Intentions

I want to write to explain about what you will read here, about what my intentions are in posting. This is not your typical "blog" (a terrible sounding word for a wonder way for a private citizen to have a chance at writing to lots of folks who may be interested), or at least why I hope to avoid it becoming one. Specifically, I want to write about the considerable length of this writing and about data based opinion which I believe are the two unique aspects of this writing not often seen. The idea is to explain why this is a little different, in hopes that it can be understood as different in a useful way.

Brevity is overrated

To date the primary tax related posts have been way too long by any reasonable standards other than perhaps government accounting standards (which is actually an important area of expertise) and let me begin by stating I am not a trained accountant.

Perhaps this quote says it best - apparently it's a common enough sentiment that the quote has been attribute to any number of famous people:

“I am sorry this is so long. I didn’t have time to make it shorter.”

To put a positive spin on it, by writing at length I can publish in real-time as I work, without a proofreader and editor (not that such staff is available anyway). Also, cutting detail is a tricky business because different readers have different background knowledge - and of course different tolerance for verbiage and time constraints - so there is no right answer as to how much is too much. In my defense, this stuff is complicated. With respect to how Kauai should fairly tax homeowners, I do not (yet) have any wonderful proposed solutions. However, I am quite certain there will be no good answers that are simple and can be explained briefly. Besides, I assume everyone using the web has already learned how to skim - to get the words to you no paper and ink is wasted. Some key points are written in bold to aid skimming.

These issues are important and I think that too often we form opinions based on too little information, in part because our society is so complicated. Newspapers and online media typically impose word length limitations on writers: even with unlimited space editors don't want to subject their readers to overload. Yet, ultimately, these limitations are arbitrary; I have heard of struggles to how to give a solid explanation of an important public policy question when you only get 500 words. If "devil is in the details" (a phrase often seen in The Garden Island) there is little chance of pointing him out given 500 words but you just might catch a glimpse of the devil in here from time to time.

So, dear reader, please skim all you like here. I have tried to organize things into sections and usually there is an intro at the top and a conclusion, if there is one at all, at the end. Particularly gory details may be relegated to the end so many who probably wisely just stop at the point their interest in minutia is satisfied may never even see them. At least few readers should ever reach the end wanting more - if such folk are out there, consider leaving a comment what more they want!

Seth Godin says it well: "The public square is more public than ever, but minds are rarely changed in 140 character bursts and by selfies." If nothing else I can guarantee you will see neither of those here. Personally, I don't try to change minds, but I do strive to at least make my thinking understandable to anyone genuinely interested.

Data based

I intend to ground everything written here on data - taxes happen to be conjured almost entirely with numbers, but other topics where the data may be sources or references or photos, but point being that the writing should be grounded with supporting information. I think this is a critical starting point to having a chance of getting it right, and if I slip I welcome getting feedback to correct that.

Now the data that I use may be faulty or my analysis flawed or you simply may have different data, but at least if I show you my data and where it comes from then we can compare and make our own conclusions. Note that I am not claiming all data used is absolute indisputable fact, such data is precious hard to come by, but by backing up my conclusions with the data that produced it you get a fair chance to make that assessment yourself. Most of what you read, especially in the media with their arbitrary word length limitations already mentioned, people will claim things without telling you where they get a particular fact, and then you are stuck deciding if you trust them or not.

But trust is not a very good way to assess facts, even if you have a highly tuned sense of judgement. Often intelligent and well intentioned people get their facts very wrong: they may be misled by others, unaware of the quality of information they rely on, or simply make a mistake. Only when they disclose their sources do you have a chance to check their facts. That good people can easily get it wrong is so common (who hasn't made mistakes?) I don't think in this case specifics need mentioning.

Another great aspect of this approach is that opinions can be set aside when you focus on the data and people with different takes on an issue can find some common ground. Pesticide use and GMO has been a decisive issue on Kauai, but there is no reason that so-called "red shirts" and "blue shirts" can't have a discussion about, for example, finding the best possible data on how much Atrazine was used when and where on the island. 

Finding data that all sides agree on in the first place isn't an easy task by any means, but total agreement do not have to be the goal. Look at the range of possibilities just by attempting to find some data.

• Together, you may realize that you don't know and can't find out, and as a result consider that instead of jumping to conclusions, it might be well worth further research with perhaps a slightly more open mind.
• Some facts you can agree on, others maybe not, but you have found something you agree on and now you know what the other side disputes and can begin to ask questions as to why that is.
• One side trusts a given source while another doesn't. Knowing this you can dig into why they don't trust it, or alternatively look for other sources they might accept.

There are more possibilities to be sure but the point is that data grounds discussion. It's not going to be perfect but understanding the limitations of the information you have suggests what you need to learn.

To be clear, opinion colors all we do, so I would never claim that everything you see here is 100% true by any standard. I do choose what to write about and what not (though I try to maintain integrity and not purposefully hide data contrary to my position), how to present data. Opinions (ideally based on data) I try to label clearly as such but any interpretation of even the most cut and dried data becomes subjective quickly. There very definitely is opinion mixed in with what I hope is fairly solid data, but it should be clearly identified as such.

Perhaps most importantly data enables and sustains discussion between opposing views. Too often people are shouting past each other, uninterested or unwilling to consider new information or changing their position. "Stop poisoning the island," doesn't help build understanding, nor does "Don't worry, we know what we are doing."  Instead, we need to look at what "poisons" and how much and what effect and understand what science does and does not know about cause and effect; on the other side, if you know what you are doing then please show us what you are doing and how you know it to be safe.

This, if you will, is the data behind my approach. You don't have to agree with it but by explaining it as best I can you can now tell me what's flawed, and show me your better ideas. Even wrongheaded, by laying it out for examination - at length - I believe we can really talk about it in a meaningful way.

Feedback loop

Finally, I do want to welcome feedback. The beauty and the curse of working with data is it is very easy to get something wrong, but with corrections that can be a good thing. Since I don't have staff doing proofreading and fact checking, I welcome readers to point out errors and discrepancies and poor reasoning when it slips in. Comments have become a notorious feature of the so-called "blog-o-sphere" (a term worse than "blog") but for now are the best of a number of bad alternatives.

In the spirit of being data based, please feel free to point out errors or express disagreement. If you have better data please reference it so we can share that information. When I get analysis wrong, please point out the error and if you can offer better analysis. If you disagree with my opinions, please respect that; if you want to try selling a conflicting opinion feel free but please base it in data and rationale.

The more the merrier so long as comments are sincere and respectful - that's a given. While I get to go on and on at great length, that does not work well in comments. If you need more space, the digital equivalent of adding extra sheets of paper is to start a blog (you can get started quickly at Blogger.com, as just one possibility of countless many) and provide a link in your comment for "the rest of the story".  Perhaps the highest purpose blogging serves is as an outlet for stuff you want to write about to tell somebody because it's important to you: what I do is blog it and people will or will not read it, but my friends won't be subjected to this stuff unwillingly at least.

Anyone on the planet with a connection to the internet can read these words (a rather amazing but commonplace reality these days). In the spirit of quality data, let's keep the discussion respectful and out in the open. I am going to trust people to be civil and not moderate comments (there is some automated filtering turned out) and not make you jump through hoops to leave your thoughts. Since "logins" and passwords are such a mess, anonymous comments are allowed but please consider signing with your first name or nick name and perhaps noting what part of the island (or elsewhere, for visitors) you call home (mine is Kalaheo).

If any of this helps us understand the challenges Kauai faces a little better, make better choices about how this place works, possibly bring people together rather than divide them, that will be a good thing. That is my intention. If you read this far, mahalo!