpful but should be approached with caution.  It was only a few years ago that the State Auditor was asked to report on DOE’s current protocols for addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.  In Report No. 20-11, the Auditor reported that DOE “initially ignored and then declined multiple requests for information and meetings,” making the Auditor’s job impossible.  We have not heard reports of DOE being taken to the woodshed by the Legislature over this fiasco, and we just hope that DOE cooperates this time.

    And, although this fiasco appears to have been dealt with for the moment, we need to remember that the real losers are us, the taxpayers of Hawaii, who ultimately have to pay the tab for the penalty payments made to the teachers, the cost of the independent audit.  We also have to stand the disruption in our school system and the effects on our keiki as a result.

    I. T. E. M. (Incompetence Takes Everyone’s Money).  We need to see concrete fixes.  Or heads rolling.  Or both.

    Ke Ō Mau Center for Sustainable Island Food Systems – Brown Bag Speaker Series Event #5

    Featuring: Catherine Pirkle – Pirkle Epidemiology and Evaluation Consulting, LLC; Amy Miller – President and CEO, Hawaiʻi Food Bank; Jason Shon – Food Security & Sustainability Program Manager, City & County of Honolulu; Alex Narrajos – Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems Manager, City & County of Honolulu. Hosted by Brian “Ioane” Jahn.

    Please join us on October 16, 2024, from 12:00pm -1:00 pm, for another Brown Bag Speaker Series event addressing food insecurity in Hawai’i. We will be exploring the findings of the most recent report on food insecurity and discuss what is being done in response by the Hawai’i Food Bank and the City & County of Honolulu’s. Please register here and share. Mahalo nui!

    Hawaii Budget Primer

    This week we wanted to bring special attention to a 32-page pamphlet recently published by the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, simply called “Hawaii Budget Primer 2024-25.”  The pamphlet’s cover page says that it is written for “Candidates, Elected Officials and Concerned Members of the Public.”  Lots of us in the public should be concerned.  It’s your money, after all.  The work is easy to understand and is a worthwhile reference.

    The work goes into great detail on the Governor’s line-item veto authority, and spends far less time on the start and the journey of the budget items that end up in a handful of budget bills.  Perhaps it would have been worthwhile to mention that the largest budget bill, that for the Executive Branch, starts off with a bundle of funding requests by each of the Executive Branch agencies.  Individual legislators also can and do draft appropriation bills covering their respective districts, and all are sent to the money committees, the House Finance or Senate Ways and Means committees, for consideration and compilation into the budget bills.  At the beginning of the legislative session, the money committees hold several days of hearings to debate the budget requests.  Each agency is given a chance to defend its budget request and will typically submit detailed answers to a legislative questionnaire, or some other written presentation, which becomes part of the public record of the hearing and can be viewed by anyone. That way, at least in theory, the public can keep tabs on what the various agencies are doing to make this place a better Hawaii and, if they don’t think the agency was doing a good job, can testify as to their concerns during later hearings on the budget bill as it moves toward enactment.

    A significant portion of the work is then spent on how money for the budget is raised.  But the discussion there is almost entirely focused on taxes, including the kind of taxes we have in Hawaii, their effects on different segments of the population, and the effects of tax credits.  In the next version of the work, maybe more attention could be paid to user fees.  User fees are not trivial.  For example, at least in theory, they used to support the entire Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.  User fees can have a profound effect on industries, especially when those industries are regulated and any deficiency in payment of the user fee means a denial of the license or certificate needed to enter or remain in that industry here in Hawaii.

    The discussion on “Who Pays Hawai‘i’s Taxes” seems to leave out significant information.  The discussion appears to be limited to resident individual taxpayers, with a casual mention of visitors at the end.  No mention at all is made of business entities as taxpayers; perhaps the work simply looks through business entities to gauge its effect on individuals, but if that is so the work should have told us that.

    In the middle of the work, there is a section called “Opportunities for Investment.”  In that section the work ceases to be a budget primer but is rather a policy argument about areas, programs, and credits that, according to the authoring organization, can and should be funded.  In this review I am not critiquing the policy position but am simply recognizing that it is a policy position nestled in a work that is supposed to be a primer on our budget.

    In any event, this work is definitely worth reading to raise awareness of many issues that pop up in the legislative process year after year.  We thank the Appleseed Center for publishing this work.