Sunday, September 26, 2021
Home Blog

Grief as deep as you Love


Grief is a complex human emotion. It can produce love, anger, confusion, depression, anxiety, regret—well you get what I am saying.

Humans seem never prepared and not in the least taught how to cope and resolve grief. Like anger, another confusing human emotion, there are few common sense coping strategies or tactics to deal with the cascade of emotion.

Grief is as ignored as peace-making—we devalue and sabotage peace-making in our lives.

Grief, Anger, Jealousy act on humans like a water/mudslide. It seems we can only guess at the onset, where it will go, or how to cope with the sheer force of these emotions. Mostly, we lash out and hurt others in our expression of a fundamental human emotion.

If I take the meta-view, to look at my life as an observer would, at the thousands of cascading emotional episodes, contemplating the trauma creating the triggers, in the light of the deaths of so many friends, it is clear, what we take for real is not permanent.

From the perspective of our own death, and the wisdom of our meta-view, our existence is unreal, just as our solid material world is not real, at least in the light of timelessness and eternity.

Rainbow bridge over Hawaii

A wonderful poet, Hafiz once spake so, “To take for real that which is ephemeral, is like the ravings of a madman.”

Yet as I watch those I’ve walked beside, friends, colleagues, citizens, frenemies, who have been around me, pass across the rainbow bridge, I see it as a promise and a warning to be in alignment with your highest purpose, or be in fear and regret.

Choices are our greatest power

The warning: Those who seek to “rule” their worlds are distracting you from creating your world through your choices, narrowing your sense-of-power to better manipulate you by their words and decisions.

The promise: When what you think, say and do are in alignment, there you will find happiness. Happiness and a collaborative co-creative world that benefits the many not the few is a choice. Choose carefully, think focused, visualize the thought forms of what you prefer, and then act to choose it in the material world.

Align>Ask>Accept>Act>Receive is the promise

It’s not the journey that crowns you but the end.

As day turns to night, like flowers, we are here, then gone, so are also our lives in the broad span of time. We are soon forgotten, even if we are famous.

So, make the most of your one wild and crazy life.

Robert Kinslow is a coach, consultant, change agent and sustainability expert. Connect with him here or LinkedIn

SureFire Powerpak


Mobile video light review

When it comes to a video light, I used to lug heavy camera gear around to capture the funny, meaningful or downright awesome moments that can spontaneously arise during the days of our lives. Since the cellphone revolution, my camera has become my choice mostly for it’s light weight, flexibility of use and features, and reasonably fast time of operation.

Let’s say an important moment is emerging, I reach for my cell and in a second or two am ready for the moment to present. Or, perhaps a moment is in full swing, in a few seconds, I’m recording without having lost much of the meaningful moments.

A serious impediment to night-time photography, recording those “dark moments,” is the cellphone camera itself. Cell cameras are notorious for their poor low-light performance, making low light spontaneity unable to be visually recorded. Also, cell flashlights have limited range and focus. External video lights can be cumbersome and lack flexibility. So, if I’m holding a light and trying to focus/exposure, AND point-n-shoot, frame the image, I’m not going to get optimum results.

SureFire video light and mobile case
The video light mounted on a iph6

FirePak video light

Along comes the FirePak video light, charger and flashlight. SureFire’s design strategy is simple enough, integrate a phone case with rechargeable storage and 2 high-performance mobile LED lights with enough lumens designed for video for 16:9 video frames in a form factor compatible with multiple sizes of phone cameras. USB and micro-USB ports allow charging your cell phone from the charger, or an included cable can be used to recharge the FirePak video light. SureFire says it has an effective range of up to 50 feet and while the light does travel that far, usable lumens land in the mid-range.

When I picked up the FirePak for the first time, I was struck by the wedge shape that fit comfortably in my hand. At first, the squished wedge shape looks cumbersome. Pick it up and it feels completely different. If you can imagine a drip coffee cone with the tip cut off and both sides squished flatter into an oval shape, you can imagine the shape of this flashlight. The FirePak slides smoothly under the molded rails of the phone case snapping securely onto a stop that positions the LED lights in two positions with respect to the iPhone camera.

SureFire video light and mounting case
Features of the video light and mobile case

The durable case is built for rugged use (not moisture or water) with a 4-level light switch and distinct illumination levels. Design-wise the features are functional while dramatically expanding your performance—as a video light or a back-up battery.

LED lights create enough lumens for 16:9 video frames

When I switched it on, the double LED “eyes”  emitted two blinding rays of light, even at the lowest setting. I wondered when I might use that much light? However, once you turn it on at night, you discover the benefit of blinding light.

At the highest setting the bulbs create significant heat, so don’t be surprised when you touch it. As an illumination device, there is enough light to do fine work, like reading or repairing, too. A distinct setting for faces for interviews would be a good user feature, just in case you are listening, SureFire?

It’s kinda tough to steady the cell when the light is installed on the case because of the extra weight and thickness requires your normal hand position to block the LEDs. Your hand size and strength will discover what position is best for you. I had to adjust as shown in the pictures below. It’s quite difficult to switch on/off the light without shaking the image. Shooting vertically is difficult for the same reasons, so you’ll have to learn how to control the frame with two hands.

SureFire video light
Normal hand position for mobile recording

SureFire video light
You may have to modify your hand position for this video light

If I were a DP on a film using cell-phone video, and this light, I would make sure there were several on charge at all times. No one wants to wait for your only battery to charge. A question a newbie DP might ask is: How long will one last? So, test your equipment before shoot day, OK?

Charging the unit

Charging the unit was problematic, as my first attempts failed, due I believe to a mismatched charger plug. Initially, I began charging the Firepak using a USB port built into a small power strip. After two days, the blinking red light indicated it was not fully charged, though I thought it might be close to fully charged, so I began to charge my cellphone at 5%. I recorded the time and charging rate at 10% intervals but at 57% the FirePak fully discharged and stopped charging the cell battery. I reached out to Rob Kay of Guns and Tech, he suggested using a direct charging plug and trying again. Once I plugged it into a 2A charger direct to the plug, it charged up overnight.

All in all, this unit is a good buy for those who want to expand their video capabilities to low-night-time conditions. It is small and powerful enough to have in your toolbox, just in case. It is durable and useful for most cellphone recording situations. And, it serves well as a flashlight illuminator during emergencies and when you might need a torch to light your path.

Whether you already have a youtube channel, are a budding professional videographer, or just want the firepower to be able to record life’s dark moments, FirePak is an excellent choice for all. You can see the FirePak in action at the manufacturer’s website:

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites.
For more stories, visit

GoalZero & Sunjack reviews


Portable Powerpack Solar panel reviews

As everyone who lives here knows, Hawaii is no stranger to power outrages. The last big storm that came through knocked power out on the North Shore for half a day, yet that of course would be child’s play, if we got hit by something the magnitude of Iniki or Irma. As we all know, it’s just a matter of time.

So, how to charge our devices, in this event? Not everyone can afford a gas-powered generator (at least $1000) much less deal with the hassle of storing fuel. There are a few fixes that will at least keep small devices like your phone, pad, flashlight or radio powered up.

The first option, and the least expensive, is to stock up on batteries. The industry standard for modern flashlights, radios, lanterns, etc is the 18650 Li-Ion battery. Get yourself a battery charger to keep them topped off.

If you want to charge devices such as tablets, cell phones, etc., you’ll need to get some type of powerbank, essentially a battery with ports that allow you to charge any USB-based device. I’d suggest, opting for a portable solar panel which can assist in charging small devices, and keeping powerbanks topped off. There are a number of them available for backpackers or home users.

Input: Solar panels with charging cable arrangement. Output: Panel—>Powerpak—>Phone is the correct order

Goal Zero Venture 30 Solar Kit

With a little research, I soon came upon the weatherproof GoalZero Zero Venture 30 portable power-bank phone, tablet & solar panel combo. It is a compact kit that includes storage and recharger. The kit is designed for the backpacker or traveler but anyone with charging needs in an emergency can benefit from this system.

Designed to charge point-of-view cameras, tablets, phones and other USB compatible devices, it’s 28 Wh (3.6V 7800 mAh) rechargeable battery can be coupled with a Nomad 7, 13 or 20-watt solar panel. Together they weigh a little more than 1-½ pounds. Built for travel or backpacking, for home use, it’s a bit under-powered.

Output kit showing cable types and solar panel chaining feature

The battery unit has been designed to be weatherproof (light rain not submersion) and shock-proof (moderate impact resistance) and can remember charging profiles of the devices you connect. The battery can be placed into a protective shipping mode designed to avoid self-discharge during periods of storage. For natural disasters, fully charging the battery and then placing it in storage mode for future use, is recommended prior to the event. Such a practice extends battery life significantly. The manufacturer claims “hundreds of life charging cycles” for the battery. The battery has two USB ports each capable of dishing out 2.4A each just like a plug version would. Apple, Android and Windows devices compatible with the output cables above.

This system included a 7-watt panel. While a standard 2A USB plug-in source can charge the battery in as little as 5 hours, charging times will vary from 16-hours with the 7-watt panel to 6-hours with the 20 watt panel. Priced accordingly, an innovative aspect of this kit is up to 4 solar panels can be chained together via the chaining input port.  Remember, battery and device charging times will depend on both the panels capacity, the angle of the sun to the panels, and the amount of sunlight available in your geographic location.

Test setup: Input (solar panels) and Output (cable types): Panel—>Powerpak—>Phone is the correct order

During periods of use, charge the battery fully first, then connect to the battery and charge your devices is the recommended use cycle. And, don’t forget to place the recharger in storage mode before you put it away for future use. Prior to an emergency, I suggest a dry run with the devices you plan to use before the emergency occurs so you understand the limits and capabilities of your Venture 30 Solar panel recharger kit.

SunJack 14W solar charger with 1o000mAh battery pack retails for $169 and is a good bet for camping or home use.

Sunjack 14W Portable Solar Charger + Powerbank

Another solar panel/powerbank combo we tested was the Sunjack 14W Portable Solar Charger + Powerbank.

The solar charger has four panels and when folded is about the size of an Apple iPad. It folds into a rugged nylon case, which can be quickly unfolded and hung up to face the sun. A mesh pouch on the rear holds the charging port and cables, the devices to be charged, and the battery pack. It has a series of grommets along the edges of the panel so that you can easily attach it to your backpack.

The panels provide up to 14W of 5 volt USB power under a bright sun ideally producing 2,000mAh every hour. That means you can recharge the powerbank that comes with it in about 4 hours (under a bright Hawaii sun).

Sunjack’s powerbank includes Qualcomm’s “Quick Charge 3.0” technology, which speeds up charging appreciably if the device on the other end (in this case my phone) also has “Quick Charge” capabilities.

The panels provide up to 14W of 5 volt USB power under a bright sun ideally producing 2,000mAh every hour. That means you can recharge the powerbank that comes with it in about 4 hours (under a bright Hawaii sun).

According to the experts I spoke to at 1.5-2Ah is the minimum acceptable usable panel output.

Otherwise, charging your powerbank, or anything else, will take a full day. The Sunjack 14 W system, which retails for $149 (with the power bank) is a good place to start. You could also consider their 20W kit with 2 lithium battery packs, for $169.

The Sunjack’s 10,000mAh Advanced Powerbank, which comes with the solar kit (or sells separately for $29) has three ports, the standard USB, the micro USB and the new USB-C. What I really like is that it comes with Qualcomm’s “Quick Charge 3.0” technology. This means if you have a phone or other device that is “quick charge” compatible (such as my Samsung 7) this little unit will charge your device (according to the manufacturer) up to 80% faster.

A mesh pouch on the rear holds the charging port and cables, the devices to be charged, and the battery pack. (Courtesy Tim Yan photo)

Whether it’s 80% or 59% faster is anyone’s guess but it’s fast. My cell phone was charged in about 20 minutes. In an emergency situation this could be crucial.

I’d certainly recommend this nifty little combo from SunJack.

The takeaway on this piece is the larger solar charging unit you can afford, the better. What’s more, if you can get a combo that comes with a fast-charging powerbank, assuming your devices also have this capability, get one.

Editor’s Note: Rob Kay contributed to this article

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites.
For more stories, visit

Earth Day 2017


Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 11.10.37 AMHow many of you remember the first time you saw our Earth? This view of ourselves embedded in a living planet, wrapped in oneness, exploded into our collective consciousness.

Did you know soon after this view of our whole planet was available to us, the modern global environmental movement was birthed?

“Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside, is available, a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, 1948

For many Americans, perhaps the entire human population, this picture has sparked a collective shift about our planet. For the first time in history, we saw that we are all on a canoe—one race of islanders afloat in a sea of space.

This photo was taken from Apollo 8 on Christmas eve 1968 while scouting for a moon landing site. The crew lost radio contact with NASA going around the back of the moon and took this photo when they re-emerged from the dark side of the moon.

Imagine… as they rounded the moon’s edge, they saw our Earth some 240,000 miles away—glowing in deep blue framed by white clouds—embedded in seemingly empty space. The surface features in the foreground are on the eastern limb of the moon as viewed from our planet.

Astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders had become the first humans to leave Earth orbit, entering lunar orbit on Christmas Eve 1968. In a historic live broadcast that night, the crew took turns reading from the Book of Genesis, closing with a holiday wish from Commander Borman: “We close Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 11.07.03 AMwith good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you—all of you on the good Earth.”

“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.” — Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell

As a species we had ventured beyond our Earth’s atmosphere into the sea of emptiness around our planet home. It was the first mission to leave Earth orbit and these were the first astronauts to see the Earth as a whole. Now we have the meta-view, a view of ourselves as one system, held together in space with no one to save us and no one more responsible than us for our shared destiny.

Within 2 years of publication of this perspective, 1970, the modern environmental movement was birthed, the first Earth Day was held, and the Federal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed by a Republican, Richard Nixon, who clearly recognized the values of conservation, of clean air and water to all our people.

In 1970, with nine staff members and a $125,000 budget, a Washington, D.C.-based group organized the Environmental Teach-in, which would become became the first Earth Day.

 With then senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin as their champion, the staffers brought together volunteers in dozens of cities and college campuses around the country.

Judy Moody and Denis Hayes on April 22, 1970 with the first Earthday teach-in banner in the background

Hayes, who had dropped out of Harvard Law School the year before to join Senator Nelson’s project, also chaired the Earth Day anniversary celebrations in 1990 and 2000. 
”[Hayes was] the one who did the unglamorous, wearisome job of starting it up,” Ralph Nader told the New York Times in 1990. “[Hayes] is an orchestrator of environmental events which were national … and now are global.”

Like Earth, Hawaiian islands are remote and surrounded by a sea that restricts passage, yet, unlike Hawaii, humans do not have ships bringing food or water to Earth. There is no Planet B. We have no other home nor do we have alternative sources of food and water.

BruceJustinAlGore1999LtrEarth day 1970 celebrations in Hawaii were led by Bruce Justin Miller and his team at University of Hawaii. The events of the first Earth Day, were called the First National Environmental Teach-In. While I do not have any pictures from that day, I ran across this letter written from Al Gore to Bruce and his team in 1999.
[Click on the pictures to expand them into larger sizes for reading or to download.]

And, these micro-fiche snippets from Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser, are illustrative of the energy and interest of folks then. Thanks to Dave Atcheson.

HonoluluAdvertiser_EarthDay1970In the Honolulu-Advertiser article was an a column advocating green practices. Notice it mentions the UH Earth Day event, and proposes ways for islanders to reduce waste by using reusable bags, making laundry soap, reducing car miles, and eliminating toxic cleaning products, and pesticides, such as DDT, etc.

Yet, here we are almost 50-years later debating those same ideas, because fossil fuel businesses have such a stranglehold on politics and people, we still cannot believe we can change our behaviors, it seems.StarBulletin04221970

 In the second article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, dated April 22, 1970, a prophetic quote from scientist, Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. who said, “…The release of increasing quantities of carbon dioxide and thermal pollution into the atmosphere threatens to change global weather and melt the polar ice, flooding wide areas. Man may begin to notice the change by the end of this century.”

For many GenX’ers, perhaps even Boomers—ahead of our time—that our society is still _talking_ about changing our behavior, almost 50-years later, reducing our waste and footprint on our only planet—still talking and not doing—induces major depression and climate angst. Yet, it is also the driving force for social improvement of our continued advocacy. As the 50th anniversary approaches of that moment when a picture of our Earth shimmering in space changed us forever, why not get involved with the Earth Day Network?

Riseup folks, we are much better than we have been programmed to believe! Stand up for the Earth on which you stand.

Questions? Comments? More posts by the author
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites
For more stories, visit

Preparing for the Future of Work


Future of Work is Here

Each generation’s ability to advance their own destinies and contribute positively to subsequent generations is dependent on their awareness of how important it is to be future focused. The hourglass of time does not stop running, and it will take all of us, starting now, to imagine and work our way beyond the past we and our ancestors have created, yet where many surprisingly find ourselves stuck.

Look… the future is coming for you. Can you imagine a future-focused—worst and best-case scenario—a scenario largely dependent upon what we do now?

Starting with a pragmatic understanding of reality, as it is today—this moment—is crucial to effectively create our dreams in the future. It has been said, if you are anxious, you are focused too much on the future. If you are, regretful or depressed, too much on the past. If you are content, then you are present focused. Too much of one and you are stuck!

Near Future Scenario
Anyone Born after 2000 and Today’s High School Students

man-76196_1920Scenario…The year is 2025. Hawaii, like most of the U.S., has accelerated their shift to a model relying upon extended family groups. College debt has continued to rise and further compromised meager savings; increased long-term debt has become an unsustainable challenge for many parents and students, alike. Little attention has been focused on what courses and degrees will result in work (or jobs) for these youngsters who have grown up in an age of uncertainty. The poor have grown poorer, educational systems have not kept up with emerging market-driven needs and the middle-class, especially has continued to erode. The U.S. world educational ranking grade remains at a “C” – i.e., the bottom of the middle of the pack.

A different scenario…The year is still 2025.

Ostock-exchange-911608_1920ur educational institutions have responded to the revolutionary needs of students and provided them with expert guidance as to the set of courses that will ensure their best options in the future. Likewise, college costs have been eased by the inclusion of more virtual courses taught by world-renowned educators who inspire as well as instruct. Targeted technical knowledge, specific skills, flexibility and lifetime learning are now embraced by highly diverse mainstream workers. U.S. world educational rankings have risen to a “B” and we are on our way to an “A” ranking.

Now, today, ask yourself:

The Playbook for Teens is co-authored by Hawaii Wingman, Carleen MacKay, who is the originator of a series of work-focused playbooks for several generations.
  • Are your children’s schools teaching robotics and new technologies at every age and level – from kindergarten on? Do you know?
  • Are you involved with your children’s teachers – challenging them to advocate for continuous improvement in teaching methodologies?
  • Have you read Playbook for Teens on Amazon? Might you inspire high-schoolers with the real-life stories of people, just a few years older than they are; people who can demonstrate winning game plans that will matter to their own futures.
  • Are you building blocks for future-focused viable careers by helping your children to find opportunities to learn well beyond the classroom walls?

The future will be determined by what we teach our children today

Pivot to the Pacific, into YOUR future.

workforcewingmentaglogoWe are your Wingmen

Reach out to your favorite wingman—we are multi-generational coaches. You will benefit from our proven 8-Step process. Let us guide you to what you need to know and do in order to advance your career in a time of hyper-shift. We can help you implement a plan that will work for you the day after the day after tomorrow.

Look us up on LinkedIn:  Carleen MacKay :: Rob Kinslow
Authors, Speakers, Emergent Workforce Experts

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites



What’s your calling?

What motivates you to get out into the urban world to stand and speak for positive vision of the future?

My inspiring brother, Blue eyes Tim Kinslow

In 2007, as he lay in the hospital, his body succumbing to the ravages of chemo and cancer, my younger brother called me out. I was there with about 30 of his family and friends. Tim had been sitting quietly in his bed, propped up, yet with his head lowered, listening to the muffled banter from everyone. I was over at the door, opening and closing it softly so that the sudden sounds would not jar him, as he loved quiet stillness.

Suddenly, he raised his head, looked me in the eyes from across the room, and asked, “What are you doing over there, Robbie?”

Continue reading the rest of the story…

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites.
For more stories, visit

Future of Work Trends


Think about five short years from now, UNLESS something radical changes…

By 2021…

  1. The old will be older and broker and millions, in this fastest aging of U.S. States, will increase dependence upon younger generations amid overburdened social and healthcare systems that are ready to plunge our economy into a state-of-disaster.
  1. Gen “Z” will be out in full force – half won’t be ready and many more will be denied access to specific skills and competencies the future demands. Increased negative economic and societal challenges will increase major differences. In Hawaii, for example, college costs will continue to rise much faster than subsequent wage growth.


  2. Hawaii’s workers will not be in the full-time, “job” workforce. In the private sector, needed skills, competencies and talent will be used when needed, if needed and as often as needed. The race to a safe haven in the public sector will be overtaken by underfunded pensions. Our ability to pay for the last of the “lifetime” jobs, already standing on shaky ground, will be vulnerable to changes you might not want to experience.

Yet, IF we straighten up and fly right… support our people,

By 2021…

  1. Old age will be re-defined and Kupuna will be encouraged to continue to contribute to the world of work – well into their 70’s, perhaps 80’s. Likewise, a shift to emerging active aging programs, such as health-focused Blue Zones project, will prove beneficial to all.generation-z_infographic
  1. Gen “Z” will have many more opportunities to learn at modest costs. Much of this learning will be online and will be augmented with the dedicated help of pensioned, older folks who will have the time and interest to actively mentor the most challenged of Gen Z’ers. And, by the way, the youngest among us will also mentor up to help Gen Y, X generations learn what they have to teach.
  1. We will all learn to manage our work lives as our businesses – not as simply jobs! We will embrace lifetime learning, a term that, once-upon-a-time, was simply granted lip service. We will grow our careers, re-align our lives in line with our own changing interests and changing technologies, re-boot old interests and help others to succeed.

We are your Wingmen

Look us up on LinkedIn:  Carleen MacKay ::  Rob Kinslow

The Science of Consciousness & Healing


I want to share a little-known secret for improving your quality of life, achieving deep healing and radiant health… even living longer… and better.

stream-1106336_1920(1)It’s not a new super-food.

It’s not a new yoga practice.

And, it’s certainly not a new pill…

It’s your own consciousness.   

Consciousness is the “x-factor” behind deep healing, radiant health and living a long, productive life — even as you advance into your 60s, 70s, 80s and beyond!

Yes, health and longevity originate in human consciousness and finds expression in body, mind, heart and soul.

If you’re curious about WHY this is so and, more importantly, want to discover tools you can use to shape your health and happiness, connect with Dr. Marilyn Schlitz. Marilyn has been at the forefront of fascinating and game-changing work in consciousness research, integrative medicine, longevity and healing. She brings more than 30 years experience and study with leading-edge scientists, healers and shamans.ConsciousnessHealing_intro_skyscraper

On Saturday, July 23, she will present a fascinating FREE online event: Using the Power of Your Consciousness for Healing: Discover the X-Factor in Creating Radiant Health.

During this exciting event, you’ll…

  • Receive a more complete picture of how healing really happens through consciousness
  • Discover the power of expectancy in creating pain and discomfort (and what you can do to shift it)
  • Recognize the importance of loving relationships in any healing process
  • Receive insights into the remarkable new findings that show you can consciously influence your genetics, as well as your endocrine and immune system

I invite you to join me for a mind-expanding hour on how to use the power of your consciousness for health and healing. 

True holistic health is so much more than managing your weight and cholesterol and hoping for the best… Marilyn will show you how you can work with your consciousness to achieve a quality life. Register here

be-1358282_1920Using the Power of Your Consciousness for Healing you’ll receive the latest scientific insights that demonstrate the power of your thoughts, emotions and relationships in shaping your health and happiness.

You’ll also be given simple practices to apply in your daily life.

If you can’t listen live, you’ll receive a downloadable replay of the event.

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites.

Disclosure: The link in this post is an affiliate, which means I receive a small commission if you clicknpick. Affiliate link or not, my promise is to only recommend and link to resources I believe will add value to your life and/or work.


Let’s talk about the Future of Work


Enough about the past; let’s talk about the future of work.

How, when and where will we work? 21stCenturywork

We are already working full-time, part-time, on-demand, temporarily, once-in-awhile… from home, from our car, a train, plane or automobile and from across town or across the world. We work for free, for a fee, for ourselves, for the good of others, for learning and/or for the fun of it! We gain-share, bargain or are paid an hourly rate.

The speed of change is accelerating. Within a year or two, few people will ask the question we are asking.

The more you have to offer the changed market, the more choices you’ll have to work in any – or all – ways we have just highlighted.

The more you prepare to meet the demands of change, the more adaptable you’ll be. The more you will be able to accommodate swiftly moving life circumstances and interests.

What are a few of the most recent changes that have affected how, who and where some of us will work in Hawaii in the near future?

hand-1112469_1920First, take a look at the on-demand world and you’ll soon have help with everything from Spring Cleaning to furniture packing. Haven’t heard about the hundreds of on-demand companies in Hawaii? Take a look at how many home food delivery options are a short 808 call away. Want a glass of wine with your dinner? Google “home wine delivery – Honolulu.” Prepare to see well over 150 home delivery options. Your favorite food and wine will be on your table within 24 to 48 hours.

These, and many other firms are delivering services and goods in new ways that will affect you—including, how you work, where you might work, or… how you shop!

The tip of an iceberg of change is floating your way. Keep looking. A new option will emerge tomorrow or the very next day. We’ll keep you posted to many of the changes.

Speaking of changes… here’s one to watch: reasonably long-term jobs with a good company began to change in the 1970’s and ‘80’s. Such jobs are now only one way of working and if trends are to be believed, also diminishing in numbers.

The On-Demand, Hyper-Shift, Work from Anywhere Economy is here. Everyone is now a business – including you!

It’s time to learn how to run You, Inc.
But, it’s a bad idea to solo,
at least until you are ready to fly without a wing-man.

Ask us how we can help you to prepare for a future that matters. Let’s #makeworkbetter, ok?

Look us up on LinkedIn:  Carleen MacKay :: Rob Kinslow :: Fabian Lewis

Story of a Freelancer


Story of a Freelancer
by Carleen MacKay
:: Rob Kinslow

In our April 5th post, we introduced you to the new world of work, to “Freelancers,” or people who work on behalf of organizations when and wherever needed.

pexels-photoBy 2020, according to a raft of experts, 40%+ of American workers will be “freelancers” in all sectors of the economy. Other experts predict the number may be as high as 50% by 2020.

Situation: This is the story of a real-life person. Our freelancer is someone who migrated from a dozen years of full-time work where he had been designated the “Employee of the Year” to being laid-off and forced to taste the painful and “Unexpected Freedom” of freelancing.outsource-1345109_1280

Goal: Although he submitted resumes for numerous full-time editorial and corporate communications positions, the response rate was low to non-existent. He was further encouraged to pursue freelancing by the lack of interest among prospective new employers, who tended to view his extensive experience and knowledge, not as an asset but as a negative option. Especially, when considered against hiring recent college graduates for a fraction of the salary, our story-teller felt he wanted or his experience deserved. He discovered the world of hiring in the new decade is not about experience and capabilities, but about casting ones portfolio within the needs of prospective clients. He learned to explore and market for this new business of freelancing.

Actions: He undertook face-to-face networking activities, while simultaneously expanding his LinkedIn profile and building a network of 500+ contacts. He accepted freelance opportunities that did not pay well, simply in order to gain experience. He began building a portfolio of work samples.

As time went by, he became adept at turning in quality work on tight deadlines, which drew the attention of new clients. Soon he landed two or three “anchor clients,” giving him a solid foundation of steady work at a respectable wage which, in turn, led to several large-scale web content projects.

By the end of his first year as a freelancer, entrepreneur-696966_1920he began to reap the benefit of client recommendations and word-of-mouth referrals.

Consequences: Our freelancer is now established in a successful freelance business. Not only does he have the comfort of working from home, his daily schedule allows time to play tennis and swim laps at his neighborhood club. He is no longer dependent upon a single company for his earnings, but instead works regularly for a wide range of clients – most of whom he has never met in person and with whom he stays in contact via various online modes of communications.

Lesson: Our freelancer learned the value of persistence by making strong use of online platforms and staying in touch with prospective clients. She has become adept at establishing his brand, at creating sales documents, at maximizing his profile on LinkedIn as well as at leveraging various social connections online as well as in person. He learned to set boundaries to client requests for uncompensated hours in order to prove his worth. Eagerness to work should not be over-used to extract uncompensated commitments or outcomes.

Credible experts predict that the workplace may be dominated by Freelancers in the next decade. Here’s a snippet, summarizing these predictions, from Thomas Frey (

“Virtually any company that cannot find ways to do things more efficiently and reduce costs will not survive. Business colonies are an organic process of matching labor to projects for the exact duration of the contract.  No more, no less.”                                                                                                                        

Do you want to learn how to Freelance? Ask us for help!

Look us up on LinkedIn:  Carleen MacKay :: Rob Kinslow

Would you like to learn about another way to work in the 21st century?

Look for our next post…

Questions? Answers? More posts by the author.
If you like my posts—even if you don’t—why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites

Future of Work


Did you know? The Future of Work is HERE and NOW…

Jobs are disappearing from the future of work

The world is saying no to many traditional jobs these days.  Take a look at the truth of Work. Ensure you have a Future of Work

  • No political party can promise you a job. At best, they attempt to create platforms that will encourage business success, thus (presumably) encouraging hiring.

  • No private sector organization will hire you full-time, if you’re not needed full-time.

  • No public sector organization or institution can afford to ignore their enormous pension debts by continuing to hire as they have in the past.

Layoffs are the future of work

  • No large company is any safer, than any smaller company in terms of providing job security. The Fortune’s 100 companies (the largest employers) have had more than double the number of layoffs than non-Fortune’s 100 companies.

  • No, invention is not a birthright. New technologies have created thousands of new jobs, while causing the loss of thousands.

Future of Work is YOU

  • No end is in sight for the economic unrest that the world is facing. Economic unrest works for and against “jobs” in this country as elsewhere.

  • If pension-less workers do not continue to work, in some capacity, later in life, our economic system will be challenged to cope.

  • No, we cannot afford to overlook the aging of America. There are millions of Americans age 65 and older. Put this in perspective, in the United States there are more people 65 and older than in each of the entire Canadian and Australian populations. This demographic will double by 2030. More than 30% of the US workforce is 50+ years young.

  • No, the U.S. workforce is no longer competitive in the high-demand areas of mathematics and the sciences. Our children are fragmented into the haves and have-nots; our boomers are under-prepared for new massively disruptive challenges, retirement requirements and longer work lifetimes.

What are you willing to do to win your battle for the Future of Work? Will you find new ways to work? Can you see opportunities embedded within the many threats? Will you dare to do something different than experience dictates?

Join us now, fasten your space-suits, summon your reserve of courage for there are many, and often better, ways to work beyond the old world of the familiar. Let us tell you the stories of the pioneers of the future who have turned tomorrow’s threats into today’s opportunities!

Visit us at NewWorkForceHawaii and explore stories of inspiration written just for YOU.

Or, contact us via our LinkedIn Profiles:

Carleen MacKay ::  Angelica Lewis :: Fabian Lewis :: Rob Kinslow

Leadership Learning from the Wheel

Movement Model of Behavior

Learning from the Wheel of Life
Figure 1: Movement Model of Behavior

Leadership Learning:

According to my Native heritage, teachings and wisdom, recognition of Our ancestors, who’ve prepared the path of life for us, must be acknowledged. My teachers and mentors inspired me to leadership. Our relationships can include those with those who have gone before and those yet to come. Honoring and acknowledging those on whose shoulders we stand, connecting and communicating with our past and future, are fundamental practices of sustainable development. Me, you, we are all a bridge between the ancestors and those yet to come. Leadership from Learning is key.

Figure 1 shows how you may exemplify leadership learning. Read more here, or connect with me on LinkedIn

Why not contribute to helping spread the word?
Thanks in advance for caring and sharing this post on your social media sites

The REAL Reason for “Breakthrough” Infections of COVID-19


Many people are recognizing that there are apparent contradictions in the official narrative about COVID-19 and vaccinations. If the vaccine is supposed to prevent infection, then:

Why are so many vaccinated people getting sick with COVID (breakthrough infections)?
Why are the unvaccinated a risk to the vaccinated?
Why is immunity short-lived and boosters needed?
Why vaccinate those who already have had COVID and have natural immunity?

Why do these vaccines leave the vaccinated so vulnerable to infection?

The answer is that these vaccines are not preventative vaccines; they are therapeutic vaccines.

Preventative Versus Therapeutic Vaccines

There are two different categories of vaccines. Most people think of disease prevention when they think of vaccines. The purpose of these vaccines is to prevent a disease by exposing your immune system to a weakened or killed disease-causing organism, or pathogen, which educates your immune system about the pathogen and prepares your body for potential future attack. Once people are vaccinated against a disease, they have this vaccine-induced immunity and should stay well when exposed to the disease.

The other category of vaccines is treatment or therapeutic vaccines. This is a new field of medicine which tries to treat disease, rather than prevent it, using vaccines. Unlike traditional preventative vaccines, these therapeutic vaccines try to use your own immune system to fight a current diseased condition. As WebMD puts it, “While traditional vaccines are designed to prevent disease, researchers are working on something new: therapeutic vaccines, vaccinations that treat an illness after you have it.” (Treating Disease With Vaccines (Retreived 9/20/21))

For example, cancer vaccines involve taking cancer cells from someone, treating the cells in a way to make them more reactive with your immune system, and re-injecting the modified cancer cells back into that person to make the immune system attack the cancer. While these vaccines are still having problems, there is hope for this technology and its application to lots of diseased conditions. (Saxena, M., van der Burg, S.H., Melief, C.J.M. et al. Therapeutic cancer vaccines. Nat Rev Cancer 21, 360–378 (2021).

The COVID-19 vaccines use this type of technology. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna take a part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the spike protein genetic material) and introduce it into the body to elicit antibodies to the spike protein. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine uses similar technology but with a different delivery system to create an immune response to the spike protein.

The purpose of these therapeutic vaccines is to boost the body’s immune response to an already existing infection. These vaccines don’t prevent disease, but may help you fight it. This means that these COVID vaccines are not meant to be preventative, but are treatments that assume you have the virus.

Why Vaccinated People Still Get COVID

This explains why people who have been vaccinated can still get sick with COVID. The antibody response these vaccines create against the spike protein may be enough to reduce hospitalizations and deaths from COVID, but it is not robust enough to prevent infection in the first place. This is to be expected from a therapeutic vaccine as opposed to a preventative vaccine.

Why the Vaccinated and Unvaccinated are a Risk to the Vaccinated

This also explains why the unvaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. The vaccinated are not protected from getting COVID. They can catch COVID from the unvaccinated — or from the vaccinated. In fact, the vaccine can make infections asymptomatic, but still infectious.

Why Boosters are Needed

Preventative vaccines are given to prevent a disease, typically presenting the body with a weakened or killed pathogen, creating a strong immune response that lasts and prevents future disease. Preventative vaccines are meant to prevent infection and pre-empt the need for natural immunity.

Therapeutic vaccines are given to stimulate the immune system to attack a pathogen that is currently causing infection, but which the immune system has been weak in managing. It is meant to help fight an existing infection, and assumes that there are already antibodies from natural immunity that are needing some help in the fight.

Therapeutic vaccine antibodies are more limited in their recognition of the virus than antibodies created by preventative vaccines that react to the entire virus. Most therapeutic COVID vaccines produce antibodies to the spike protein of the virus, and this is hoped to assist natural immunity in fighting the virus. However, since the therapeutic vaccines create antibodies to only part of the virus, they create a limited immune response that is not enough to prevent infection.

This is the difference between prevention and treatment. Prevention precludes the need for treatment; and treatment means failed prevention. You can’t prevent with a treatment; and you can’t treat with a preventative. Giving a preventative vaccine after being sick is as useless as giving a treatment vaccine before getting sick.

This means that the people who received a therapeutic vaccine for COVID and who do not get exposed to the virus afterwards will need boosters since their immune response to the vaccine wanes quickly with no infection. Ideally, then, assuming the vaccine is helpful and not causing immune problems, it would be best to take a therapeutic vaccine once you get exposed to the virus. That’s when you might need help with a treatment.

Therapeutic Vaccines for Long COVID

This suggests an answer to the dilemma about so-called Long Covid, where symptoms of COVID-19 exist long after infection, and often appear months after apparent recovery. It seems that the virus gets a foothold in the body and becomes difficult to eradicate. Once the body fights back the virus to the point of near recovery, the immune system calms down and antibody levels drop. Meanwhile, the virus retreats and hides in the body, staying dormant until months later when it re-emerges to create the long list of Long COVID symptoms.

This is the type of infection that therapeutic vaccines are meant to handle. Instead of allowing the immune system to lower its guard, at which time the virus re-emerges, the booster vaccine is meant to stimulate and assist the immune response, keeping the virus at bay.

This means that the vaccines being promoted for COVID-19 prevention are actually designed for COVID-19 therapy. They are for treatment, not prevention.

Why Are the Vaccines Therapeutic and Not Preventative?

Why would the CDC, FDA, and other authorities use a therapeutic vaccine instead of a typical preventative vaccine? There are probably numerous reasons, including financial. Bill Gates, for example, is heavily involved in therapeutic vaccines, and he certainly has clout.

However, my guess is that the people in charge knew from the beginning that coronaviruses are notorious for defying vaccines. These viruses mutate quickly, so vaccines to any one variant may not work for another. This is why there was trouble developing a vaccine to SARS-CoV-1, and why there are no preventative vaccines for the common cold, which is caused by another species of coronavirus. I can imagine the decision-makers concluding that a preventative vaccine is problematic, but a therapeutic vaccine might be helpful to treat the unpreventable infections.

So these authorities may have decided on a treatment approach using experimental therapeutic vaccines, instead of using problematic preventative vaccines. This is not a preventative approach, since therapeutic vaccines do not create complete protection, but merely assist the immune system in fighting existing infections.

Therapeutic Vaccines versus Other Treatments

This also explains why there has been resistance to other forms of treatment by the medical establishment. In fact, very little is ever discussed about treatment of COVID-19 apart from attacks on those who recommend them. If other treatments, such as Ivermectin, worked in preventing and/or treating COVID-19, these treatments would confuse the results of the experiment with the novel therapeutic vaccines. It would also get some people to avoid the vaccine, preferring a known drug treatment to an experimental vaccine treatment.

Why Vaccinate People Who Have Natural Immunity?

People who have had COVID-19 and have developed natural immunity are being told to still get the vaccine. The vaccine is not to prevent COVID, but to augment the body’s immune response to COVID-19. If it was for prevention and not therapy, then it would make no sense to give it to the naturally immune.

The implication is that COVID may still lurk inside the body, opportunistically waiting to reappear. The vaccine and the boosters are meant to keep your body vigilant to prevent these re-emergences of the virus.

Perhaps this makes sense of the way Israel is dealing with the vaccine and promoting boosters. They know that this is a therapeutic vaccine, and want to help people as much as possible to fight the infection. However, once lifestyles returned to pre-pandemic normal for the vaccinated, the infection rates skyrocketed because vaccinated people thought themselves immune, but they weren’t.

The emerging fact that the vaccine does not prevent infection has become so apparent that the government now says that the vaccine will reduce hospitalizations and deaths, while admitting the vaccine may not prevent infection.

Yet, the vaccine was sold to the public as a prevention against getting COVID-19. The FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine as a preventative vaccine. “The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.” (FDA News Release: (Retreived 9/20/21))

The vaccine was approved and promoted to prevent COVID disease, but now we are told it will not prevent infection but will lower risk of hospitalization and death. This is admitting it is a therapeutic vaccine, not a preventative one.

Why the Lie?

Why would the authorities lie to the public about this? I suppose the alternative would have been to tell everyone the truth up front, but people would probably panic. They could have told the public that there is no way to get around this virus, which mutates and becomes difficult to eradicate from the environment or from your body. They could have mentioned that everyone will eventually get exposed to this virus, and while most people recover with no problem, some will suffer and die. So instead of prevention, which is a lost cause with a rapidly mutating coronavirus, we are going for treatment with a novel therapeutic vaccine.

Testing Opportunity for Therapeutic Vaccines

For investors and those in the medical industry who see the potential for therapeutic vaccines, the pandemic offered an unparalleled opportunity to get billions of dollars, and millions of people, to test and develop this technology. But to get people to willingly participate, the vaccine needed to be presented as a preventative vaccine, and not as a treatment vaccine, which means you will get sick but maybe not as much.

People want prevention over treatment, and most people think of vaccines as preventative and have no idea they are now being developed as a therapy/treatment. My guess is that many vaccinated people might not have gotten vaccinated had they known it would not prevent disease. Why assume the risk of an new vaccine technology if it won’t keep you from getting sick in the first place?

Of course, I am guessing about the thoughts of the authorities deciding the US policy towards the pandemic. But the above scenario does make sense out of the contradictions of COVID-19 pandemic policy.

Of course, this is a gross abuse of patient rights and the public trust. While drug companies invested in therapeutic vaccines are making billions testing their technology on the unsuspecting public, people have been lied to in order to get participation in this vaccine treatment study.

Why the Push and Mandates to Get Vaccinated?

Why the mandates to force everyone to get vaccinated, especially if it does not prevent disease? Again, I must guess, but it seems likely that the medical authorities want the public to accept using vaccines to treat disease. It’s a new paradigm in disease treatment, and people need to accept vaccines for this new modality to take hold.

Also, if everyone is vaccinated, there is no control group to compare for impacts of the vaccine. Side effects from the vaccinations, including autoimmune disease and Antibody Dependent Enhancement (where the vaccines paradoxically make it easier to get infected) can happen with vaccines, including therapeutic vaccines. It would be difficult to link side effects to the vaccines if there were no unvaccinated people with whom to compare outcomes. (Ricke, Darrell. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Front Immunol. 2021; 12: 640093. Published online 2021 Feb 24. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093)

Finally, there’s lots of money in therapeutic vaccines, especially since they only provide temporary protection and need ongoing boosters. Of course, they don’t yet know with this new technology if the boosters will enhance immunity, or cause autoimmunity. If you use the body to make antigens, as this technology does, then what stops the body from attacking itself as the enemy? The answer is that this is why we haven’t had these types of vaccines. They are problematic, and the bugs are still needing to be worked out.

Are Vaccine Mandates Appropriate for Therapeutic Vaccines that Don’t Prevent Disease?

Vaccine mandates are being justified on the basis that the vaccines are essential to prevent the transmission of disease. However, if these are a treatment of COVID and not a preventative, this mandate justification does not hold. Public health mandates vaccines to prevent spread of disease; the treatment of disease is a personal decision and is usually left to the physician and patient to decide. Personal treatment options are not a public health emergency. This means therapeutic vaccines, like other therapies, should not be mandated as a public health measure.

Do the Vaccinated Pose a Risk to the Unvaccinated?

Since the vaccinated can become infected, there is the potential for the natural selection of resistant virus variants. Vaccinated people have anti-spike protein antibodies, and any infection they get will select for viruses with mutations that are resistant to these antibodies. This is the same reason why taking low doses of antibiotics can create antibiotic-resistant bacteria. If the therapy does not kill the pathogen, but merely helps fight it, then resistant mutated strains can develop.

This means the vaccinated are more of a threat to public health than the unvaccinated; both can spread disease but the vaccinated are more likely to create new variants that escape immune response.

Herd Immunity Requires Natural Immunity, Not Therapeutic Vaccine Induced Immunity

It is clear that you cannot end a pandemic with a therapeutic vaccine. Herd immunity will depend, not on the vaccine, but on natural immunity. We are being told that we need vaccinations to end the pandemic. But treatment vaccines assume you already have the virus and need help getting rid of it. This is not prevention of disease. We need enough people to develop natural immunity to get to herd immunity.


The authorities have been misleading the public about the nature of the COVID vaccines, portraying them as preventative vaccines when they are really for treatment.

We are all going to get COVID, sooner or later, regardless of vaccine status.

Public health measures should apply equally to the vaccinated and unvaccinated, since both have the potential of spreading infection.

Vaccine mandates don’t make sense for a therapeutic vaccine, since these do not prevent the spread of disease, and may even create resistant virus variants.

If you feel you need help fighting Long COVID, you may want to try a therapeutic vaccine to boost your immune response. But other treatments may work as well or better, and have different cost/benefit profiles.

If you are wanting to hide in your home and wait out the pandemic, keep in mind that you will eventually need to come out of hiding, at which time you could get infected regardless of vaccine status.

The push to vaccinate is an attempt to enroll people into this therapeutic vaccine study, and exploits public misunderstanding of the difference between traditional, preventative vaccines and new, therapeutic vaccines, fooling many people into getting vaccinated to prevent COVID when the vaccine does not prevent disease.

Competition for People


Over the past 10 or so years that I have been in the seat, I have seen legislature after legislature consider many, many bills to increase taxes. Every year. Without fail.  At the Foundation, we keep a list of the tax bills that are introduced and that get at least one hearing. The list is usually six or seven pages long. During the legislative process, most of these are weeded out, like most other bills, but there still is a two- or three-page list of tax and public finance bills that is sent up to the governor. Income tax. General excise tax. Transient accommodations tax.  Death tax. Conveyance tax.  “Sin taxes” on fuel, liquor, cigarettes. The list goes on.

And when it comes to the level of tax, Hawaii is up there. We are tied for the top estate tax rate. We have the second highest income tax rate (and we would’ve beaten California if one of this session’s bills became law).  Our general excise tax is applied to far more things than any other comparable tax in any other state. 

When these facts are brought up to lawmakers, they don’t seem to care. Why?  Probably because they don’t realize, or don’t want to realize, that Hawaii needs to be competitive. For people.

Hawaii used to be an island kingdom, a world unto itself.  That is no longer true. We are part of a much bigger country, and that country is a part of a much bigger world.  Throughout the years, improved forms of transportation and technology have been obliterating the barriers between one state and the next, or one country and the next.

Our government, like most in this world, relies upon tax revenue to stay afloat. Those taxes aren’t paid by government, they’re paid by people.  If you don’t have the people, you don’t have the tax.  This COVID-19 emergency showed us what that meant in no uncertain terms.

We recently wrote about an economic study that showed that people, specifically the rich people who pay most of our taxes, had their limits.  If taxes went too high, people would pack up and leave, taking with them money they would otherwise have spent on sales and income taxes.

This is not a possible problem.  It’s a current problem.  As we wrote in an earlier article, we are losing people now and we have been losing people for some time.  Even the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) recently told our lawmakers that “our models are generating big outflows of population bigger than we have seen, certainly in my lifetime.”

What does that mean?  People who are packing up and moving out are moving to somewhere else, because that somewhere else looks better to those people.  We can’t delude ourselves into thinking that people who are born here or live here will love our islands so much that they’ll never leave.  Instead, we need to see ourselves as competing with other states or countries.  For people.

Certainly, states don’t compete for people simply on economic terms like tax rates.  We do have a relatively clean and healthy place to live, and that is worth something.  But it’s folly to assume that everyone who is “lucky to live Hawaii” will be able to pay the price of paradise, especially if that price keeps going up without corresponding improvement in the quality of services that our government offers its residents.

Overall, our lawmakers absolutely need to realize that, whether we like it or not, we are competing for people.  We need to plan our government functions and services, and how our residents and visitors pay for them, with that in mind.  The status quo, with our people packing up and leaving, is telling us we are losing the competition and we need to do better to survive.

Vacant Homes Tax?


Recently, the Honolulu City Council has taken up the idea of imposing a different tax rate for residences that are vacant.

The idea is contained in Bill 76 (2020), a bill that started off last year, was referred to the Council Budget Committee, and was postponed by the committee in November 2020 after a couple of public hearings with only a couple of members of the public weighing in. 

Now, KHON2 is reporting that there is new momentum for the bill following some discussion by the city’s Real Property Tax Advisory Commission.  “The idea is to get folks who have vacant homes to rent them out, or the sell them, hopefully to other local people,” Honolulu City Council chair Tommy Waters is quoted as saying.

The concept of a vacant homes tax is not new.  State lawmakers tried to attach the idea to the conveyance tax, but the bill to do that, SB 2216 (2020), passed  the Senate but ran into a brick wall in the House.

The devil, of course, is likely to be in the details. How does some bureaucrat sitting in the real property tax office have any idea whether a property is vacant?  Maybe the official can pull down some data from the water or electric utilities and send a proposed assessment when the numbers are low.  Maybe the official can take an idea from TV shows by sticking a business card in the front door and returning after a few days to see if the card is still there.

And, once the tax office has concluded that the property was vacant and is subject to the new tax, how is a property owner who in fact lived in the property to prove that fact?  Let’s listen to a conversation with a typical (?) property owner.

Watch Doggie:  I was living in that house.

Tax Official:  Prove it.

W:  I barked at the neighbors.

T:  Where’s your documentation of that?

W:  The neighbors called the police so there must be a police report.

T:  Do you have a copy of it?

W:  No…

T:  Pfft.  What other “proof” do you have?

W:  Here’s my electric bill.  Isn’t it high for a vacant property?

T:  So you forgot to turn off the fridge.  Doesn’t show anything.  Next!

W:  Here’s my state ID card listing my address.

T:  You got that ID six years ago.  But even if you got it yesterday, it doesn’t show that you actually live there. Next!

W:  I have receipts from my neighborhood grocery store.

T:  But you still could have been living somewhere else. Next!

W:  Grrr!  I’m going to bite you on the schnozz!

T:  You do that, you’ll be in the hoosegow, and there’ll be no doubt that you aren’t living in the property we’ve assessed!

Another interesting problem is that the rates for the vacant home classification are subject to be determined. That’s nothing new because usually rates are set in the annual budget ordinance. But until then, we won’t know how high they are thinking of raising the rates.  KHON2 reported that they were thinking about a tax between 1% and 7% … which translates into a bump from the current residential rate of $3.50 per $1000 of value to anywhere between $13.50 and $73.50 per $1000.  Which translates to an increase of between a 286% and 2000% from the current rate. Yeow!

This is an issue certainly worth watching in the months ahead.

Biden Administration Sends Opposing Signals On Islamofascist Terror Threat


In an exhibition of a disturbing level of confusion and incoordination – and widely divergent determinations, two of the chief authorities on the security of our nation in combatting Islamofascist terrorism took diametrically opposed positions on the matter.

On the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States – attacks that took 2,996 lives that day and many more since FBI Director Christopher Wray and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had very different belief systems as to the security of our nation and the threat posed by the budding reconstitution of Islamofascist terror organizations in a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Answering a question from reporters as he made his way to the anniversary remembrance, Mayorkas said, “There is no specific credible threat to the homeland at this time,” He issued the standard fare rhetoric about being “ever vigilant.”

But on a recent podcast episode of Inside the FBI, Wray said something completely opposite. “[T]he first thing I would say about the terrorist threat today versus 9/11 is that it’s just as much of a threat today as it was on 9/11,” Wray said. 

Wray went on to say that the threat, while it continues to metastasize in the form of sleeper cells – like the cells that executed the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93’s target, now includes those who are dedicated to the Islamofascist cause and acting independently of any terror groups.

“What we see today is not just that threat, but a more diverse threat,” Wray said.

Why This Is Important

This serves as a fantastic example of how disjointed and unorganized the Biden administration exists. On a topic as deadly serious as Islamofascist terrorism, and in light of the Biden administration’s facilitation of the reconstitution of an array of terrorist organizations in their ceding of Afghanistan, we must necessarily demand better execution of duties.

Whether you enjoy the bizarre approach to President Trump that came from former-President George W. Bush or not, Mr. Bush reacted in an appropriate manner in the aftermath of the attacks. The attacks interrupted an education-rich presidential agenda, transforming his presidency into one that would address the Islamofascist threat to our nation as its number one priority. He pivoted to address an unforeseen issue.

In stark contrast, the Biden administration has run from a required pivot in agenda priorities in a manner that can only be described as opportunistically political and cowardly. In fact, his refusal to pivot to address an even more potent threat to the homeland than we experienced on September 10, 2001, places every American in clear and present danger.

Mr. Biden and his team pathetically attempted to pivot away from the crisis in Afghanistan to return to the contrived narrative that race and gender-identity politics, and a vanquished virus, are the biggest problems facing our nation. Only fools would believe this to be true. And only deceivers would try to shop this ridiculous premise to the people of the United States.

In the face of this very real threat emanating from the Islamofascist Middle East – and on the 20th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, shouldn’t our government cease with transformative politics? Shouldn’t a pivot in agenda be executed to preserve the safety of the American people?

The answer for any honest and true public servant would be yes to both questions. Sadly we have but a handful of honest and true politicians in elected federal office. Even sadder yet is the fact that the bureaucracy runs roughshod over those elected officials assuming the station of the actual government here in the United States.

We, the citizens of the United States, have no representative government. Those in control today are subservient to special interest groups, global oligarchs, and the activist multinational corporations that bully the governments of the world to their whim.

Unless We the People exercise a great amount of intestinal fortitude and re-empower the states to claw back power from the federal government, and then immediately convene a Constitutional Convention to expunge the current apparatus – as is our right per our Charters of Freedom, our Republic is lost and true freedom and liberty are but words in history books.

The Declaration of Independence reads, in part:

“…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security…”


Counties, You’re TAT Collectors Now


Most of us have heard about House Bill 862, the bill that cut off the counties’ share of Transient  Accommodations Tax (TAT) but allowed the counties to impose their own TAT.  This bill became law by legislative override of Governor Ige’s veto. 

To make things “easier” for taxpayers, the law says that the counties‘ TAT needs to cover the same things, and have the same exemptions, as the state TAT.  But the law has no provision allowing the counties to piggyback on the State’s collections like the state GET surcharge.  Which means that counties that want to impose the TAT not only have to pass their own ordinance, but also need to hire their own people to do their own collections.

Kauai Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro said that it seemed like such a waste of resources,  “They [the state] assess [general excise] tax and they cut us a check for it.  I see it as the same thing with TAT.  For us to have the same system and pay two different sets of employees to do the same thing, I don’t see it as being anywhere near efficient.”  

The counties tried.  According to reports, the counties tried to work out a memorandum of understanding with the State Department of Taxation to come up with a solution similar to what happens with the GET now.  But the Attorney General put the kibosh on that idea, understandably pointing out that unlike the GET surcharge law, HB 862 makes no provision whatsoever for joint collection.  The counties are on their own.

This isn’t the first time the counties have been asked to administer on their own a tax that is mandated to follow state rules.  For the first ten years after the counties took control of the real property tax following the 1978 Constitutional Convention, the counties administered the tax mostly according to state rules, as provided in the Hawaii Constitution.  Also, after the counties sued for a piece of the Public Service Company Tax imposed on public utilities because it was imposed on the utilities instead of real property tax and GET, the resolution of the suit led to the enactment of Act 64 of 2001 allowing the counties to impose and collect their own PSC Tax.

Those changes, however, did not cause the counties headaches.  The transfer of real property tax was a change that the counties wanted and were ready for.  For the PSC tax, most counties seemed to respond by foisting the new responsibility on their finance department staff, which wasn’t too problematic given that there wasn’t an inordinate number of public utilities. 

In contrast, the language in HB 862 that dumped the TAT revenue sharing was introduced for the first time by the Conference Committee, which neither heard the bill nor accepted any public testimony.  A different bill with TAT surcharge language appeared late in the session.  It was put into play when the Senate gut-and-replaced a House TAT bill with a very different focus and sent the revamped bill into conference.  That bill (HB 321 SD1) contained language allowing the State to collect the tax on behalf of the counties.  Even so, the Hawaii State Association of Counties and some of the individual counties testified against it.  Imagine everyone’s surprise when the final version of HB 862 came out with a TAT surcharge that the State wouldn’t help the counties collect.

When a new tax is enacted, there are usually a few devils in the details.  This one presents the counties with pandemonium.  Economists generally like the idea of having taxes levied by a local government that is closer to the local population and thus more responsive to the local services that are required, as UHERO points out.  But this instance feels a lot more like sending the counties up the creek without a paddle.  Fixes to allow greater efficiencies in administering this tax should be enacted soon if this surcharge is to continue.

Trailer for Shaka, the Power of Aloha


“Shaka, the Power of Aloha” is a documentary film project that explores the origin and meanings of Hawaii’s Shaka gesture. The film is produced by Bizgenics, a Hawai’i-based 501(C)(3) nonprofit that specializes in creativity, innovation & entrepreneurship programs

Is the Virus that Causes COVID-19 Affecting our Minds and Making us Mean?


Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health mandates have created many social disruptions, including lockdowns, job losses, social isolation, mask mandates, social gathering restrictions, and even vaccine mandates, all challenging our lives, our health, our emotions, and our minds.

As a result of COVID-19, there is a widespread mental health and social stability crisis.

People are depressed, foggy-brained, anxious, sleepless, fearful, and desperate. Some people are getting aggressive towards others, with more violence and crime. Drug use is up. Spousal and child abuse are up. The culture is polarized in opinion to the point of physical confrontation. To control the message over COVID-19, censorship is high, creating disenfranchisement, alienation, and more anger.

Freedoms which were held sacred, like the right to choose whether one wishes to be vaccinated or not, are now challenged as selfish and harmful to the common good. People now see one another as threats to public safety and health.

We have gone from saying hello with a kiss or a handshake, to saying hello with a mask on and over the Internet.

It’s easy to see, and should have been expected, how the social disruption from the pandemic would lead to these mental health and social problems.

However, another possible contributor to this crisis could be the impact of the COVID-19 virus on the brain itself.

It is known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does enter the brain, and antibodies to the virus have been found in cerebrospinal fluid. The NIH article, “Coronavirus and the Nervous System”, explains, “Changes in the immune system have been seen in studies of the cerebrospinal fluid, which bathes the brain, in people who have been infected by SARS-CoV-2. This includes the presence of antibodies—proteins made by the immune system to fight the virus—that may also react with the nervous system.”

The NIH article continues, “Researchers are following some known acute effects of the virus to determine their relationship to the post-acute complications of COVID-19 infection. These post-acute effects usually include fatigue in combination with a series of other symptoms. These may include trouble with concentration and memory, sleep disorders, fluctuating heart rate and alternating sense of feeling hot or cold, cough, shortness of breath, problems with sleep, inability to exercise to previous normal levels, feeling sick for a day or two after exercising (post-exertional malaise), and pain in muscle, joints, and chest. It is not yet known how the infection leads to these persistent symptoms and why in some individuals and not others.”

So what is currently known is that the virus does enter the brain, and both the virus and the antibodies to the virus may affect the brain. It may cause all sorts of symptoms, since the brain affects virtually all bodily functions.

However, note what is missing from the NIH list of symptoms. There is no mention of emotions and thoughts being impacted by the virus.

Usually, medicine studies physically measurable symptoms, for example, by looking for chemical markers of disease, or measuring nerve conductivity, or looking at levels of antibodies. We can see how well people sleep, and test their memory. But how do you measure changes in thoughts and moods? It’s not easy.

Realize that the seats of emotion and thought are in the brain. Any viral infection in the brain can impact the centers of the brain responsible for emotion and thought.

This means that in the brain, the virus, and/or antibodies to the virus, could be directly causing moods and thoughts, as parts of the brain associated with emotions and thinking are impacted.

Of course, if this is true, then it could partially explain the evidence we see of increased aggression, anger, and violence in society. However, since these are also the result of social disruption from pandemic management methods, as described above, it will be hard to separate these two contributions towards negative emotions and thoughts.

Scientists are seeing cognitive decline from the virus, including being “foggy-brained”, but what about a cognitive shift towards aggression from the virus? It is feasible that a virus could create a negative mindset by the way it affects our thinking. Likewise, a virus could theoretically cause a mood change towards negativity, intolerance, and hostility.

If the viral infection and the pandemic response can both lead to aggression and negative feelings and thoughts, then how could you tell which is more responsible? This is an important question, because it means that getting COVID-19 may itself be creating the mental and social dysfunction we are seeing develop, apart from public health measures.

This means that anyone who has had COVID-19, symptomatically or asymptomatically, might develop changes in mood and thoughts as a direct result of the viral infection, but possibly without other neurologic signs.

Aggression and hostility may be just as much a symptom of COVID-19 as heart disease or breathing difficulty.

Unfortunately, this will never be studied and confirmed, even if it is true.

Doing a study like this would require measurement of emotions and thoughts before and after COVID-19 infection, to see if there was a change. You would need to determine if there was previous asymptomatic infection, which could be done with antibody tests. However, these tests are not done routinely, at least in the US, and antibody levels drop with time, so conclusions are not reliable. You would also have to make sure these people did not also have to deal with the social disruptions caused by public health measures, which is virtually impossible since the entire planet has been affected.

There are also big political implications, if this is true. Any political leader who has been infected with COVID-19 may have an altered mood and mind. Could this be driving mandates that seem arbitrary and capricious, like requiring masks and COVID-19 tests for the unvaccinated but not for the vaccinated, even though the vaccinated can still get and spread the disease? We have seen politicians using pandemic emergency powers to spread mandates, lock people down, and force compliance with threats of jail. We have witnessed widespread censorship of information about this disease, its cause, and its treatment. There have been extreme violations of individual rights and freedom, and a call to subjugate one’s personal liberty and choice for “the common good” as defined by pubic officials.

Can an infection in the brain that causes aggression and hostility help explain why some politicians are calling for forced inoculation of vaccine into every body in the world, including people who have already been infected naturally and already have natural immunity?

Can a brain disease explain why the world has agreed to culturally-destructive lockdowns? Were the leaders who agreed to this destruction of their societies previously infected with COVID-19? Since most infections are considered asymptomatic, it’s hard to tell who has been infected in the past.

Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 is affecting the brain directly, causing people and society to come apart at the seams, may never be researched. It may disqualify anyone who has been infected from being in a position of political power.

Of course, this could offer another way to get out of responsibility for doing aggressive, stupid things. Take the COVID defense. “The virus made me do it”.

Coronavirus and the Nervous System

Can Raising a Tax Lose Money?


One fundamental assumption that has been made over the years by our lawmakers is that if you enact a tax, money will be raised.

What if that weren’t true?

In late 2019, a pair of economists, Enrico Moretti and Daniel Wilson, published a paper titled “Taxing Billionaires: Estate Taxes and the Geographical Location of the Ultra-Wealthy.”  In that paper, they followed the movement of 400 of the nation’s richest people (the “Forbes 400”) and came up with a mathematical model to predict the chances that a particular rich person would move out of state in response to either an enactment of or a hike in that state’s estate tax. 

Why concentrate on the wealthy?  Only they are on the hook for the estate tax.  Even in Hawai’i the estate tax doesn’t kick in unless the deceased person has amassed $5.49 million in wealth, so we are not talking about ordinary folks you see on the street.

Then, they theorized, based on earlier research, that if one of these rich people moves, they will pay a lot less of the former home state’s other taxes, such as income tax and sales tax. In that way, the move will cost that state. 

They then tried to answer this question:  “If X State adopts or increases an estate tax, will that state make money or lose money, and how much?”  They tried to answer that question both with a targeted tax aimed at the ultra-wealthy (a so-called “billionaire’s tax”), and with a broader based estate tax. 

When they modeled the billionaire’s tax, they found that 48 states had an expected revenue gain. But two states could be expected to lose money:  California and Hawai’i.  “For Hawaii,” the study said, “cost-benefit ratio [of having a bigger estate tax would be] equal to 1.43.  The expected present value of having an estate tax is ‑$73 million.  The difference between Connecticut [which would benefit from an estate tax] and Hawaii is largely due to the difference in their personal income tax (PIT) rate. Hawaii’s PIT is higher than Connecticut’s. The higher PIT rate in Hawaii means a higher opportunity cost of foregoing billionaires’ income tax streams.”

When they modeled the broader-based tax, assuming that the less ultrawealthy (people who had estates big enough to pay estate tax but who weren’t billionaires) were just as likely as the Fortune 400 to pack up and move in response to a tax hit, they found 42 states with an expected revenue gain.  Eight states were expected to come up short. Of the states that don’t have an estate tax now, four were at risk:  California, Idaho, Nebraska, and New Jersey. Of the states that do have an estate tax, four were at risk:  Vermont, Oregon, Minnesota, and—you guessed it—Hawai’i.

Although the study didn’t pin down exactly when a state would be at risk for losing money if adopting an estate tax, it observed that California, the state with the most revenue at risk, had the highest personal income top tax rate.  Hawai’i has never been far behind on that metric.  We were even seriously considering legislation last session (Senate Bill 56, Senate Draft 1) that would have pushed our top personal income tax rate way past California’s, and we earned national attention, perhaps national derision, for that bill.

Over the years, this column, among others, has been accused of pandering to the wealthy and for being opposed to the “fundamental fairness“ that requires those with more to pay their fair share.  We at the Foundation, however, are not trying to decide social policy. We’re trying to present the facts and the risks of unintended consequences. Our legislators are the ones making the hard policy choices. They should be making these choices with more information, not less.

Have We Unwittingly Put the Brakes on HART?


Lately, the news about HART, the body governing Honolulu’s largest ever public works project, has been focused on one of the nine voting members.  That member‘s term is coming to an end, and the news is focusing on Mayor Rick Blangiardi‘s choice to replace him. 

What you might not have seen is the difficulty the HART board is having making decisions.

HART was created in 2016, when the county’s voters approved a City Charter amendment establishing it.  City Charter section 17-104 provides for a ten-member board, consisting of nine voting members and one non-voting member. That section also incorporated section 13-103, which applied the rules governing other City boards and commissions to HART as well. 

One of the rules in 13-103 says:  “The affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership shall be necessary to take any action, and such action shall be made at a meeting open to the public.”  But that language means whenever they take a vote, we assume that everybody who doesn’t vote “yes,” including people who can’t attend the meeting, are voting “no.“  With a ten-member board, that means we need six members to vote “yes” for anything to pass. 

Then, along came 2017. As part of the State‘s bailout of HART, the State added four more non-voting members to the HART board. Two would be appointed by the house and two more by the Senate.  After the bill was signed into law and became Act 1 of the 2017 First Special Session, HART had a 14-member board. That means we now need eight members to vote “yes” for anything to pass. 

Another of the rules in section 13-103 of the Charter is that a “majority of the members shall constitute a quorum.”  A quorum is the number of members needed to have a valid meeting.  By the same logic, a quorum of HART was six members before the 2017 legislation, and eight members after it.

Recall, however, that there are only nine voting members. Two of them are the City Director of Transportation Services and the State Director of Transportation, presumably very busy folks. If one of them can’t attend a meeting, a unanimous vote of the others is required to do anything. If two of them can’t attend, nothing can pass.  “Obtaining nine votes,” one voting member testified in February, “has proven difficult for the Board to obtain quorum to hold a Board meeting and proven very difficult to obtain a decision on any matter in front of the Board.”

It’s questionable whether the State, in putting four observers on the HART board, intended to change the voting dynamics drastically in this way.  But, according to the City’s Corporation Counsel, that was the effect.  (Lawmakers please note:  One reason why you get as much public comment as you can on a bill you are considering is that some public commenters will see chain-reaction consequences like this one so the bill can be refined to weed out unintended consequences.  Adding new material to bills at the eleventh hour, after the time has passed for public comment, can and does lead to problems.)

Some bills in this past legislative session aimed to fix the problem — HB 1288 and SB 998.  Neither survived this session, but one or the other might be reintroduced next year.  

A fix is needed to keep our HART board up and running. Hopefully there will be a reasonable chance of passage in the coming session once the pandemic and the damage it has done to our economy are not the all-consuming problems as they seemed to be in the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions.

Ditch and Bra and Skip the Mammogram


One of the known causes of cancer is radiation from x-ray machines. That’s why radiation doses for medical diagnostic x-rays have been lowered over the years. It’s bad medicine when a diagnostic tool used to detect cancer also creates cancer.

The problem is that x-rays are like bullets shooting through the body, causing tissue trauma and burns and breaking DNA strands. Repair of this DNA damage can be faulty, leading to cellular changes that result in tumor development and growth. There is no safe amount of x-rays for the human body, and the impact of radiation damage is cumulative, so it adds up with each radiation exposure.

Mammograms are x-rays of the breasts, where the breasts are smashed between two plates and irradiated with x-rays to look for tumors. Radiologists know these x-rays to the breast cause cancer, and have estimated that mammograms cause breast cancer at about a 0.2% rate, or about the mortality rate for the flu.

This means that each year a woman gets a mammogram she increases her chances of developing breast cancer from that mammogram. Out of every million women who get mammograms, 1000-2000 will develop cancer from the mammograms.

The risk is worse for women who have genetic mutations in their tumor suppressor genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes, which lowers the body’s ability to repair radiation damage to DNA and thereby increases the chance of getting cancer from mammograms. Radiation damage needs to be cleaned up by these genes, helped along by a healthy immune system. Any impairment of the repair mechanism results in greater risk of developing breast cancer from mammograms.

As a result, women with a high risk of developing breast cancer due to defective BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are advised to not get mammograms, opting instead for safer MRI imaging, which does not use x-rays. Ironically, the more likely a woman is to get breast cancer, the more harmful is the radiation from mammograms.

However, there is another cause of immune system dysfunction which increases breast cancer incidence. It has to do with wearing tight bras for long hours daily. Studies have shown that bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men, while the tighter and longer the bra is worn the higher the risk rises, to over 100 times higher for a 24/7 bra user compared to a bra-free woman.

How do bras increase breast cancer incidence?

Bras are designed to alter breast shape for fashion reasons, and this requires constant pressure being applied to the breasts to achieve that shape. This pressure constricts the thin, easily compressed lymphatic system within the breasts. The lymphatic system consists of a network of microscopic drainage tubes within the breast tissue. Lymph fluid drains from the breasts to the lymph nodes, most of which are in the arm pits. This pathway for fluid circulation in the breasts is essential for the immune system to cleanse away tissue debris from trauma and radiation damage, as well as to remove toxins, bacteria, and viruses from the tissue. If the lymphatic system becomes constricted by tight bras, the lymph fluid stagnates, as the breast tissue becomes increasingly toxic, causing a condition called lymph-stasis. Pain and cysts develop over time, and eventually this leads to cancer, since the immune system is hampered in attacking any developing cancer cells.

Keep in mind that cancer cells develop all the time in our bodies, as errors in DNA repair and replication are common. However, the immune system detects these defective cells and attacks them before they become a problem. The vast majority of developing cancer cells are killed by our immune system, so long as it is allowed to do its job. However, when we constrict the body with tight clothing, the compression of the lymphatics impairs this circulatory pathway of the immune system, resulting in decreased immune protection, just like having defective tumor suppressor genes.

The bra impairs immune function by constriction of the lymphatics. Any damage to the breasts, either by trauma, radiation, or exposure to carcinogenic chemicals or toxins, is made worse by bras, since the immune system cannot do its job when constricted and compressed by a bra. Blood flow to the breasts is also reduced by tight bras, essentially choking the breast tissue as it marinates in waste products and toxins due to lymphatic impairment. Add to this the repeated radiation damage to the breasts from mammograms, and you can see why there is a breast cancer epidemic.

Unfortunately, the role of the bra in breast pathology is under appreciated in the US, since bra usage has been promoted for economic, fashion, and sexist reasons. While dozens of studies internationally have confirmed the bra-cancer link, cancer authorities have been dismissing the issue out of hand, since the bra-cancer link is a research game-changer which has the potential of upending breast cancer research that has ignored this important factor affecting breast health. It’s like researching lung cancer while ignoring smoking (which was the case in the early 1900’s.)

Research into breast disease which ignores the constrictive impact of bras on breast lymphatics and circulation is flawed. However, the breast cancer industry insists that the cause of breast cancer is mostly unknown (apart from an approximately 5% cause from genetics), and insists that early detection of tumors with mammograms followed by treatment is the only alternative.

One of the major concerns that the cancer industry has had about the bra- cancer link is that women would avoid mammograms if they believed that their breast cancer risk was low due to eliminating bra usage. If the medical model for breast cancer management requires regular mammograms, then anything which can get in the way of that message is silenced. If becoming bra-free lowers risk, then why get mammograms, which are painful and exposes women to increased cancer rates through radiation damage? The promotion of mammograms as the alternative to prevention has created a multi-billion dollar mammogram industry. Prevention by bra removal is not lucrative for the medical industry. Dismissing the bra-cancer link, which is a major way women can effectively lower breast cancer risk, keeps women coming for their mammograms to detect the tumor once it appears.

As a result, women are not warned about the impact their bras are having on their breast health. Breast pain and cysts, in addition to cancer, are mostly the result of tight bras. Breathing is reduced by wearing bras. The sympathetic nervous system is harmed by wearing bras. The only thing that benefits from wearing bras is the bra industry which profits from bra sales, and the medical industry which profits from cancer detection and treatment.

Fortunately, becoming bra-free is now the fashion. Women have become skeptical of the alleged need for uncomfortable bras, and have opted for freedom and comfort. Gender-based clothing is also in question, as women ask why they “need” bras in the first place if men do not. While the bra industry has created cultural narratives which claim bras are “needed for support”, research shows that breasts support themselves when the natural suspensory ligaments in the breasts are allowed to function and hold the weight of the breasts by themselves. In fact, bras cause the breasts to droop more than they would naturally, since the artificial support from the bra results in these suspensory ligaments becoming weak and atrophying from nonuse. The breasts are also heavier when using a bra, due to fluid accumulation in the breasts from impaired lymphatic drainage. And large-breasted women are not freaks of nature who require 20th century lingerie for “support”. It’s all sales propaganda from the bra industry.

Mammograms cause radiation damage to the breasts and cause breast cancer.
Bras cause lymphatic impairment in the breasts and cause breast cancer.
Get rid of your bra, and avoid mammograms.

1. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening. m15-1241

2. DNA damage induced by mammography in high family risk patients: Only one single view in screening. science/article/pii/S0960977611004115
3. Time to stop mammography screening? 183/17/1957.short
4. Is Mammographic Screening Justifiable Considering Its Substantial Overdiagnosis Rate and Minor Effect on Mortality? https://
5. Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Second Edition (2018), Square One Publishers, NY.
6. How Bras Cause Lymph-Stasis and Breast Cancer. https:// HOW_BRAS_CAUSE_LYMPH_STASIS_AND_BREAST_CANCER
7. Bras Cause More than Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the International Bra-Free Study. Bras_Cause_More_than_Breast_Cancer_Preliminary_Results_of_the_In ternational_Bra_Free_Study