If Congressman Neil Abercrombie wasn't busy enough trying to get Barack Obama nominated for president, he now has taken time out to pressure the Vatican on the issue of torture.

Abercrombie is one of just a handful of members of Congress who do not declare a religious affiliation. Inspired by a recent Vatican statement that said such things as genetic manipulation and the gap between rich and poor can be looked upon as mortal sins, Abercrombie was moved to ask: What about torture?

It's a matter of some importance to Abercrombie and others in Congress who are trying to push through a ban on torture by federal agents. An intelligence bill that contains such a ban has been vetoed by President Bush.

It's interesting. While Abercrombie may be among the few people in public life who officially do not have a religious affiliation, he clearly understands the moral power of the Church.

No word whether the Church is willing to add torture to its ever-expanding list of mortal sins. Abercrombie might have though the Church would be particularly interested since it has been linked, somewhat unfairly, to torture through the mid evil practice of auto de fe, public repentance following the conviction of a heretic. Because burning at the stake often followed the auto de fe, torture and the inquisition of heretics became linked in the public's mind.

Hawaii was thrilled when its Democratic caucuses, moved up in time a bit to garner national attention, did just that.

Because the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was still fully pitched when the Hawaii caucuses were held, Hawaii received a lot of attention and attendance at the caucuses was phenomenal.

That same thinking and same goal was behind the decision in Florida and Michigan to push up their primary elections: Get in on the nominee-deciding action.

Unfortunately, those two states moved ahead with out Democratic Party permission and now they are being punished. Their delegates won't be allowed to vote at the August Democratic National Convention. But now, there is serious talk of a "do-over," another election to make those Michigan and Florida votes valid.

Somehow, that doesn't seem fair. Both candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states (although there was a little unauthorized campaigning and some wash over from cable television advertising). And Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

Seems like the fairest and cheapest thing to do would be to seat the two states and apportion their votes according to the distribution of the remaining legitimately seated delegates. That way they get to wear the funny hats, listen to the speeches and attend all the parties but they don't get to impact the outcome by changing the rules in midstream,

What do you think?

The controversy that engulfed the Kamehameha Schools several years ago had -- at its heart -- public and private unhappiness with the trust's attention to its basic mission: quality education of young people.

The complaints cut several ways: Too much money for the trustees. Too much of a focus on accumulating cash and making investments rather than a focus on education. Too much meddling in the basic work of educators hired to run the schools.

So, any time there is a question raised about the trust's focus on its educational mission, it is time to start paying attention.

That's the case with the latest court-appointed master's report on the school's progress. Master David Fairbanks questioned whether the Kamehameha's spending on education is increasing as fast as is the value of its portfolio,

It's a fair question. The school's answer, that its spending targets represent a percentage of a "rolling average" of the size of the endowment and that much of the gain is in increased stock value, not spendable cash, makes some sense.

But the warning remains a good one, if only to remind the schools that going off track can be traumatic for the estate and devastating for beneficiaries.

If nothing else, this new Master's report is a healthy sign that the purpose of this regular outside look at the huge trust is being honored. In the past, the Masters' reports too often read more like a rubber stamp of trustee decisions rather than a independent look.

The entire Bishop Estate controversy underlined the fact that, although this is a private trust, its size, importance and massive reach makes its activities a matter of interest and concern to the entire state. The Master's report system, along with general oversight through the attorney general's office, ensures that this public interest is recognized and heard from.

It turns out -- no great surprise -- that the Hawaii Democratic Party is having a tougher time than expected counting the "votes" from the over-the-top Tuesday precinct meetings and presidential vote.

No wonder. The word "votes" is in quotes because the way folks made their choice known was all over the map. Some voted on regular ballot slips, with their precinct noted and their choice clear and firm. But the overwhelming crowds threw all that out the window. By the end of the evening, people were scribbling names on any scrap of paper they could find and even just resorting to a voting by a raise of hands.

How could anyone maintain an accurate count, particularly if the goal is deciding how many votes came from each precinct and district?

No matter really. It was obvious to everyone that the evening belonged to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton got her share of the votes and a complete and accurate count might change the final distribution of delegates by one or two places in either direction, but not significantly.

In fact, on the theory that the bulk of the people there were for Obama, a complete tally might even show him gaining additional votes. It's likely most of those who turned away in the face of long lines and crowds were first-time Obama backers, not experienced and savvy old-timers who might be more inclined to go for Clinton.

Think of it this way: Rather than a thorough and organized counting of votes, it ended up being more a "sense of the body" kind of tally, where it is clear which direction the majority wishes to go.

One of the key selling points for Hawaii's recycling law was that by putting a price on every returnable bottle or can, they would magically disappear from our streets, parks and beaches.

Since each discard was worth a nickel, the thinking went, scavengers ranging from the homeless to organized Boy Scout troops would be out there sweeping up every loose container and digging through every can.. In fact, the City even has a wonderful euphemism for this practice: "Passive recycling."

But the City, according to a story by reporter Peter Boylan, is still thinking about putting specific recycling bins in more public parks and other municipal spaces. That should make things easier for the passive recyclers, but is it worth the money?

After all, if folks won't throw their bottles and cans into the regular garbage cans already available, why would they bother to hunt around for the recycling bin?