all about a canadian guy living in canada

Web surfing at work, Hawaii County and University of Melbourne views

Hawaii County Councilman Dominic Yagong recently requested that county employees have their web surfing monitored. One of his reasons for doing so is that there could be some correlation between extensive personal web surfing and overtime — if someone spends four hours a day at work looking at YouTube, then charges two hours of overtime, that’s probably not right. However, if someone’s taking microbreaks during the day, this probably helps keep them fresh.

A recent study seems to support this, finding that surfing the web at work leads to greater productivity. Moderate web surfing, of course. In this case the study out of the University of Melbourne found that employees who spend less than 20 percent of their work day surfing the web were more productive than those that don’t by nine percent.

I think we’d like our county employees to be more productive. Dominic Yagong ought to rescind his monitoring request and instead look at problem employees. Instead of assuming everybody’s abusing the system and setting up a blanket monitoring campaign, look at individual productivity and address the system that way. If someone’s doing two hours of overtime a day and still isn’t getting their job done, find out why. Don’t subject innocent — and productive — employees to a childish monitor. Treat them like adults, and perhaps you’ll get adult behaviour from them. Especially since monitoring their habits could cause them to become less productive.

Related posts: Are You Kidding Me? Councilman Dominic Yagong Wants To Waste Time And Money Tracking County Employees’ Web Site Visits at Big Island Chronicle.

§995 · April 3, 2009 · Hawaii · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

Aloha Kona Kids’ poor customer service

Note: this post was originally posted on March 7. I pulled it shortly after the first comment was posted, below. I’m adding an update which addresses some points made in that comment.

On January 7 I called Aloha Kona Kids to order a stroller. At that time I was told that the stroller would be in in about five weeks. The next week I received a receipt for the stroller, and that receipt says “your stroller has been ordered & will be here in approx 5 wks.”

Five weeks from January 7 is February 11.

On February 23 I called Aloha Kona Kids. Having not heard from them, I was curious to find out what happened. They did not answer their phone, so I left a message.

On February 24 I called Aloha Kona Kids twice. They did not answer their phone either time, so I left two messages.

On February 25 they called back, leaving a voicemail saying that the stroller was held up because it had to be tested for lead. This probably refers to the testing mandated by the CPSC and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which set a February 10 deadline for testing products.

However, this February 10 deadline has been known about for a while. This story is dated January 8, one day after I ordered the stroller. And regardless of when they found out about it, Aloha Kona Kids surely knew about this deadline on or just before February 10 as their orders stacked up.

When did I find out about it? February 25, two weeks after this deadline and two weeks after the approximate delivery date of February 11.

I called Aloha Kona Kids back on February 27 and was told that the stroller had passed testing and was shipped. They couldn’t give me a delivery date as they hadn’t received the manifest from the shipping as of yet, but would call back the next Monday or Tuesday to let me know.

The next Wednesday, having not received the promised call, I called them back. I was told that FedEx said it shipped but the manifest they’d received didn’t have the stroller on it. However, this apparently happens frequently, and a second half of the manifest would show up. Aloha Kona Kids said they’d call back by Friday, March 6, to let me know if the stroller would show up on March 10 or March 17.

Having not received that phone call by Friday, I called them this morning. The stroller wasn’t on the manifest but it could show up March 10, 11, or 17, and they would call when it arrives.

I’m not holding my breath. Aloha Kona Kids has shown time and time again that they are extremely hesitant to call with any sort of news. When the originally promised five week deadline passed, they should have called. After I left a voicemail the first time, they should have called. After I left a voicemail for the second time, they should have called. After promising they’d call “Monday or Tuesday”, they should have called Monday or Tuesday. After promising they’d call “by Friday”, they should have called by Friday.

We only purchased this stroller from Aloha Kona Kids because they’re a local business, and keeping money within your community is a good thing. This stroller even cost $30 more than it would have cost through Amazon, and we have to pay state tax on it as well. But to pay more money to get shoddy customer service? No thanks.

Next time we need to purchase something big and expensive for our daughter, we’re skipping Aloha Kona Kids. We’ll order from Amazon instead.

Update: After my order was cancelled, I ordered the stroller from an online retailer. Here are some points I would like to make to address Philip’s comment:

  1. I don’t actually know who Philip is. I only dealt with a woman named Lori. I only spoke once with a man on the phone, and that conversation consisted primarily of him saying that Lori was out for lunch and would call back when she got back to the store (which she did).
  2. “We have contacted you several times regarding this matter.” I was only contacted after making repeated phone calls.
  3. “I told you when you ordered the stroller it would not be sent until after Feb. 10th.” The receipt dated January 7 clearly stated that the stroller would arrive at Aloha Kona Kids approximately five weeks after it was ordered, or on or around February 11. Unfortunately I’ve since recycled the receipt, or else I’d show a picture of it demonstrating that Philip’s statement is incorrect.
  4. “I gave you the option of “will call”. That is when we call you when it arrives. No deposit is required for this. You wanted to pay for it “NOW”.” Actually, when I ordered the stroller I inquired about putting down a deposit. I gave my credit card details and only found out when I received the receipt that I had been charged the full amount.
  5. “Our prices are the same as anywhere in the mainland.” For full disclosure, I ordered the BOB Sport Utility stroller (MSRP $299) and the Infant Car Seat Adapter (MSRP $59). I was charged $329.99 for the stroller and $59.99 for the adapter. Adding tax of 4.166% my total was about $406. Everywhere I looked online for the stroller had it for $299, thirty dollars cheaper than Aloha Kona Kids. I eventually ordered the stroller from Toys ‘R’ Us for $316.90 ($299 for the stroller, free shipping, handling of $14.24, tax of $12.67, and $10 off for paying with PayPal) and the adapter from REI for $67.99 ($59 for the adapter, $8.99 for shipping) for a total cost of $384.89.

Now I’m not saying that Aloha Kona Kids is a horrible place to shop. Shopping at the actual store is great. There’s loads of interesting products that you can’t get at other Big Island stores. The in-store customer service is quite good as well. However, I received poor customer service when dealing with orders over the phone. I can’t understand this drastic shift in customer service.

I very much prefer to do as much shopping at local businesses as I can. We love Bellies, Moonsprout, and the Village Toy Shop. We do the vast majority of our grocery shopping at Island Naturals, KTA, and Sack N Save. But there comes a point when being a local business isn’t enough to keep the customer satisfied. All of the businesses I’ve mentioned here have given us excellent customer service, so we continue to shop there.

And Sandy makes the point that consumers generally have to pay a little more at local businesses than at nationwide chain stores. This is completely correct. The corollary to this is that local businesses have to justify this extra expense, and they usually do so by offering unique stock and through improved customer service. In the days of a global economy where nearly everything can be ordered online, it is difficult for local businesses to offer truly unique stock, as is evidenced by this BOB stroller example. Thus the local business has to justify the extra expense through improved customer service. When that customer service is lacking, the business should not be surprised with the customer turns to another option. Why should I pay more to get frustrated with a local business?

§957 · March 29, 2009 · Economy, Hawaii, Parenting · 10 comments · Tags:

2009 Shakespeare In The Park Auditions

The Hilo Community Players are holding auditions for the upcoming production of The Taming Of The Shrew. Directed by Randy Raphael, the 2009 Shakespeare In The Park production will be set in the early 1950s.

Auditions are to be held at the Puueo Community Center in Clem Akina Park on April 10 and 17 at 6pm, and on April 11 and 18 at 2pm.

If you’re a budding thespian or want to help out with the production, show up!

§989 · March 27, 2009 · Hawaii, Theatre · Comments Off · Tags: , , ,

Hawaii Civil Unions Bill Pau

Remember that civil unions bill going through the Hawaii Legislature? It ended up passing by a wide margin in the House, but in the Senate Judiciary Committee it failed to pass by a 3-3 vote. It turns out that the full Senate can actually pull bills through committee if they’ve ended up in a tie, and on Wednesday the Senate cast their vote.

Eighteen of the twenty-five State Senators said they publicly support civil unions for homosexual couples. Unfortunately the vote to pull the bill from committee was defeated 18-6.

The Family Equality Coalition sent out a rather gracious letter in defeat. The anti-civil union crowd was a little less than gracious:

What I found most hurtful was the people in the gallery who erupted into uncontrollable cheering and applause everytime a senator spoke in opposition to the bill. It was clear that Senate President Colleen Hanabusa was not happy with the uproars as she tried her best the quell the mob-like crowd, dressed in red, that took over the gallery. You would think a bunch of church-going, bible-toting, religious zealots would be more respectful. Shame on them!

Hopefully the tide is turning, and discrimination against homosexual people can end in Hawaii in the near future.

§987 · March 27, 2009 · Hawaii, Politics · Comments Off · Tags: ,

I’m an FBI Blogger

No, not that FBI. FBI in this case stands for “From Big Island.” That’s right, I’m a blogger from the Big Island, and Damon Tucker has tagged me as one of the select few (okay, one of twenty-five) bloggers from the Big Island whose posts are going to be aggregated on FBI Blogs.

If you’re interested in news from the Big Island, or news from around the world with a Big Island perspective, check out the FBI Blogs!

§979 · March 22, 2009 · Hawaii, Site News · Comments Off · Tags: ,

A reworking of an anti-civil union letter

Imagine if this letter were printed in a newspaper in America:

This letter is in response to “Basic Human Rights,” by Michael Ra Bauchard.

He said the celebrated tolerance of culture and religious diversity was gravely threatened in 1998 by voting against mixed race marriages. Hawaii is not a mixed race culture, and the people of Hawaii stood up and showed the radical few that make the most noise that they were against a breakdown of not only their culture, but their society. It was not because of religious extremists who deliberately mislead and manipulated the people of Hawaii. The people of Hawaii have a strong foundation of family structure and are smart enough to think on their own.

This weighs more than just “Human Rights.” It’s society that is going to pick up the bill. Do you as a “clinical raceologist” you ever stop to think about the people you affect? Or do you only think of your own selfish sexual desires?

It is also a scientific fact that not all skin colour is something you are born with, that you make that a choice. The majority of mixed race relationships are a choice, due to the excuse of past racial abuse, physical abuse, or even something fun to try.

It is also a scientific fact that the healthiest children, who will make up a healthy society, are those raised in a secure family structure of both white mother and white father. We already have so many children being raised by single parents.

By allowing mixed-race unions, we will be opening doors that will not be able to be closed. But it’s your human right, having no thought to how it affects others.

Right now, there are vicious court battles going on with mixed-race unions and children that are being torn apart because selfish adults and their human rights. It’s bad enough that this is already being done in today’s white society, but to add to it with mixed-race unions is even more destructive and confusing for children.

So I also encourage Hawaii residents to get behind our state representatives and take a courageous stand to vote “no” on civil unions. It isn’t a human right. Don’t you see? The colours don’t match! Why are you trying to make something unnatural, natural?

Colliene

Pahoa

Switch “mixed race” for “same sex” and you’ve got a letter published in today’s Hawaii Tribune-Herald.

§946 · February 25, 2009 · Hawaii, Politics · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

Mormons funding Hawaii civil union attack website?

Remember how I talked about Hawaii Family Forum and its efforts to stop civil unions in Hawaii? Well, it turns out that they’re getting some help. And if you’ve read my post on California’s Proposition 8 you’ll recognize the funders.

Andrew Cooper (via Rick MacPherson’s post) dug up some unsurprising news: a horrid website trying to foment dissent for the civil union bill is based in Orem, Utah. 98% of religious adherents in the Provo-Orem area are Mormons.

That means the odds are quite good that the good ol’ fancy underwear Mormons are bankrolling efforts to continue discrimination.

Shocked? I’m not. The Mormon church is extremely rich and uses its fortune to try to force its religion down everybody’s throat, whether by funding missionaries to spread their gospel to everybody who will hear or by trying to cram discriminatory laws through our legislatures.

Adding to this, Mr. Cooper has also found similarities between this attack site and one attacking Honolulu’s proposed rail system. That connection is a little more bizarre, I have to admit.

§930 · February 17, 2009 · Hawaii, Politics · Comments Off · Tags: , , , , ,

Ken’s House of Pancakes to close? Update: no.

There’s a rumour going around that Ken’s House of Pancakes is not going to renew its lease, which ends this October. Rumour also has it that Ken’s is going to be replaced with a Denny’s.

Ken’s is a Hilo institution. Everybody’s been to Ken’s. Almost everybody knows that when they bang the gong you yell “Sumo!” That’s what happens when someone orders a Sumo Moco – six scoops of rice, your choice of fried spam, two 5 ounce lean beef patties, or six ounces of mahi mahi. Oh, and three eggs and gravy to top it all off.

And Ken’s is open 24 hours a day. And it’s busy each one of those 24 hours. I’ve been at 1am and it was packed.

Sure, the food isn’t great. It’s a diner, it’s not high cuisine. Still, it was named one of ten great diners in America by USA Today. And honestly, the food isn’t that bad. It’s one of the rare restaurants in Hilo that has veggie bacon. And check that menu!

And it’s going to be replaced with a Denny’s? Shameful.

Let’s hope that this rumour is just a rumour and it doesn’t come to pass.

Update: Damon Tucker called Ken’s and the answer is no!

§909 · February 12, 2009 · Hawaii · 4 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Stop the Hawaii Family Forum — support civil unions in Hawaii

Three bills have been introduced to the Hawaii State Legislature (HB444, HB878, and SB458) that would allow civil unions between same-sex partners. House Bill 444 has a large number of sponsors in the Legislature, and on Thursday the House Judicial Committee recommended that it be passed.

While it’s about time that this sort of thing get passed in Hawaii, it’s not without its detractors. Take, for example, Hawaii Family Forum. As I said on Twitter, you can tell when an organization is stuck in the 1950s when it has “Family” in its name. Hawaii Family Forum is a fine example. As I found out yesterday* Hawaii Family Forum and the Roman Catholic Church (big surprise) are urging constituents to call their elected officials to get them to vote against the civil union bills.

Well, okay, they have every right to do so. But let’s look at their talking points on civil unions:

The people have spoken. In 1998, the people of Hawaii sent a clear message that marriage in Hawaii must remain between one man and one woman. Civil unions are just another attempt to thwart the will of the people. This civil union proposal is an attempt to legitimize gay marriage simply by using another title. The people have also spoken through their representatives in reaching the artful compromise that established Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary law. The law achieved the goal of providing benefits – without basing those benefits on the ill-advised sex-partner status test. The people of Hawaii have put these issues behind them. The legislature should not re-open divisive, controversial battles that have already been settled by the people.

This refers to Article I, Section 23 of the Hawaii State Constitution which reads, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The counter-argument to this is one of the arguments that the “no gay marriage” crowd sometimes trots out: civil unions aren’t marriage. Here’s how that argument goes: “We don’t want gay people to get married because marriage is a sacred institution. Why can’t gay people have civil unions instead?”

Besides, laws are enacted with specific language and wording for a reason: to make things clearer. In the eyes of the law, only gay marriage is banned in Hawaii. Gay civil unions aren’t.

Hawaii already has a reciprocal beneficiary law. In 1997 the Reciprocal Beneficiary Act HRS §572C (RBA) became law. This law allows two persons who are legally prohibited from marrying one another under state law to register their reciprocal beneficiary relationship by filing a notarized declaration with the state director of health. The RBA affords reciprocal beneficiaries certain rights that previously were reserved to spouses, for example, standing to sue for wrongful death and other tort claims, rights to an elective share upon death, authority to make health care decisions, rights to workers’ compensation benefits, rights to receive payments of wages on the death of an employee, and rights to family leave under state law.

This is quite true. However, it doesn’t afford gay couples the same rights as straight couples. As Hawaii Family Forum points out, it only affords certain rights and not equal rights.

Do we want to save the “name” of marriage, or do we want to save “marriage?” Civil unions, same-sex marriages, and domestic partnerships have the same effect of destroying marriage as we know it. When governments offer sex-partner benefits, they are essentially endorsing “gay marriage.” These sex-partner benefits send the message of government sanction of such relationships and take us one short step away from legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex. Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

I don’t actually see an argument against civil unions here, other than the vapid “civil unions… have the same effect of destroying marriage as we know it.” The best counter-argument to this talking point is “so?”

This points to their first point, where gay marriage is banned in the State Contitution. Well, unfortunately for the discriminatory voters back then, they didn’t allow for a broader definition of the word “marriage”.

Those who would redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is “love.” Yet if one accepts that rationale, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage. We love many people we do not marry.

This is part of the “slippery slope” argument that usually goes something like “if we allow gay marriage then we’ll have to allow polygamists to marry and we’ll have to allow people to marry their dogs and we’ll have to allow people to marry trees and oh god it’s all so horrible.” Well, no. See, polygamy is a choice. Bestiality is a choice. Being gay isn’t. There’s no slippery slope here, you just have to stop discrimination against people for being what they are. Banning polygamy is banning a lifestyle choice, and homosexuality isn’t a choice. See, there’s a difference here.

Besides, people marry for reasons other than love all the time.

Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization, and thus transcends our modern laws. Every long-standing society has viewed marriage as a union of male and female. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when societies deviate from the standard of marriage as the foundation of its society, they inevitably deteriorate and eventually disintegrate.

Slavery was around before the United States came along, and the US banned that. Human sacrifice was around before the United States came along, and the US banned that. Discrimination towards gay people was around before the United States came along, and it’s about time that something was done about banning that too.

I for one would like to see some of these studies mentioned in this talking point. Especially those that make a direct link between deviations from the standard of marriage and the downfall of society.

Traditional marriage and family should not be undermined. The data are clear and irrefutable – children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. Hawaii’s children must have healthy examples. Today, with 25 million children fatherless, it is callous to the extreme to be rewriting our most basic marriage laws to suit the desires of adults.

This argument never made any sense to me. “Heterosexual people suck at marriage, therefore homosexual people can’t do it.” Maybe Hawaii Family Forum should concentrate on getting heteros to stay together in marriage instead of spreading more seeds of discrimination against homos?

People should not be granted special legal protection and benefits based on their sexual preferences and behaviors.

The “sexual preferences” fallacy aside, I actually agree with this. Therefore I think Hawaii Family Forum will join me in calling for an end to special legal protection and benefits for heterosexual couples. Why should heteros get special rights that not everybody can have? That’s what special rights are, rights afforded to one group but not another! Ban straight marriage!

Oh, is that not their argument? Then I still agree with them, there should be no special rights for certain groups, so let’s give everybody the same rights!

Because that’s what this is all about: equal rights. What happened to the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are all men not created equal? Are you only equal if you like penis-in-vagina? I don’t remember reading that clause anywhere.

If you’re at all concerned about equal rights, speak out against Hawaii Family Forum and other discriminatory groups like them. Speak out in favour of equal rights legislation in your State Legislatures.

* I’d originally linked to the Twitter post where I found out about Hawaii Family Forum and its stance on civil unions, but on request of that post’s author I’ve removed their name and the link to the post.

§893 · February 7, 2009 · Hawaii, Politics · 31 comments · Tags: , , ,

Suisan Fish Market, Hilo, Hawaii

The second in my long exposure series (Singing Bridge was the first), the Suisan Fish Market has been on my list of things to photograph for some time now.

Suisan Fish Market in Hilo, Hawaii

Suisan Fish Market in Hilo, Hawaii

I think the photo works. Hilo’s street lights cast an orange pallor over the scene. The red neon from Suisan’s sign is a little drowned out, so possibly it could be recovered and bumped up in post-production.

The composition isn’t quite what I was going for, but that’s because I’d forgotten about the street lights in the area. You work with what you have, though!

§858 · January 28, 2009 · Hawaii, Photography · 1 comment · Tags: , , ,

← Older entries
Newer entries →