Friday, September 6, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 69

    FIVE WAYS TO LOOK BETTER IN YOUR PHOTOS TODAY

    by Esther Lambright

    Whether it’s a full-on portrait shoot or a quick snapshot, I think we can all agree that we like to look our best in photos.  And while selfies might seem like the thing for most, others (like me) employ their Instagram spouse to always get the right angles. In any scenario we all want the best, so I’ve put together 5 tips to enable you to capture your best side no matter the occasion. Mix and match these tips to level up your photo game immediately.

    #1 SMILE

    It’s the first on our list and possibly the most obvious if you want to capture naturally vibrant expressions.  A genuine smile spread across your face gives your photo the power to truly connect you with the viewer. Are you someone who doesn’t know how to naturally smile when you’re in front of the camera? Think about something that makes you laugh or brings you joy. Allow yourself to experience those feelings in your body and exude the natural radiance of that feeling from your face.

    IMG_1806-hawaii-photographer.JPG

    #2 Create Angles & Triangles

    Using your arms and legs to create space and accent your natural body line adds a pleasing dynamic to your photo. Bend your knee, pop a hand on your hip, and play with your hair. All of these give a sense of natural movement while also creating lines for the viewers eyes to follow.

    IMG_0340.jpg

    #3 Chin forward and down!

    When it comes to eliminating the dreaded ‘double chin’ this is one of the best solutions.  My clients often refer to it as the ‘chicken neck’ . It feels a bit awkward, but try it out and you’ll see that it is perfect for slimmer neck and cheeks. Simply extend your chin straight out in front of you and then drop it down slightly. This will also open your eyes to the  camera and slightly slim your cheeks and jaw.

    Chin.jpg

    #4 Camera angle matters!

    The angle of your camera also has a huge impact on your image. Example 1: For a more confident pose, hold the camera below eye level and angel up slightly. This is great for full body shots and for making you look taller.

    Example 2: For a slimming effect, bring the  camera above your eye level and angle down slightly.  Now your eyes and face become the main focus, giving your photo that friendly, girl-next-door feel.

    #5 Body language

    Finally, the way you own the space you’re in matters. It’s a powerful way to level up the way you show up and are captured in photos.  If you want to be cute, own your cuteness.  If you’re going for a confident look, then be confident.  If you want to portray joy, feel the joy bubbling up inside of you.  Flirt with the camera and it’ll flirt back, love the camera and I promise it will love you more and more!

    IMG_2052-hawaii-photographer.JPG

    As you can see, these tips are simple and I know if you try them you will see just how effective they can be.  If they help you elevate your photo and selfie game I’d love to hear about it. Tag me at #capturedimagery when you post to Instagram. Have fun implementing these ideas into your photos.

    Esther Lambright Patterson is a portrait photographer and the  founder of Captured Imagery, a photography studio on the island of Oahu. It is her mission to give an opportunity to each person in front of her camera to be seen, celebrated and documented. For more information about this article, her business or anything photography related please contact her via email esther@capturedimagery.com or her website www.capturedimagery.com

    Photos by Captured Imagery

    Will Masks Replace Bras as the New Clothing of Oppression?

    0

    While the health impacts of COVID-19 are still unfolding, the cultural impacts of the pandemic are already underway. And the most visible change is the liberation of the breasts, along with the imprisonment of the face.

    For any readers who do not know about the health hazards that breasts face these days, you should know one of the biggest hazards is wearing tight bras. Since the invention of bras, there have been doctors warning about these tight garments and their link to breast disease, including breast cancer. 

    For example, Dr. John Mayo, one of the founders of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in the article “Susceptibility to Cancer” in the 1931 Annals of Surgery, that “Cancer of the breast occurs largely among civilized women. In those countries where breasts are allowed to be exposed, that is, are not compressed or irritated by clothing, it is rare.” A bra patent in 1950 stated, “Even in the proper breast size, most brassieres envelop or bind the breast in such a fashion that normal circulation and freedom of movement is constricted. Many cases of breast cancer have been attributed to such breast constriction as caused by improperly fitted brassieres.”  (Taken from Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, Second Edition, (2018) Square One Publishers, NY.)

    The fact is bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men, while the tighter and longer the bra is worn daily, the greater the risk of breast cancer, with 24/7 bra users having over 100 times higher risk when compared to a bra-free woman. 

    For a century, bras have been causing discomfort, disease and death. But cultural standards and financial interests often trump commonsense and the instinct for self-preservation, as the bra industry continually pushed-up their bottom line.  Surviving in our culture as a woman demanded wearing a bra, at least to work, even if it killed you. 

    In the meantime, a powerful and rich breast cancer detection and treatment industry has grown, offering pink ribbons, fun fundraising marches and bra-art competitions, frequent radiation of the breasts with mammograms to detect tumors once they appear, “preventative” surgery of removing the breasts before they get cancer, more radiation to kill tumors, chemotherapy, and an endless promise to find a cure, while insisting there is nothing to the bra-cancer link, which is the true hope for prevention.  

    Even the bra industry admits that most women wear bras which are too tight, and this makes worse the constriction caused by these breast-shape-altering garments. When pressure is applied to the breasts by the bra to change their shape, it results in reduced circulation in the breasts, and resulting disease. Red marks and indentations in the skin left by bras is a sign of constriction and lymph-stasis, a condition that can lead to breast pain, cysts, and cancer.  To read how bras can cause cancer, see my article, How Bras Cause Lymph Stasis and Breast Cancer

    But the unprecedented lockdown created novel cultural conditions. Living and working from home is a different reality than having to go to work.  While many bra-using women can’t wait to get home from work to take off their uncomfortable bra, for women working at home there is no real excuse for having to be uncomfortable in a bra all day. And some women have ditched the bra altogether. 

    To see this cultural shift, and the positive take on this new trend, simply do an Internet search of the terms, “Braless” and “Bra-free”.  It’s the new fashion trend. Comfort is in, constriction is out. 

    Years of sales propaganda that created the bra industry and breast obsession that feeds that industry are being challenged by the new desire for comfort. That is a great outcome of the pandemic. Women are starting to consider their comfort, and are asking whether they need to wear bras in the first place. 

    Interestingly, articles about the new bra-free trend discuss the feeling of freedom and improved health from not wearing bras. But the link between bras and breast cancer is still censored. Despite dozens of studies internationally which show a bra-cancer link, the cancer industry has been resisting this research and issue, since it challenges their current approach which ignores bras. It’s as embarrassing as ignoring smoking when researching lung cancer, which, of course, the cancer industry did in the 1950’s, when doctors promoted smoking.  

    This reveals a truth about public health policy. As the pandemic has shown, public policy is political. Advice to wear masks or not, for example, has changed throughout the pandemic. Information about whether the virus is airborne or not has changed. The benefits of certain treatments has been controversial, too. And the push for a vaccine is rife with disinformation and distrust. While health experts try to consider the “facts” when coming up with guidance for public health policy, we have seen how facts can be reinterpreted, ignored, or invented to achieve a given public policy goal. For another example, see my article, Beef Over Red Meat Advice Reveals Medical Corruption

    It should also be noted that bras cause more than breast cancer.  We are conducting an ongoing International Bra-Free Study, with participants from over 36 countries, and the preliminary results of the study are astounding. Bras can harm the entire body, affecting body temperature, breathing, digestion, menstruation, melatonin levels, and more. 

    Were it not for the lockdown, women would still be suffering due to bras. Now, they are freer than ever before to liberate their breasts from the bounds of bras. 

    But there has been a trade-off. Women were freed of the necessity of wearing a bra. But we all are now forced to wear a mask.

    Masks have now been mandated in most places, changing the face of all interactions in our culture. Now, instead of women rushing home to rip off their bras, everyone is rushing home to rip off their masks. 

    I must give a disclaimer here. I hate masks. I can’t comfortably breathe when wearing one. And I feel very uncomfortable trying to communicate with people in masks. 

    Communication is difficult enough when you can look a person in the face and talk. But when you can’t see their lips or nose, you lose the ability to “read” important information. I don’t know how people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing deal with not being able to lip read those in masks. Maybe they just stop communicating. 

    And you don’t have to be deaf to not talk with masked people. There is something socially rejecting about being in masks. Everyone is treated as a potential vector of disease. If you wanted a way to disintegrate a society, then put everyone in masks. 

    Of course, we who have been raised and have lived in a culture where you could see someone’s full face find masks more difficult to accept than a child being raised in our new pandemic culture. For such children, being masked will become the norm. They will grow up feeling naked without a mask. And people will be shamed if they go out in public without covering their face in a mask, just as women have felt shamed about their breasts and being in public without a bra. 

    We are exchanging face shame for breast shame. Nobody will care if your breasts are not in a culturally-defined shape, so long as your face is covered. 

    You may think that the mask mandate is temporary. It will not be, in my opinion.  The reason for masks is to prevent infectious disease. While the current focus is on COVID-19, we are continually facing an annual influenza season. And public officials are warning about future pandemics. Why wear a mask now, and then expose yourself to infectious disease once COVID-19 is under control? And will it ever be under control?

    To drive home their point of wearing masks, public officials have created a germ-phobia that is conditioning children into believing that they can kill someone if they don’t wear a mask, or be killed by someone who is brazen enough to be bare-faced in public. 

    Of course, given the high demand for masks is creating a huge mask market. Billions of people will be masked. Landfills will be filled with discarded masks. 

    This brings up the issue of mask disposal. If masks are supposed to catch virus particles and other pathogens emanating from the noses and mouths of people, then shouldn’t we consider these masks to be biohazards? If someone is infectious, so is their mask. Should masks be treated as biohazard waste? 

    Masks will add to the environmental problem of waste management, as face masks, which are really “face-diapers”, are thrown on the sides of roads, negatively impacting wildlife, and into landfills with soiled baby diapers and adult diapers. 

    Of course, masks will create their own health problems. Some people wear masks tightly, which digs into the skin behind the ears and around the mouth.  Some dentists are warning of “mask mouth”, with associated bad breath and tooth decay. Not everyone changes a mask as frequently as needed, breathing into the same mask for days. Touching the face to repeatedly reposition the mask increases the likelihood of touching your face with dirty hands. 

    Naturally, the burgeoning mask market will make masks fashionable. The mask is a new billboard for your face, allowing slogans and a special type of facial branding. This gives new meaning to the expression, “Read my lips”.

    This mask trend can also have impacts on the cosmetic industry. On the one hand, women would need less lipstick if their mouths are covered. On the other hand, when they take off their masks their faces will be even more noticed, so they may have lipstick on for those time when they unmask. Eye make-up may see some changes, too, as the eyes become the most expressive part of the face. Eyebrows and foreheads will also get more attention, so expect some plastic surgeons to start pushing for eyebrow lifts and forehead botox.

    Dentistry may also be affected. Why would people pay for a million-dollar smile when you can’t see their mouths? Cosmetic dentists are probably grinding their teeth with worry.

    Masks have also added to the difficulty of people finding friends and a mate. Masks put the kibosh on public flirtation, assuming anyone still had the guts to try striking up a conversation with a stranger these days. Nowadays, when you say someone is “hot”, it will be assumed they have a fever and have COVID-19. 

    Children will accept these changes with ease. They have not had years of seeing other people’s smiles and frowns. Infants will need to develop their ability to identify facial expressions by looking at computer screens and images of people, not by looking at people in the real world. Maybe they will notice greater nuance of emotion in the eyes and forehead. Most likely they will be afraid of people, since we are all potential agents of disease and death.

    At least women will be free to have comfortable and healthy breasts. Less breast cancer and other breast diseases, but more mental illness, alienation, and face acne from masks. 

    Here’s a suggestion. Instead of throwing your old bra into the landfill, cut it in half and use it to make two masks. You’ll help save the environment from all the new face diapers. 

    Veto of the “Revolving Door” Bill

    On September 15, Governor Ige released his final list of bills he is vetoing from the 2020 legislative session.  The list included House Bill 2124, which some people have called the “Revolving Door Bill.”

    Currently, the State Ethics Code, in HRS section 84-18, says that after leaving state employment, a person may not represent a client for compensation before that agency for 12 months after employment.  It does allow a former state agency employee to become a lobbyist and represent clients before the Legislature, or to represent clients before another state agency.

    The definition of employee in the ethics code is broad and includes members of volunteer boards and commissions.  Thus, a volunteer member of a State Board of Taxation Review can’t practice before the Department of Taxation for the duration of the person’s term and for one year afterward.  Tax professionals thinking of joining the Board of Review may find it tough to have their practices restricted for multiple years, which makes it hard to find qualified people to be on that type of volunteer board.  We have written about that problem before; that problem still is unresolved.

    HB 2124 apparently is targeted at people who go from an agency to being a lobbyist or vice versa and wants to make sure that there is no appearance of corruption or impropriety.  Under the bill, a variety of elected and appointed positions, including most department heads and all members of the:  OHA, agribusiness development corporation, campaign spending commission, Hawaii community development authority, Hawaii housing finance and development corporation, Hawaii tourism authority, and public utilities commission, will not be allowed to represent clients before the legislature or any executive branch agency for the 12-month period after leaving the State.

    The Governor vetoed the bill because the “additional restrictions imposed on volunteer board and commission members who fulfill an important role in protecting our community through their service without compensation will make it significantly more challenging to attract and recruit the most qualified individuals for service on boards and commissions.”

    Many of the people at whom the bill was directed, elected officials and department heads, are compensated and are not volunteers, so the objections in the Governor’s message are largely inapplicable.  But it seems to us that the bill is flawed for a different reason:  it goes too far.  The bill is not concerned with preventing corruption, for there are different laws making corruption illegal.  The bill addresses the appearance of corruption.  If an agency director’s job ends in November and he turns out to be a lobbyist in January, it may seem like something fishy is going on (the appearance) although nothing of the sort is happening (the reality). 

    Ethics laws exist to promote trust in government, and the avoidance of impropriety, in appearance as well as in fact, is important to that objective.  But that must be balanced against the reality of the talent market.  For the position of Director of Taxation, for example, we probably want someone who knows about our tax laws.  Probably the most common way to acquire that knowledge is to work as a tax professional.  If we are going to tell potential candidates for such a position that they won’t be able to work in their chosen profession for five or nine years after taking the job, many candidates will rightfully wonder about how they are going to feed their families after their limited term ends.  The bill will make the economic pain more difficult to avoid, which may well result in more candidates walking away. 

    If we want to have talented people leading our departments and populating our commissions, we should make their exit strategies easier, not harder.  Perhaps if we attract more talented people, we will move toward restoring trust in our government – more than would be possible by heaping restrictions and prohibitions on those people (especially volunteers) who have a genuine desire to help our lot through government service.

    Govs. Abercrombie and Waihee on Leadership

    On Tuesday, September 8, the Tax Foundation was pleased to welcome former Govs. Neil Abercrombie and John Waihee III to the first ever virtual annual meeting of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.

    During the Zoom meeting, we had a free-flowing discussion of topics, sometimes tightly connected with taxation and public finance, and sometimes loosely connected.  Many of the twists and turns in the discussion were driven by audience questions.

    One of the central themes of the discussion was the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout from it.  The governors zeroed in on two principal drivers of our government’s response, namely structural capability and leadership.

    Structural capability reflects the ability of government to respond to new things.  Gov. Abercrombie mentioned that during his term in office he was worried about the State’s information technology infrastructure and tried to implement significant changes to it.  Changes did happen, but vestiges of older technologies stubbornly remained – such as the two fax machines that the Department of Health’s contact tracing program has relied on to receive reports of new and suspected cases.  Structural capability also reflects the ability of people in it to respond with creative, out-of-the-box thinking, such as the COVID-19 testing effort in the Interstate H‑3 Harano Tunnels spearheaded by Deputy Director of Transportation Ed Sniffen.

    Leadership, loosely defined as the ability to motivate people to do what you want when they might not be willing to do it without the motivation, is an ability (or lack thereof) often cited in describing a government’s response.  Gov. Waihee identified three essential aspects of leadership.  First, there must be no corruption.  If the public thinks you as a leader are doing something wrong, they will have less motivation to follow you.  Second, there needs to be openness, and third, there needs to be clear communication to the constituency of what and why.  The electorate doesn’t like to be told to shut up and do what they’re told.  They need to have some sense of not only the desired behavior but also the reasons behind it before they are able to buy in. 

    The openness aspect seemed to be lacking at least in our government’s initial response to the crisis.  When the emergency proclamations giving us the stay-at-home orders and quarantining came down from the fifth floor of the Capitol, the Governor suspended in its entirety the state’s chapter of mandating public access to government records, and suspended a large part of the state’s open meetings laws.  The Governor walked back the suspensions a little at the beginning of May, but it seems that the tone and direction of the executive branch already had been set.  Not even the Legislative Auditor was able to obtain cooperation with its information gathering efforts at the Department of Health or the Department of Education.  When it is that tough for a government agency to get answers, woe be to the press and the public who are trying to find essential information.

    When government is challenged in structural capability or leadership, Gov. Abercrombie suggested that a possible solution is to fill in the gap with a public-private partnership, such as is being tried with the Aloha Stadium grounds.  Of course, safeguards need to be in place to be sure that the interests of the public are protected, but many situations present opportunities for win-win situations. 

    Our thanks once again go out to former Govs. Abercrombie and Waihee for such a thought-provoking discussion!

    An Argument for Filling Ginsburg’s Seat Immediately

    0

    In the aftermath of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tensions on both sides of the aisle are high. With a hotly contested General Election just weeks away, some in the pundit/activist spheres, conditioned by the acceptance of civil unrest in our urban areas, are calling for acts of violence should President Trump nominate his pick to fill the vacancy on the bench. The problem with this, besides the obvious, is that Mr. Trump has no choice but to deliver his nomination to the Senate for confirmation unless he is to be irresponsible to the nation’s needs and the Constitution’s mandates.

    In an array of tweets, several self-important personalities issued violent threats against the country should the President and the Senate actually do their constitutional duties:

    • “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down” and “Over our dead bodies. Literally,” tweeted Reza Aslan, an Iranian-born CNN host, born-again Islamist, and author.
    • “F–k no. Burn it all down,” tweeted Aaron Gouveia, author of Raising Boys To Be Good Men: A Parent’s Guide to Bringing Up Happy Sons in a World Filled with Toxic Masculinity and Father who defended his 5-year old son’s right to wear fingernail polish.
    • “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election,” tweeted Beau Willimon, a former aid to John Dean’s failed Senate bid and screenwriter who pilfered the idea for House of Cards from the British version.
    • “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS,” tweeted Emmett Macfarlane, a Canadian professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

    If you are disturbed by the level of hatred, aggression, and complete disregard to the rule of law and the US Constitution then you haven’t been paying attention to what has been going on in the whole of America’s urban centers for the past six months.

    But what both the foreign nationals and the US citizens noted above do not understand, for their constitutional illiteracy, is that there are two pressing reasons why Justice Ginsburg’s seat needs to be filled before the November election.

    First and foremost, the country needs a full compliment on the US Supreme Court should there be any contest to the election results this November the likes of Bush v. Gore in 2000. A deadlocked 4-to-4 decision regarding the election of a president would send a fireball of violence into the streets of our nation, not to mention dismantle continuity of government. With our nation as divided as it is, we would almost assuredly devolve into a Second US Civil War.

    But more important is that the President and the US Senate are mandated by the US Constitution to execute the workings of government. The moment a vacancy is created it is mandated that the process of filling that vacancy begin. The bad precedent that politicians have set in elongating this process is just that: bad precedent.

    Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states, in part:

    “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”

    As you can see, nowhere in this Article, or anywhere else in the US Constitution, does it call for a period of mourning, an exception in an election year, or a hiatus due to an impending election. The US Constitution simple vests the authority and mandates its execution.

    Just as when the vice president is immediately sworn in as president when a president is tragically taken from us, so too is it necessary to immediately begin the process of filling vacancies in every other constitutional branch of office and especially in the face of a critical national election. The execution of these constitutional duties is not a sign of disrespect for the recently passed, it’s a mandated exercise in continuity of government, and that is government’s obligation to its people.

    Politicians would love to drag out the filling of Justice Ginsburg’s seat on the bench for political reasons; to suit their political agendas. Activists, Marxists revolutionaries, and ideologues would relish the elongation of the process in hopes that Mr. Trump loses his re-election bid so that Biden (or Harris) might nominate someone approved by the group-think, oligarchic elite of the Marxist-Progressive Left, the cabal that controls all things Democrat.

    But politics is not government. Let me say that again. Politics is not government. We all have gotten so used to mistaking political acts for acts of government that we have become accepting of the falsehood that the political parties have any legitimacy in the execution of government. We have been duped into believing that politics is government, but politics is not — and never should have been — a component of government.

    The shrieks of the political class who threaten retribution are the sounds of ideologues threatening the US Constitution. Politics and political operatives hold no sway over the mandates of the US Constitution. And while the Sen. Schumers and Speaker Pelosis of the Left talk about a period of mourning, that mourning must happen simultaneously with the execution of government, which means the seating of a ninth US Supreme Court justice prior to a national election.

    President Washington warned us in his farewell address that politics would be the ruin of the Republic. So far, his warning has been both spot on and ignored. Where some would say the enemy is inside the gates, I put it to you that the enemy is, in fact, elected to office.

    As If the Stakes Weren’t High Enough

    0

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the enigmatic, longtime Supreme Court justice who attained near cult-like status among progressive circles, died Friday at the age of 87 from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.”

    This means the radical Left will be doubling down on their need to win the presidency in November.

    A loss in November means their arch nemesis, Donald Trump, would have at least three appointments to the SCOTUS, a number Republicans haven’t seen since Reagan. It would mean – as far as it can be known – a bent to the Right in constitutionality for the foreseeable future.

    The radical (read: Marxist) Left is already throwing everything they have at the wall to see what will stick; their fearmongering is at a height never before seen in American politics. One commercial for Biden features a young child with leukemia along side his sobbing Mother, declaring that should Trump win the boy would lose his health insurance.

    Of course this is a huge serving of bullshit as every proposal President Trump has made on healthcare reform as included the coverage of pre-existing conditions. The radical Left’s statement that the boy would lose coverage is a bald-faced lie.

    Now, facing the notion of another Trump appointment to the SCOTUS, the radical Left must necessarily triple down on winning in November. They are playing a “win at all cost” game and the truth to them is foreign.

    We can no longer banish political discourse amongst friends to the forbidden zone. Lies must be confronted, truths must be told, and we all must challenge those afflicted with the foresight of a gnat flying into the window of a speeding car to understand what the future holds should the Marxists of the radical Left succeed in wining this November.

    It has been said many times before, but it has never been more true: This is the most important election in the history of the United States…and no one can afford to sit on he bench.

    So Do We Have Contact Tracers?

    Last week we discussed contact tracers, the people at the Department of Health who are supposed to follow up with COVID-19 positive patients and trace their contacts in order to either find their sources of infection or at least let the people with whom they were in contact know that they have been exposed to the virus.  It’s been said that “contact tracing is a key component in controlling large outbreaks and it becomes even more important as infections are driven down to ensure the state does not see further spikes.” 

    On June 10, according to our Director of Health as reported in the Legislative Auditor’s recent report, the Health Department then had 60 full time staff who work on contact tracing and the target was to have an additional 320 health professionals trained by mid-July.  He also said that nearly 1,400 people signed up for contact tracing training at the University of Hawaii.

    The truth, however, was that the 60 staff were full time workers but, as Sen. Donna Kim was told, did not necessarily work on contact tracing full time.  And what of the people trained at the University of Hawaii?  On August 4, Hawaii News Now reported that nearly 450 people went through the training program but the State only hired 20 of them.  HNN followed one person who took the training hoping to get hired and help the State, but when she followed up with the Health Department to see if she was a candidate, she received an email from the university telling her not to contact the Department directly.

    Why couldn’t such a person be onboarded quickly to help fight the crisis?  “You cannot just take someone because they have clinical background or [epidemiological] background,” HNN quoted the Department’s Dr. Sarah Park as saying.  “They have to be trained on what we do. … [Otherwise] you are gonna cause more problems than help.”  So, the people supposedly trained by the University of Hawaii were not in fact job-ready but needed to be trained again. 

    And then, of course, there was another issue:  Where would you put the contact tracers once they were trained (twice)?  They would need space, and equipment like computers and phones.  But, as Dr. Park testified during a Senate hearing on Aug. 6, as reported by Hawaii Public Radio:  “Our grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not actually allow us to rent space,” she said. “They do not allow us to renovate space, basically don’t allow us to do anything for space. They give us money to be able to hire people. They allow us to use our funds to obtain certain amount of equipment, but they do not allow us to use … any of those funds to identify and secure any space anywhere. And so that’s been extremely stressful, extremely problematic.”

    Ultimately, the contact tracers set up shop in the Hawaii Convention Center, and the Department of Health held a press conference there on August 19.  The Department then said there were 126 contact tracers on the job with another 13 support staff.  “What’s going to stop this disease from spreading in Hawaii is not the number of contact tracers, it’s going to be everyone’s behavior,” Anderson said.

    So where does that leave us?  Apparently, the Department doesn’t want people to know.  They have told the media that because of their extreme workload, they will only respond to media questions during scheduled news briefings.  The State Auditor’s office complained of getting the runaround as well.  On August 28, the Department shot back, saying, “Employees attempted to accommodate the auditor’s very short time frame for interviews, despite the fact these employees are balancing a number of requests on top of their pandemic response duties.”

    Folks, we have a pandemic going on.  If the best way to control it is by everyone’s behavior, as Director Anderson stated, people will need to trust those who would tell them what to do.  We taxpayers are stressed and anxious, and we have questions.  Would you trust someone who answered your questions with, “Shut up and just do as we told you”?  We need timely answers and fixes to what has been going wrong.  Then maybe one day we will be able to trust government again.

    The Left’s Real-Time Attempt to Rewrite US History

    Marxist-Progressives do this in a sort of perpetual motion. They never stop. They are constantly re-writing the narrative; constantly re-writing history to support their narratives and redefining words to facilitate the constructs of those narratives. To them truth is relative to the current lens and has no context. This is what happens when ideologues are tacitly allowed to manipulate the established facts of history.

    One such effort to manipulate US history comes in the 1619 Project from The New York Times. This effort provides further and undeniable proof that The Times has succeeded in its transformation from journalistic enterprise into a Marxist-Progressive propaganda machine. The criminal thing in it all is this. The New York Times still fraudulently sells its product as a newspaper.

    The 1619 Project, in a nutshell, proposes that the United States did not begin in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, but in 1619 with the African slave trade arriving in Virginia. It further looks to re-write US history to read that the Revolutionary War was not fought to establish independence from an oppressive British Empire, but to protect the institution of slavery.

    While true historians from across the nation immediately took issue with this fraudulent recounting of American history, The New York Times stood steadfastly behind the project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Black-centric activist who has made outlandish claims in addition to her opportunistic bastardization of the founding of our country:

    • She quote-tweeted a thread stating the noticeable uptick in firework shows in Brooklyn and Queens were part of “a coordinated attack on Black and Brown communities by government forces.”
    • In a letter to the editor in response to an article published by Notre Dame’s The Observer she calls the “white race” the “biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”
    • And in the midst of the racially charged violence and destruction falsely facilitated by law enforcement’s dispatching of George Floyd, Hannah-Jones insisted that, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

    In the aforementioned letter to the editor, Hannah-Jones states:

    “Europeans have colonized and destroyed the indigenous populations of every continent of this planet. They have committed genocide against cultures that have never offended them in their greed and insatiable desire to control and dominate every non-white culture…[and are] no different then [sic] Hitler. The crimes they committed were unnecessarily cruel and can only be described as acts of the devil…

    “It was not enough for whites to come to the Americas and learn, they looked upon the native people as inferior and a people to be annihilated. Their lasting monument was the destruction and enslavement of two races of people…

    “Even today, the descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Balck [sic] community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos, and continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities.”

    She ends her racist screed by declaring that the “descendants” of “these barbaric devils” “need to constantly prove their superiority.”

    I’ll refrain from commenting on the fact that for a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist and Notre Dame and UNC Chapel Hill graduate her spelling and grammar are atrocious.

    Any rational mind can see that at her core, Hannah-Jones is a racist. She sees everything through the lens of race, rejecting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s true statement of equality that we should judge people on the content of their character not the color of their skin.

    So, while we have deduced that Hannah-Jones is the worst kind of racist – one who profiteers by crafting false narratives that fan the flames of division and cause societal unrest, the truly dangerous aspect of this story is that Hannah-Jones and The New York Times have shopped this fraudulent history to the education system.

    California’s Department of Education has created a draft model that includes some of the 1619 Project in its history classes and Washington, DC and Chicago have done the same in their curriculums. Our school children are being taught the ideological propaganda of racism, crafted by a racist, to perpetuate the falsehood that the United States suffers from a life-long history of systemic racism.

    On September 4, 2020, the Trump Administration issued a directive to cease any type of race theory training (read: racial diversity training) at any federal agency, calling the sessions “divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.”

    On September 6, 2020, the President himself warned that any school system using any part of the 1619 Project, or incorporating any of its themes into its curriculum, could face denial of federal funding. He issued a directive to the US Department of Education to investigate every instance of its use and/or incorporation.

    In the beginning, when he was a candidate for the presidency, I had my issues with Donald Trump. I believed that there were others on the GOP debate stage that were more qualified for the job. But in this moment in time, those beliefs have been proven wrong, and demonstrably so. This outsider has done more to better the condition for the common man; for the average citizen than any president since Abraham Lincoln, doing so while marginalizing the unearned status of the ideological and political elite.

    In Donald Trump’s singular actions to protect the integrity of American history in our schools and divest the federal government from ideological indoctrination, he has earned the right to steward the nation for four more years. And make no mistake, Nikole Hannah-Jones and her Black supremist “BLACKTIFA” brethren won’t take that sitting down.

    Case of the Missing Contact Tracer Millions

    The story you are about to read is true.  The names have not been changed to protect the innocent.  This is the city:  Honolulu, Hawaii.  I live here.  I’m a doggie.

    This is the Case of the Missing Contact Tracer Millions.

    In a previous column the Boss mentioned $1.25 billion that the federal government made available to Hawaii through the CARES Act.  (I wanted to howl about the real possibility that lots of that money will disappear at year’s end.)

    Another federal act was passed after the CARES Act to throw a few more bones to those using the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).  That act, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, also made $11 billion more available to the states.  Hawaii’s share of this additional money was roughly $50 million.  It was supposed to be for necessary expenses to develop or scale up COVID-19 testing, conduct surveillance, trace contacts, and other pandemic related activities.

    In Senate Bill 75, the legislature told us what we were going to do with that money.  $36 million was to go to the Department of Transportation for thermal screening and related uses, and $14 million was to go the Department of Health for outbreak control, contact tracing, and personal protective equipment.

    The bill also said that both agencies were to submit a monthly report to the governor and legislature that details all allocations and expenditures.

    Governor Ige allowed the bill to become law without his signature on July 15th.  None of the appropriations just mentioned were vetoed or reduced.  So, the Department of Health was able to fetch $14 million.

    It doesn’t seem like $14 million was spent on contact tracing.  When a group of senators raided the Department to sniff around, they found only a handful of overworked tracers where there were supposed to be closer to a hundred.

    As mentioned, the appropriation act required monthly reports to the legislature on how the money was spent.  Reports to the legislature from an executive department are called Departmental Communications and are available on the Legislature’s website.  I pawed through the departmental communications from May 5 to August 20, DC 432 to DC 492, and none of them were from the Department of Health.  (There was no Department of Transportation report either.)

    I’m not the only one trying to dig up information on where the money went.  On August 19, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo of California, who chairs the Subcommittee on Health of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote a letter to Governor Ige asking the same question.  She said that “less than two months ago, Hawaii had the lowest number of COVID-19 cases per capita of any state in the nation.  However, this trend has reversed and now Hawaii has the highest infection rate in the United States.”  She requested specific information, and the last request was:  “Due to numerous instances of conflicting and false information being released to the public by your Department of Health regarding the number of contract tracers employed and their capabilities, what specific actions will you take to restore the integrity of the Department of Health?”

    Yipe!  Talk about pointed questions!

    This is a true story.  The end of the story has not yet been written.  We too will be following the money, or trying to, and will continue to bark like crazy if we can’t.  Ours is a tough job but someone has to do it.  The name’s Watch Doggie.

    How Quickly It Turned: BLM Now About Anti-Capitalism

    It didn’t take long.

    “Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, said the Black Lives Matter movement ‘has been nothing short of an earthquake in American politics, exposing the endemic racism and police violence of US capitalism’…Sawant, 46, is a native of India, called for the overthrow of capitalism, including the seizure of Fortune 500 companies. In a tweet she declared her desire to ‘…overthrow the racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism.’”

    So, Sawant inadvertently acknowledges that the riots in Seattle – and New York, Chicago, Portland, et al – are and never have been about racism or George Floyd. This uprising has always been about a Marxist hatred for Capitalism.

    Leave it to the cowards of Communism to deceive the masses. Then, they have always preyed on the intellectually weak when creating their “useful idiots.”

    There are two blazingly obvious facts that need to be addressed whenever a Marxist tries to convince people that Communism is the way to go. That they need to be pointed out is a very dark commentary on the US education system.

    First, Capitalism is the only economic system – bar none – that allows for the opportunity to amass wealth through hard work. It is the economic system that introduced the advent of the Middle Class to the world. This was – and for many still is – the promise of the American Dream. Yes, it has gotten harder for innovators and new entrepreneurs to embrace this opportunity but that is solely for the fact that government has injected itself into the marketplace through regulation and the ideological hand of social engineering. Left to itself, Capitalism creates wealth through the unassailable equation of supply and demand.

    Second, there isn’t and hasn’t been one – not one – nation state that has survived the cancer of Communism. Each fledgling government that has embraced the Socialist-to-Communist model has experienced the fallibility of human nature which, throughout the ages, has fallen prey to the seduction of power. In each and every instance that the Socialist-to-Communist model has been employed, wealth has been stolen to subsidize the elite, human rights have been discarded, great loss of life at the hand of the elite has taken place, and revolution has ensued.

    A simple question always throws a wrench into the Marxist narrative and rightly so. If Communism is so wildly better than Capitalism, why are you not existing in a Communist nation? If Communism is so superior to Capitalism, why would you want to stay?

    When people like Sawant leave their native lands for the United States they are overtly admitting that their system of governments have failed them; that Socialism, Fascism, and Communism simply do not work for the masses. There is no freedom. There is no opportunity. Unless you are in the oligarchic elite you are a peasant with no hope and no future.

    It is for this reason that these intellectually stunted, political simpletons come to a country that does afford them freedom. And then they abuse that freedom by trying to recreate the same failed governmental and economic models that sent them fleeing their native lands.

    Americans have been duped into believing that our nation must change to be fair to all. The fact is this. People flock here from around the world in a steady stream because we are the fairest country on the face of the Earth and because opportunity when we remove the poison hand of  Communism’s social engineering, is available to everyone…even loud-mouthed Marxists.