Thursday, February 03, 2011
Watch suppressed video of Hawaii Senate session approving the civil unions bill
by Larry Geller
This session, like the House session at which Rep. Calvin Say was selected as speaker, is of great public interest and should have been broadcast.
Listen to the speeches for and against SB232 as it passes third reading on the Senate floor on January 28, 2011.
Unlike broadcast videos, the camera does not focus on the speaker. But the voices are loud and clear.
The civil unions bill begins at about the 3 minute point. Following the vote is part of the approval process placing Judge Sabrina McKenna on the Hawaii Supreme Court, also of interest to civil rights advocates.
Note to Hawaii legislators: You can’t hide in this Internet age. In this session, you did good, the world should know about it.
OK, so, in the case of the House Speaker vote, you've got some evidence from which to infer that broadcast coverage was "suppressed": Pat Mau-Shimizu's own words. And we also know that the debate on the civil unions bill was not broadcast but what is your basis for use of the word "suppressed" in that instance? It was a Senate proceeding so Pat couldn't have "suppressed" it. Do you know something you're not telling us?
Slom's insanity was only out matched by Hee's incoherence. Thankfully it passed in spite of the senators themselves.
Slow will be Slom, but I have indeed wondered if legislators would do things differently if they knew they would be on TV. At that session, they thought they would not.
Again I say that a lot of good is done by Hawaii legislators, and so why not let it be shown.
So, in other words, you have no basis that you're willling to disclose for asserting that the Senate debate on civil unions was "suppressed"? Was some other legislative proceeding being shown at the time? If so, were those proceedings scheduled before the floor debate such that resources could not be reallocated (assuming someone thought the floor debate was more important)?
If you do not have, or can not disclose, a basis for the "suppression" claim, why isn't it sufficient to say "it wasn't shown and it should have been"? Or do you just enjoy suggesting that there are conspiracies when you are unable or unwilling to prove them?
I never suggested that there is a conspiracy. Please note that you would not have seen these videos had they not been posted here. Sorry, but I won't disclose the background on the videos.
The House, in particular, has not exhausted its budget for broadcast videos each session, is my understanding. No conspiracy is required to decide not to broadcast sessions of high public interest.
The Capitol building is very thoroughly wired, by the way. With a little effort (and expense, of course) the public could have at least audio access to every committee hearing. Not only would that add to understanding of the legislative process, but it could help those who just want to know what's being heard right now so they can decide whether to rush down to the Capitol to give testimony.
hey anonymous. you don't have to watch it rain in the middle the night to infer, in the morning from everything outside being wet, that it has rained the night before.
and i don't think larry was suggesting that pat suppressed anything, he used the word 'like' which means he was analogizing to an event that everyone generally understands and agrees on, as Pat said in her own words.
finally, you suggest "it wasn't shown and it should have been" but actually, that's very close to what larry said in his post: "is of great public interest and should have been broadcast." i'm still unable to find where larry says something about conspiracy in his post, maybe i missed it. or maybe you are suffering from the same problem you seem to be lashing out at larry at: assuming facts not in evidence.
just a few thoughts though.
Thanks for posting this, Larry!
I was able to follow Senator Hee's comments very easily. If Anonymous : 8:06 PM HST found them to be "incoherent," the problem may be in his own reasoning abilities.
I find Senator Slom to be annoying. As far as I know, he has resisted every attempt to grant more rights to gays and lesbians unless it has been as a half-measure compromise to prevent an even greater concession. Here is a man who opposed Martin Luther King while he was alive and fighting for civil rights, yet feels no shame in lecturing the rest of us on the meaning of "civil rights" and how we dishonor Dr. King by appropriating such language.
Dr. King's widow, along with his aide, former NAACP President Julian Bond, have both explicitly said the struggle for gay and lesbian rights IS a Civil Rights struggle. But, of course, Sam, who opposed Dr. King while he was alive, has more right to define his legacy than those closest to him in life.
Sam's religious beliefs are his personal matter, but his comments about "those of us who believe in a higher power" is a weaselly statement intended to ingratiate himself with the religious conservatives who have been aroused with hostility around this issue. I believe him to be an atheist. That is not an accusation. I am an atheist myself. The accusation is one of dishonesty and opportunism. Of moral cowardice. If he is as courageous as he pretends to be, he should come out of the atheist closet. Or at least, stop preaching insincere pieties in an effort to deceive.
It's hard for me to tell what a politician is saying based on what she/he says. Nor can I sum up my theories in a short comment. But it seems to me that in their quest for power, and regardless of party but especially the Republican Right, they will co-opt causes to espouse that will in turn support them. This of course includes religion, but also white supremacy and other forms of bigotry. These groups then form the politician's constituency.
I basically try to ignore the actual words. (Unfortunately, I did listen and believe Obama). So yes, Slom's religious beliefs are a personal matter, but he needs to get re-elected. As a Republican, he is doing what others do, both the obstructionism and the religiosity, if that's the word I'm looking for. He will succeed with it, plus, since he is the last Republican still standing in the Senate, the Star-Advertiser will seek him out for comment as much as they can.
That's another aspect of this, the commercial press prefers Republicans.
Anyway, no use ranting in comments. On to the next thing, after I check tweets from Egypt.
kolea: stringing a series of 10 second sound bites together with a few quotes to historical texts and pontificating is not eloquence, it's incoherence. as a supporter of same-sex marriage, if it were within my power, i'd suppress the video too. it's embarrassing.
Links to this post: