Blog

It has been a busy month! We are so grateful to all the people who continue to work so hard to help protect Hawaii's unique environment and cultural heritage. We have shown time and again that when we stand together we can make a difference for our public trust resources.

1.
House Ag Committee Destroys Protective Intentions of SB958 on Thursday

In the face of a historic outpouring of support for the genetic integrity of Haloa, a majority of Agriculture Committee members chose corporate biotech interests over those of Hawai'i's traditional famers yesterday. Last month, over 7,000 people from all corners of our community submitted testimony in support of a 10-year moratorium on the genetic modification of Hawai'i's most traditional and sacred food source, taro. Community members have concerns about the potential environmental impacts, unknown health consequences, and cultural impacts of genetically modifying taro. Here in Hawai'i there is clear and strong opposition to the fundamental and irreversible modification of the genes of taro, a sacred geneology.

YET, in a 9-to-3 vote, the committee amended the bill to prohibit any future bans or regulations on any GMO products, even at the county level.
They also cut the moratorium to 5 years and limited the protections to cover only the Hawaiian varieties of taro. But with these amendments Haloa will not be protected.
Now, other varieties of taro, like the popular Bun Long variety, can still be genetically altered, cross-pollinate with the Hawaiian varieties and spread genetically modified genes into our ecosystems. More startling, another amendment to the bill also robs counties & local communities of their ability to address GMO concerns in their own neighborhoods.

We are not giving up.
The kuleana to protect elder brother, Haloa, is also a kuleana to protect our lives and way of life! We stand with the taro farmers and the thousands of people who voiced uncompromised support for protecting Haloa. There are still four weeks left in the Legislative Session- anything can happen.
Learn more at the website and on the KAHEA blog.

Prepare to take Haloa to the polls and PLANT YOUR VOTE! Click here to register to vote. Be a part of Growing Change in Politics! We are woking to put together information for you on which candidates truly Malama Haloa--please stay tuned!

2.
State can uphold Marine Protections for Navy Expansion Proposal in NWHI, but will it? Your voice needed!

In 2006, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands were set aside as the first-ever marine national monument - the largest, most-protected marine reserve on earth. In the face of plans to open the area to increased human activity, six years of your persistant public pressure resulted in the creation of a true pu'uhonua (refuge) for the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, green sea turtles, millions of rare seabirds, and acres of fragile coral reefs.

But now, those protections are in jeopardy.
The U.S. Navy is proposing missile launches, experimental weapon and vehicle tests, and other inappropriate military maneuvers in the NWHI. Still yet, the co-managers have not invoked the 'minimize and mitigate' requirements of Monument regulations. Your voice is needed! The opportunity to fulfill our promise to fully protect Papahanaumokuakea begins now and will continue throughout the summer.

Today, you can help to empower the state in protecting all of our coastal resources - including the NWHI. The Coastal Zone Management Act can require the Navy to modify its proposed exercises to be consistent with Hawai'i's coastal protections to the maximum extent practicable. To do this, we are asking the State to require the Navy to prevent missiles flying over Papahanaumokuakea, limit the use of active sonar, and halt live-fire training where the contamination threatens public health.
Click here to express your support for the our coastal protections to Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Program. The comment deadline is Monday, April 7th.

And watch for updates about the Papahanaumokuakea Monument Management Plan coming out later this month. Stay involved!! This will be another key opportunity to ensure the people's Monument is fully protected, including a citizen advisory council and a publicly accountable permitting process.

3. The story is being told, and you can participate first hand.
Meet Claire Cummings, author of "Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds" on April 14!

"Uncertain Peril" tells the stories behind the rise of industrial agriculture and plant biotechnology, the fall of public interest science, and the folly of patenting seeds. Two chapters explore how biotechnology impacts Hawai'i and examines the vision of a Hawai'i that can feed itself. It explains how a more abundant future can be achieved and celebrates the innovations of local and indigenous communities who are building food systems based in a respectful relationship between people, plants, and place.

Come meet Claire Cummings - a farmer, lawyer, and journalist, who has worked extensively in Hawaii, California, and Vietnam, as well as in food policy as a former attorney for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Learn more about what is at stake in the genetic modification of our food.

Monday, April 14, 2008
6:30-8:30 p.m.

University of Hawaii at Manoa Law School Courtroom

Sponsored by KAHEA and Hawaii S.E.E.D.

You can visit www. kahea. org/gmo and KAHEA's blog for information about genetic engineering and what you can do to protect taro.

As always, mahalo nui loa for your participation and for adding your voice to the thousands who seek a vision of a different, better future for Hawai'i nei. This shared belief in a better future is at the heart of this movement for change. Mahalo for taking part.

A hui hou,

Us Guys at KAHEA

----------------------
KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance
kahea-alliance@hawaii-rr.com
1 (888) 528-6288

http://www. kahea. org
http://blog. kahea. org

E ho'omalu kakou i ka pono, ke 'ano o ka nohona a me ka 'aina mai na kupuna mai.

Protecting Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Rights and Our Fragile Environment

How to Eat Crow...
Current mood: betrayed
Category: WOW. How you treat people is how you show you valu Friends

definition of apology / definition of apologize

apologize

To make an apology.

apology

In interpersonal manners, an acceptance of responsibility for a wrong, plus a pledge to change one’s ways. The wrong may be either intentional or accidental; an apology is fitting in either case. The apology is usually made to the person or persons wronged, but may also be made to any third party to whom the wrongful act was evidence of untrustworthiness. The purpose of an apology is to put the listener at ease regarding the trustworthiness of the apologizing party.

An apology is not complete if it does not reflect all fo
four of these:
regret, understanding of the problem, acceptance of responsibility, and willingness to do better.

These are the necessary ingredients of a strong and reliable behavioral curb, a self-imposed restriction which the offender agrees to live by. It’s your best guarantee and assurance that the behavior will not happen again (in fact, that’s the whole purpose of an apology). If you don’t hear all of the above elements in the apology, ask for them. If the offender resists, be skeptical.

Apologies to Watch Out For

• Backpedaling: Beware of people who apologize sincerely, but later back away from their apologies, bringing up the disagreement over and over in statements like "You hurt me when you corrected me," as though your correction of them was not deserved or was some kind of original offense against them. Be suspicious of people whose annoyance (at being corrected) outlasts their remorse.
• The "Iffy" Apology: "I’m sorry if I hurt you." Beware that word "if," which means "Your pain is still hypothetical to me, not something I’m convinced of." It’s sometimes meant to call your perceptions into question, and to suggest that maybe you’re overreacting. If there’s no "if" about it, say so.
• "I Don’t Know What I Did": Beware the ones who apologize but claim not to understand what they’ve done wrong (even though you’ve explained it perfectly well). Their remorse is probably sincere, but they have no idea what to avoid doing in the future, and so, your trust in such people would be misplaced.
• The Attitude Apology and The "But" Apology: Any apology of the form "I’m sorry, but ____."
  Examples:
  • "I’m sorry, but you have to understand....";
  • "I’m sorry, but I was right to do that";
  • "I’m sorry, but you ____";
  • "I’m very sorry I did that, but I’ve moved on."

One thing I’ve learned about "I’m sorry, but" is that nothing before the "but" can safely be taken literally.

Remember that forgiveness only happens when someone regains your trust. And not until. Remind the offender of this, if necessary. People who value your trust (as the favor it is) are called friends, and will show concern for your happiness.

Fake Apologies and How to Recognize Them

While a true apology shows concern for the receiver, many fake apologies begin with "I’m sorry" but end with a point that is completely incompatible with remorse. Standing by what you did is not remorse, therefore not an apology.

• Demanding to be forgiven is self-serving. A good general formula to help you recognize non-apologies is "If it’s self-serving, it’s not an apology."
• Changing the subject is not an apology: "Well, what about what you did?" Changing the subject indicates an unwillingness to apologize.
• Verbal abusers often show resistance to apologizing. Continuing to insist that what you’ve done was not verbal abuse somehow, or that verbal abuse is somehow not wrong, or that Wrong is somehow relative -- that’s not an apology. The point of apologizing is not to say that the crime still feels reasonable to you.
• "I’m sorry but ____" is not an apology, because it does not communicate an understanding that you did wrong.
• Any blaming of the receiver’s perceptions: "I’m sorry you perceived that I ____." Calling someone delusional is a tactic, not an apology. See Gaslighting, Definition of.
• "You misunderstood." Pretending that your words didn’t mean what they mean, i.e. pretending that your words don’t have literal meaning, is not an apology.
• "I’m sorry you misunderstood" is a more blatant, in-your-face form. Most often, when someone says "I’m sorry you misunderstood," neither is true.
• Calling the receiver "ungrateful" for not instantly forgiving. In general, calling the receiver ethically defective, perceptually defective, etc., are not apologies, but are forms of gaslighting.
• "But I didn’t do it on purpose!" The universal excuse of good intentions isn’t an apology; it’s an excuse for doing more of the same, for continuing to offend. It’s a childish belief that one can continue acting in a hurtful way as long as there is some nebulous "good intention" involved. Hitler apologists like to make use of this one, often in the form "He was only doing what he thought was best for his country, and that’s not so evil, is it?" Yes, in fact, it is. Don’t be taken in by excuses that look at the problem through the wrong end of the binoculars. Any offense can be described from such a high level that the problematic details conveniently disappear. But the motive behind the search for such a viewpoint isn’t really remorse, is it?
• Saying "I don’t see the connection between my actions and your reaction" is not an apology. It’s a denial of responsibility. It’s a suggestion that the hearer overreacted.
• "I’m sorry [but] you ____" is not an apology. It’s a blame-shift.
• "I’m sorry you got all offended" is not an apology. It’s a slap. It’s a technique for adding insult to injury.
• "I’m sorry you feel that way" is not an apology.
• "I want to apologize" is no more an apology than "I want to lose weight" is a diet.
• "I’m sorry about what happened" is not an apology, any more than saying "I hate when that happens." When someone says "I’m sorry about what happened," consider answering, "And...what was that, exactly? I’d just like to be sure we’re on the same page." People have been known to completely miss the point and apologize for the wrong thing.
• Variant: "I regret that it happened." Referring to one’s actions as "what happened" is not an apology because the speaker is not taking responsibility. There are two kinds of phenomena: those which "just happen" (earthquakes, tornadoes, old trees falling down in the wind) and things which are caused by deliberate, chosen actions (like the house damaged by a tree which falls when a drunk driver collides with it). Of course, the drunk driver will usually claim "It was an accident," as if to say "I wasn’t the cause." This is merely propaganda, designed to trick the gullible.
• "I’m sorry for what I did" is an improvement. Still, it leaves things unsaid; it doesn’t specify what the speaker did, perhaps even conceals it on purpose, perhaps because the speaker doesn’t understand or agree that what he/she did was wrong. What a pronoun is to a noun, this statement is to an apology. A complete apology is not vague; it doesn’t say "I’m sorry about...that thing I did." If the parties don’t agree as to the nature of the error, they don’t agree as to the meaning of the apology. The promise inherent in the apology has been left blurry.
  One sometimes sees this method used between nations. The thought process seems to be, "How small an apology can I offer while still causing the receiver to think I feel remorse?"
• There are other ways of distancing oneself from responsibility. "That’s in the past" is an assertion that the passage of time is a substitute for an apology. It’s a suggestion that one is entitled to hurt others as long as no one notices for a very long time.
• "We’ve both said unfortunate things" is not an apology. It’s an accusation. It’s inflammatory. It’s an attempt to shift the spotlight.
• "I’m sorry about that. And now, isn’t there something you’d like to say to me?" An apology is not a quid pro quo -- reciprocation is not required, unless wrongdoing occurred in both directions. But if not, only an uncivilized person would apologize to you as a way of forcing an apology out of you.
• Deathbed apologies are not necessarily real. Real apologies are not triggered by intense emotions or deadlines or expediency. True apologies are motivated by "I’m sorry for what I did," not "I’m sorry we weren’t close, I wish I could figure out why we weren’t."
• "Of course I’m sorry" contains just a hint of annoyance. It’s a bit like saying "Am I sorry? What a silly question. What are you, stupid?"

Lectures Are Not Apologies.

Lecturing the victim/receiver is a particularly aggressive and defiant form of blame-shifting. Examples:

• "Everybody makes mistakes" is not an apology. It’s an assertion that apologies shouldn’t be necessary. It’s roughly equivalent to saying "Get over it" and "Grow up" and "Start learning how the world works." It’s a form of talking down to people.
• "People make mistakes." Lectures aren’t apologies. Basic pabulums accuse the listener of being simple-minded.
• "You know, relationships are based on trust. If you won’t forgive me and start trusting me again, then I don’t know how we can have a relationship." Beware of people who refuse to prove themselves trustworthy. Beware of people who think forgiving them means you are the one who has to do all the work and all the changing.
• "My religious Book says you have to forgive me." Again, self-serving remarks are not apologies.
• Any suggestion that the victim needs to learn something, like a lesson or a skill (for example, not to overreact) is not an apology. An apology would be "I’m sorry I hurt you; *I* will learn from this."
• "Get over it" and "Get past it" are not apologies; they’re attempts to trivialize the offense and to display unconcern for the hearer, to tell him or her "You are alone in this and nobody gets you."
• "You need to learn to let go" is a lecture, is mildly pathologizing, is patronizing (a form of talking down) and is a kind of gaslighting.
• Saying "Forgiveness is a choice!" is not an apology. Repentance is a choice too, and so is the lack of it.

How to Apologize: Stick to the Formula.

Apologies are learned behaviors; people don’t naturally offer apologies unless they know or have been taught the methods for apologizing: when to apologize, how to apologize, and how not to apologize.

Apologies would be so much easier if people would stick to the formula. "I want to apologize," they say, "but first I just want to add ONE more thing!" So they begin by giving you a brief apology, but then they botch it by adding something, like:

• "You’re not perfect either, you know" (plus examples)
• How disappointed they are in you, (and here’s why). OR
• How disappointed they are in you, for presuming to correct them.

These are acts of defiance, not humility, and virtually guarantee that the apology will leave a bad aftertaste.

An apology has a beginning, a middle, and most importantly, an end. When you wish to apologize, just do it, and stop there. If you continue talking after you apologize, you’ll sound insincere. Do not tack on statements of conceit or propaganda to the effect that you’re a good person -- That little voice that tells you to continue talking after the apology is the same voice that would have you believe It’s All About You. You cannot simultaneously rub someone else’s back and polish your own halo.

An Apology Does Not Require:

• Groveling. Some offenders have a mindset in which only God and the powerful deserve a sincere apology.
  This mindset believes an apology is something given by an underling to an overlord -- that apologies are only about power, not about the restoration of relationships between equals. To them, an apology is a sign of submission.
  Absolute power creates absolute attitude. Look for this attitude in those who think little people like you don’t deserve any apology, ever. And look for it in the friend who’s been waiting for the opportunity to seize control of the relationship.

An Apology Does Not Include:

• Belligerence. Saying "I’m sorry!!!" in a yelling, belligerent, or aggressive tone is certainly not very apologetic. Rather, it’s a demand that the recipient back down. It’s a threat which says "If you don’t drop the matter, I’ll raise the volume level."
• Indignation. A real apology does not include indignation at having to apologize.
• Trivialization. The words "I simply said" followed by a sanitized paraphrase of what the offender really said is not an apology, but a smoke screen.

Before Accepting any Apology

Before accepting any apology, ask yourself: "Which of the following did I see?"

• annoyance
• blame shifting and suggestions that you misunderstood or overreacted
• remorse

The less remorse you see, the more likely you are dealing with someone who doesn’t value your friendship, doesn’t fear losing it, and wouldn’t be sorry to see you go. You may wish to adjust your own efforts at reconciliation accordingly.

This advice holds true no matter who was at fault. Normal people, even blameless ones, will feel some guilt or dread at the thought of losing your friendship; but persons who show you defiance and attitude are feeling neither of those. Dread and guilt show you that there is a bond; that bond is the "glue" necessary to hold the friendship together until it mends.

Sadness, grief and mourning are the normal reactions to the anticipated loss of a valued friendship. Annoyance, on the other hand, is what people feel when a computer crashes, or a pen runs out of ink, or a car fails to start; in general, whenever something that is there to be used doesn’t do its job.

5th edition. 07 Apr 2007

about the author much of this was abriged from:

J. E. Brown, relationship activist, decided in 1987 that verbal abuse will be wiped off the planet. He has been working on it ever since.

Some abridged adapted from "How Recipients React," at Letters of Reprimand and Correction

Mahalo To Pono Kealoha!