The following hearing notices, which are subject to change, were sorted and taken from the Hawaii State Capitol Web site. Please check that site for updates and/or changes to the schedule at https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/hearing/hearing2.asp?press1=docs&button1=current Go there and click on the Hearing Date to view the Hearing Notice. Hearings notices for both House and Senate measures in all committees: Hearing ‘Date Time Bill Number Measure Title Committee’ 1/13/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing CPH/CPC 1/13/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing EDB-TAC-TRN 1/13/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/13/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/13/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing WAM FIN 1/13/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing ECD SAT 1/13/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing INT 1/14/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing EEP 1/14/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/14/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/14/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing FIN 1/14/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/14/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing SAT-ECD 1/14/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing TSM 1/16/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/16/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/16/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM/FIN 1/16/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing EDN 1/17/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/17/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/17/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM/FIN 1/17/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing EEP 1/17/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing EDU-HED 1/20/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/21/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM 1/21/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing WAM/TMG 1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/23/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/23/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM 1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM/EDU 1/27/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/28/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN 1/28/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM 1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM 1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM 1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
Political Tittle-tattle: News and Entertainment from Hawaii's Political Arena
”Honolulu Advertiser Editors Bash Rich While Taking Home the Big Bucks”
In the Hawaii media world, those who are employed at the Honolulu Advertiser are considered “rich.” The paper is unionized and the writers and the rest of the employees make far more than those at other newspapers, and for that matter, more than those in the television media (with the exception of primetime broadcasters) and a heck of a lot more than those in radio. So when its editorial writers take off on the “rich” as they did today, they seem, well, down-right hypocritical.
The Honolulu Advertiser editorial today entitled “Bush tax cuts boost the rich — and deficit” is no surprise to those who understand the paper’s political agenda.
Marching in step with the Democrat National Committee, the piece bashes “rich” taxpayers, citing a study that the editorial does not name (probably because it was written by the Democrat National Committee), which says the Bush plan helps the rich and hurts the poor. Specifically the study analysis is quoted as saying the top 1 percent of earners would get 28 percent of the benefit of Bush’s plan, the top 10 percent would get 59 percent and the bottom 60 percent would get 8 percent of the total.
The Honolulu Advertiser editorial ends with a call to action for Hawaii’s Congressional team: “We remind Hawaii’s delegation that we sent them to Washington, not to benefit the rich, but the rest of us.”
Come on –
Political Tittle-tattle: News and Entertainment from Hawaii’s Political Arena
”Honolulu Advertiser Editors Bash Rich While Taking Home the Big Bucks”
In the Hawaii media world, those who are employed at the Honolulu Advertiser are considered “rich.” The paper is unionized and the writers and the rest of the employees make far more than those at other newspapers, and for that matter, more than those in the television media (with the exception of primetime broadcasters) and a heck of a lot more than those in radio. So when its editorial writers take off on the “rich” as they did today, they seem, well, down-right hypocritical.
The Honolulu Advertiser editorial today entitled “Bush tax cuts boost the rich — and deficit” is no surprise to those who understand the paper’s political agenda.
Marching in step with the Democrat National Committee, the piece bashes “rich” taxpayers, citing a study that the editorial does not name (probably because it was written by the Democrat National Committee), which says the Bush plan helps the rich and hurts the poor. Specifically the study analysis is quoted as saying the top 1 percent of earners would get 28 percent of the benefit of Bush’s plan, the top 10 percent would get 59 percent and the bottom 60 percent would get 8 percent of the total.
The Honolulu Advertiser editorial ends with a call to action for Hawaii’s Congressional team: “We remind Hawaii’s delegation that we sent them to Washington, not to benefit the rich, but the rest of us.”
Come on –
Defending the USA's Anti-Ballistic Missile Program
Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!”
Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money.
However, his own statistics show that the system ”’does”’ work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” …
I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible.
Recent tests show conclusively that it ”’is”’ possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem.
An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt!
As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. …
”’Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at”’ mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Defending the USA’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Program
Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!”
Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money.
However, his own statistics show that the system ”’does”’ work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” …
I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible.
Recent tests show conclusively that it ”’is”’ possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem.
An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt!
As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. …
”’Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at”’ mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Challenging Family Court
My story of Hawaii Family Courts is typical but individual in degree and risk.
Aloha, I am a single parent challenged daily by Hawaii’s First Circuit Family Courts; stripped of all standing, researched and devoted to recover what only God can give and take away, and in fear of retaliation for my children and myself. I am typical of many of the parents I have interviewed and helped over the years, a victim of an industry with no credible database, that is under national review in every district and application that it services.
It started when I was left with my children 5 years ago, a son 6 and our daughter 8. I was threatened by their mother to be removed from these children’s lives through Domestic Violence Clearinghouse by the Family Courts. In January 1998, I petitioned that court for custody of the children left in my care.
At the time I couldn’t get over the use of lies and the documented abuses of a court, as my family was torn apart by Judge Daryll Choy, jailed twice with no charges, and disallowed the day in court I could never receive. My putative rights as my children’s father, on my motions for custody, did not exist in this man’s eyes. I was na
Defending the USA's Anti-Ballistic Missile Program
Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!” Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money. However, his own statistics show that the system ”does” work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” … I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible. Recent tests show conclusively that it ”is” possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem. An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt! As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. … ”Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at” mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Defending the USA’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Program
Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!” Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money. However, his own statistics show that the system ”does” work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” … I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible. Recent tests show conclusively that it ”is” possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem. An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt! As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. … ”Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at” mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Challenging Family Court
My story of Hawaii Family Courts is typical but individual in degree and risk. Aloha, I am a single parent challenged daily by Hawaii’s First Circuit Family Courts; stripped of all standing, researched and devoted to recover what only God can give and take away, and in fear of retaliation for my children and myself. I am typical of many of the parents I have interviewed and helped over the years, a victim of an industry with no credible database, that is under national review in every district and application that it services. It started when I was left with my children 5 years ago, a son 6 and our daughter 8. I was threatened by their mother to be removed from these children’s lives through Domestic Violence Clearinghouse by the Family Courts. In January 1998, I petitioned that court for custody of the children left in my care. At the time I couldn’t get over the use of lies and the documented abuses of a court, as my family was torn apart by Judge Daryll Choy, jailed twice with no charges, and disallowed the day in court I could never receive. My putative rights as my children’s father, on my motions for custody, did not exist in this man’s eyes. I was na
Rudolph Giuliani's Unjust Jailing of Billionaire Michael Milken
“StuartHayashi Image”
Because of the comfort he gave New York during the 9/11 crisis, the
city’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, is now widely regarded as a hero. His bravery in this emergency is indeed commendable. Still, it’s best to have a complete portrait of the man, looking at his less agreeable decrees as well.
Before becoming mayor, Giuliani first rose to fame as the district
attorney who unfairly persecuted — sorry; ”’prosecuted”’ — investment banker Michael Milken.
Throughout the eighties, Milken helped “corporate raiders” take over failing corporations, using “junk bonds.” Once the “raiders” gained control, they’d fire incompetent managers and make the organization more efficient.
This practice saved many companies from bankruptcy, but it incited
panic among inept executives.
Thus, the corporate establishment and the era’s anti-capitalist activists alike feared Milken, making them want to pulverize — even jail — him. Since “corporate raiding” was still legal then, they had to find another excuse for imprisoning him, so they accused him of violating securities regulations.
But not only were these regulations unjust, but their application to
Milken made no sense.
After relentless harassment from the media and government, Milken
couldn’t take it anymore, so he pled guilty on four counts. He consequently spent two years behind bars (it would’ve been longer, but his sentence was reduced for “good behavior”) and he’s ”’banned”’ from the securities trade ”’for life.”’
But Milken didn’t deserve that, as exhaustively demonstrated in Daniel Fischel’s book “Payback” and briefly shown in Robert Sobel’s “Dangerous Dreamers.” Let’s go over each of the four counts.
First, Milken purchased stock on behalf of the Finsbury Fund, and was legally supposed to charge the company a commission. Instead, Sobel notes, Milken “charged Finsbury a fraction of a point more on purchases, although within the market range for the security. If Milken had accepted the identical amount as a commission, no crime would have been committed.” A man spent years in confinement for ”’this”’ technicality?
Secondly, Milken assisted David Solomon in reducing his income taxes, instructing Solomon to take certain business losses in order to decrease what he’d have to pay the IRS, and then promised Solomon that he’d make up the losses later. That’s illegal, too.
Yet it’s common for people to perform certain actions, like making
charitable donations, to lessen their taxes. Milken didn’t defraud anyone — Solomon’s losses were real. And Solomon’s reducing his taxes doesn’t damage anyone’s person or property; it’s the IRS that violates ”’his”’ rights and everyone else’s by extorting money without consent.
Finally, for the other two counts, Milken was charged for “aiding and
abetting” speculator Ivan Boesky when he failed to file two statements asking for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) permission to make certain stock purchases, at Milken’s request, each to help a Milken client — Victor Posner and Golden Nugget Casino, respectively.
When Posner bid for Fischbach Corporation, Milken asked Boesky to
procure its stock too, so that speculators and regulators would assume that it was Boesky and not Posner trying to take it over.
And when Golden Nugget sold off its MCA stock, Milken had Boesky
purchase MCA stock so that speculators would see it as still being in high demand and continue to buy it at high prices even as Golden Nugget dumped it, cutting the casino’s losses.
No fraud here. Boesky promised nothing; speculators just saw him
execute trades and then they made assumptions — their own responsibility.
These deals were made with the ”’assent”’ of all parties involved. No
one was forced to buy or relinquish anything; no contracts were broken. Boesky shouldn’t even have been required, in the first place, to ask for the government’s permission to commence peaceful transactions with consenting adults; that’s his ”’right.”’
Yet Giuliani charged Milken as an “”’accessory”'” to Boesky’s
“felonies” in the cases of Posner and Golden Nugget, which legally means that Boesky was the main perpetrator. But Boesky himself wasn’t charged on either count; only Milken was.
Milken was jailed for ”’helping”’ a “criminal” commit two “crimes,” while the “criminal” he helped ”’wasn’t”’ penalized for them. That’s illogical.
And, in all preceding securities cases, breaches of such regulations
only meant ”’civil”’ penalties; Milken was the first person ”’criminally”’ charged for them.
In short, Giuliani imprisoned Milken unfairly, and at all costs. Bill
Clinton, who snubbed Milken when he asked for a pardon, isn’t known for decency, … but Giuliani ”’is.”’ So the former mayor at least owes an apology to the Milken who revitalized — not imperiled — American commerce.
”’Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at mailto:radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at”’ https://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html
Related Articles by Stuart K. Hayashi:
“Voluntary Alternatives to Taxation”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b469cf29-8413-4aec-8116-e6c7ecc0e124
“The Invisible Gun”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d631b884-9bbb-4fe3-bbd9-748388b6b720