Anecdotally, many families resist on grounds that they fear their children will have to be put into a substandard school system.

But let's put the stress on the word "anecdote" for  moment.  The mojo wire among military families is strong, but is it accurate?

An Associated Press story by Audrey McAvoy (you can read it HERE) raises that question. The story, which has gone viral, talks about how our experiment with furlough days for public school teachers only emphasizes fears that our school system is second-class at best.

But interestingly, the Army has commissioned a $1.5 million study to see if there is any concrete data to back up the anecdotal suspicions. Yes, Hawaii' public school system could do better, but is it any worse, in a material way, than systems elsewhere where military families are stationed?

Done correctly, that study will help answer a lot of questions about our schools. How much is perception and how much reality?

That leads to a level of confidence that government will respond to our thinking, maybe not always to our satisfaction, but at least we'll be heard. But as the gulf between lawmaker and citizen grows, the demand for other forms of influence naturally increases.

That's the primary cause of an organization called the Citizens in Change Foundation, a self-described "transpartisan" voter rights group focused on pushing the ideas of initiative, referendum and -- while they don't stress it --presumably recall.

The Foundation recently issued a "report card" on the 50 states for their performance on these matters. You can find it HERE.

Hawaii earned a "D" grade overall, but so did many states. We were given some credits for having local initiative and referendum rights (although these are limited) but no statewide initiative or referendum.

The implication of the report is that things could be improved if Hawaii citizens had a unilateral right to propose constitutional amendments, propose new state laws or put enacted laws up to a referendum

That's a debatable premise at best. While in an ideal world initiative, referendum and recall would be tools of the general public designed to keep elected officials in check, it rarely works that way. Generally (take a look at California, for instance), they become another avenue for big money to influence the public sector.

And with the U.S. Supreme Court now moving away from any kind of restrictions on the spending of big companies and big unions in the political arena, this trend will only become more pronounced.

If we cannot trust our elected representatives to work in our best interests, why do we have this system in the first place?

Well.  thats not likely to happen.  But the political consensus is growing that something has to change.  Our current governor, Linda Lingle, who once proposed to break up the statewide school system into more of a community-based operation, now argues that a key is to have the superintendent of education reporting to, and directly responsible to, the governor. That's the "buck stops here " model.

And now, three former governors have come out  in an op ed in The Advrtiser in favor of a new system that has instead of an elected school boartd, an appointed one, similar to the UH board of regents. In some ways, this is a half-way measure since the governor would not directly choose the school superintendent.  But it would shift some accountability to the governor's office.

This might be seen less than a full solution.. But come on. If four governors of Hawaii believe it is time to change the way things work, that's a lot of gravitas. Let's get on with it.

Two displays are under fire. One is a series of tasteful black and white photographs that offer a glimpse into gay and other alternative lifestyles. It was clearly timed to coincide with a vote (which did not happen) on a civil unions bill before the House.

The other was a display of childrens'  art that had a clear message: Most of the works, if not all, took aim at the furlough Fridays that have denied school kids a full week of education.

Free speech advocates are aghast that the state intends to have the school art display removed. The photography exhibit has run its course but otherwise might have been removed as well.

The folks who manage the Capitol are in an  awkward position. If there is any place where freedom of speech should be encouraged, it is in this seat of government. But where does it end? Should anti-same-sex advocates be allowed to have their art display put up? What about people who are angry at the unions and believe furloughs are the way out of the budget crunch? Should they be allowed put up posters or some other kind of artwork?

It's easy to how there might be no end to this. The answer is either to put aside a permanent spot for advocacy artwork, and let people rotate through on a regular and scheduled basis or to prohibit all such displays on grounds it would be nearly impossible to be equally fair to all sides.

Meanwhile, the Capitol rotunda remains a vibrant location for demonstrations, speech-making and the like. And believe it, when a group of people show up to make noise in the rotunda, lawmakers and bureaucrats alike hear them. No doubt about it.

If you don’t have enough votes to guarantee the thing becomes law, why mess around with it?

The problem here is that the issue is likely to dog lawmakers throughout the session, distracting them from other critical matters from the state budget to education.

There’s no question that the civil unions bill, as it relates to basic fairness and human rights, is important. But if legislators cannot bring themselves to pass it now, it should be set aside until other work is accomplished.

And at that point, take a vote. The public deserves to know where our representatives stand, no matter how painful it might be.

Majority Democrats are now talking about increasing the general excise tax to balanace the budget. But this is a regressive idea, bound to hit the poor more than any others. So, to offset that regressivity, there is talk about stripping the tax from  basic necessities: food and drugs.

This makes political sense, but it is an idea rejected year after year by Democrats when it was proposed by the GOP minority. Presumably, now, the idea is it is OK to cut taxes on some folks as long as they are raised somewhere else.

Let's see.

But Say is simply being realistic in a political sense. While Gov. Linda Lingle has not said whether she might veto such a measure, there is that possibility. So Say simply does not want to put his members through the wrenching and politically difficult vote if there is a possibility it won'tmake any difference.

Say has counted noses and there are enough votes to pass the measure but not necessarily enough to override a veto. So unless and until Say knows he has enough votes to override a veto or he gets a clear signal from Lingle on her intentions, he is unlikely to bring the matter to a head.

Lingle offered the idea in her State of the State speech this week before the Legislature. It was Lingle’s last such speech before her term expires.

Today’s rainy day fund is built on windfall money that came out of the national Tobacco Settlement. While that represents a lot of money, it was a one-shot deal.

Lingle now proposes that the state regularly take 5 percent of any end-of-year balance and place it in what would be called a  “Fiscal Stabilization Fund.”  After that money has been “spent,” then any excess could be applied to the constitutionally mandated surplus refund to taxpayers.

Years ago, before that constitutional change, governors could (and did) simply hang on to excess cash in the form of big carryover balances. Since 1978, that has not been possible.

The skillful salesmanship comes here: Lingle, and whomever succeeds her, will have to convince votes and taxpayers that a better use for the money is keeping it in the state treasury rather than returning it to their pockets where they can spend it as they wish.

That’s not an easy sell. But it makes sense. Let’s see if it flies. In effect, Lingle is suggested that the state tax a little more than it really needs in good times in order to have a cash float to cover disruptions during the bad times.

This is because we -- as citizens -- have trouble keeping basic decisions about our lives and our relationships with each otther to ourselves.  We want the state -- Big Brother -- to make these decisions for us.  And when the decision is difficult, or nearly impossible, we get this kind of impasse.

Fundamentally, what we need in this kind of situation is for legislators top say: "Sorry, cannot figure this out. You guys do it." That is, if people want to get married and they are of the same gender, let them. The state can decide what benefits and obligations it will impose or allow to those who say they are married, but it will apply to one and all.

Not too tricky. But because the idea of marriage is so culture-bound, it won't come easy. S0 while our schools slide ito decline and our economy staggers, legislators will remain focused on this issue that by rights, should not be their business.

And as well it should. If free speech is available to all, why should those with the biggest treasury be allowed to have the biggest megaphone? If speech = money, then then those with the most of it will speak loudest.

But the practical reality is that unions and corporations have always found ways to put their influence into the political realm. Hawaii, for instance, has a law that bans -- unlike the just overturned federal law -- direct union and corporate conntributions to political campaigns. That law is likely now a dead letter.

But as a practical matter,  unions and corporations have always found a way to influence elections. With this new High Court ruling, that influence will become a bit more transparent and direct. But it will not end.