How about, instead of paying for more bricks and mortar for an already well-endowed school (Punahou), someone pays for funding classes on sensitivity toward all people?

There already exists an excellent guide, produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, "Teaching Tolerance," that stresses understanding and teamwork among people of different ethnicities, economic classes and religions. The program, unfortunately, does not seem to reach those who may most benefit from its message, namely, students at private institutions.

Is it because there is a false understanding that racism, sexism and homophobia do not exist at certain schools or among those of a certain class?

The students at Punahou and other private schools may very well be the leaders of society and industry in the future. Besides the emphasis on learning about survival in the ever-competitive business climate we live in, would it not be a disservice to their education if we did not teach about diversity within the society they someday will be joining?

J. Scott Janusch

Hate-crime legislation jeopardizes our speech

I sympathize with those who are victims of hate-motivated crimes, but hate-crime laws are not the cure. Violent assaults are already crimes punishable by stern penalties. Criminalizing hate will run afoul of our freedom of speech and thought and will discriminate among victims.

Courts can presently take into consideration motive, whether a violent act was premeditated and set penalties accordingly. We don't need laws that confuse the politics of hate with acts of violence.

The hate-crime law says some victims are more worthy than others. Felons will be punished more severely for hating and beating a gay, a woman or a Catholic, but not for hating and beating someone who holds offensive political views or who simply plays loud music.

Furthermore, in a free society, it is every person's right to hate whomever they please for whatever reason they prefer. Some would argue that it is actually honorable to hate and despise those who would take away our constitutional freedoms.

Finally, such a law might beg the question in court. If a Nazi punches a Jew, many will assume it is a hate crime. How will a jury know, and how will a judge make sure, that one's politics are not the evidence of a crime?

By punishing the crime, we avoid muddying the legal water. We should impose sure, swift punishment for people's misdeeds and vigorously defend their right to hold opinions, popular or otherwise.

Khalil J. Spencer

China commentary didn't make sense

Dave Polhemus' June 4 commentary on President Bush's China policy was woeful. It doesn't matter to liberals what Bush does, they don't like it.

The fact that Bush gave a man of peace, the Dalai Lama, the grand treatment is bad? The author doesn't want to offend the Chinese because they invaded Tibet (the author refers to the invasion as "liberated"). The fact that Bush doesn't allow corporate fat cats to dictate policy in China is bad? Bush's insistence on labor rights in China is bad?

Then the author backhands Bush by claiming the president has "zero" interest in American labor rights. This is an exaggeration that would make a communist journalist blush. America's work environment is the envy of the world. People risk their lives every day to emigrate to America to work, and workers from other democracies are standing in line to come here to work.

Why is defending fair labor practice, religious freedom, human rights, etc., right wing? Haven't the lies, the extremist rhetoric and actions coming from the communists during the air collision taught the writer anything? Or is the right wing in America more dangerous?

Stan Koki
Kane'ohe

Paroled prisoners face tough choices

When prisoners complete their sentences, they are given $200 and sent alone into the world, presumably to begin a new life as law-abiding citizens. In reality, however, ex-prisoners face tremendous obstacles when they try to become productive members of society.

The prison experience does little to provide a prisoner with skills or resources to find a job outside. Prison inmates must adapt to a world whose survival skills are often diametrically opposed to those that promote survival in the outside world. Prison punishes independent thinking and action. It promotes the violent resolution of personal conflicts and breaks apart the bonds of friends and family. Prison fosters dependency, idleness, violence and the deterioration of human relationships — all of which make reintegration into freedom much more difficult.

A person coming out of prison has four choices: Get a job; which will be difficult; go on welfare, which is demeaning and difficult; commit crimes; or die.

If jobs are not accessible, more will opt for crime.

Lael Samonte
Module B, Halawa Prison

Forced move is scary

The recent decision by the city Planning Commission to evict certain businesses near the Convention Center scares me. If one business is forced to move for this reason, any business can be forced to move for any arbitrary reason. It could happen to you.

Fiz Parsons

Banning distractions in cars is useless

I have the utmost respect for Tom and Ray Magliozzi, hosts of NPR's "Car Talk," and their "Click and Clack" column; however, they should stick to mechanical issues instead of suggesting in their column on cell phone use a ban on anything that is distracting in a car.

Changing a station on the car stereo, glancing at a map, glancing at directions, eating a snack, applying makeup, concentrating on placing a cup back in the cupholder, trying to read a street sign on the side of the road, changing a CD in the stereo deck, trying to light and smoke a cigarette: These are all distracting activities.

In fact, not two weeks ago I was rear-ended by a parent whose child was screaming because she dropped her toy. Perhaps the Magliozzis want to ban children screaming in a car.

There is significant research on how mere conversation with another person can reduce and divide the span of attention. So let's ban talking in cars, too. And why stop there — let's sue the automakers for putting cupholders in the cars, thereby coercing people into a distracting activity. Not!

Poor legislation is most often more dangerous and constraining to society than not having such legislation.

Von Kenric Kaneshiro

Others contributed to ADB's success

We appreciate the June 5 letter from Barbara Southern in which she recognizes the support shown for the Asian Development Bank's annual meeting by a whole host of participants and organizers.

There are, though, others who were not mentioned in her letter, including the ADB steering committee headed by Walter Dods Jr. and all the corporate sponsors and the members of the Hawai'i Business Forum who were instrumental in organizing the event and in linking local business with the international opportunities the meeting afforded.

With such a large audience being spread throughout the Convention Center over the course of the meeting, it is understandable that one would invariably miss seeing a particular legislator. Hence, in addition to the state legislators noted by Southern, kudos should also go to Sens. Bunda, Chun Oakland, English, Sakamoto and Tam and to Reps. Auwae, Bukoski, Djou, Espero, Hale, Ito, Ontai, Oshiro, Pendleton, Yoshinaga and others who participated in various ADB functions.

We are grateful for Southern's words of support for the vision of Hawai'i that the ADB meeting represents.

Seiji Naya
Director, State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism

Goldstein, Ramsay saved Hawai'i Theatre

Will the real "saviors" of the Hawai'i Theatre please stand up.

I read Mike Leidemann's article about Mary Bishop and the Hawai'i Theatre and felt the record should be corrected.

The real "saviors" of the Hawai'i Theatre are Dr. Norman Goldstein and his wife, Ramsay. While various individuals undertook efforts to save the theatre, it was Norman and Ramsay who put their name, money and considerable time into the project. Their efforts resulted in greater public attention and support for saving and restoring the Hawai'i Theatre.

Ramsay leant her considerable artistic talents to the project, and was instrumental in getting a great deal of publicity for its support. This resulted in a cartoon by Corky of Ramsay asking for help to save the theatre. Ramsay and Norman also made a substantial contribution, which enabled the group to take an option on the theatre and save it from demolition.

It was long after these efforts were under way that Mary Bishop was hired as a paid consultant. While she helped further the efforts in the project in many ways and for many years, it was Norman and Ramsay who are the real saviors of the Hawai'i Theatre.

Let's give credit where credit is due.

A. Vinton

Major differences separate parties

Is Honolulu Advertiser Capitol Bureau chief Kevin Dayton inhaling? The June 5 article postulating that Republicans and Democrats are "almost impossible to tell apart" in Hawai'i purports an hallucination.

Yes, we all want a better Hawai'i, but the difference — and it is significant — between Republicans and Democrats is how to achieve our goals.

Republicans believe in the sovereignty and responsibility of individuals; Democrats always look first to government.

Yes, Republicans and maybe some Democrats are against tax increases. Deeds speak louder than words. The Democrats have raised taxes and fees for years now. They already have our citizens toiling in tax hell. The fact is, Democrats have made Hawai'i one of the highest-taxed states in the nation.

The Democratic Legislature is rebating $1 to taxpayers; the Republican Congress is sending back $300.

Everyone wants to improve education. Democrats are wedded to a bankrupt overcentralized system and are throwing more money into the education abyss.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats support preserving Hawai'i's environment. Republicans want incentives such as tax credits for energy and recycling, while Democrats want more punitive measures and fees.

On the vast array of other measures, Hawai'i's Democrats and Republicans differ dramatically. Republicans have pushed for dramatic systemic reform. Republicans want to reduce the size of government through attrition. Democrats add employees and costs as they did this last session. Hawai'i is in economic doldrums and the state budget is growing at the rate of more than 12 percent per year while the gross state product grows at only 3 percent.

Republicans want civil service reform to give government flexibility. Democrats are locked into the status quo. Republicans want to eliminate the tax on food, medical care and housing. The Democrats continue to tax the hungry, sick and those seeking better housing. Republicans want broad tax and regulatory reform so that Hawai'i will become a fertile environment for all businesses. Democrats continue to regulate, raise fees and taxes.

Republicans measure the success of social welfare programs by the number of people liberated from dependency. Democrats measure the success of welfare by the number of people dependent on government.

Democrats have had a long-standing monopoly on state government. They are responsible for all that Hawai'i is — and is not. Is Hawai'i progressing? The Commerce Department reported that Hawai'i ranked 50th of all states during the past decade in economic growth.

Under the Democrats' rule, are our children better educated, the economy prosperous and Hawai'i achieving a leadership role in the Pacific? Democrats have proved what does not work.

No, differences between Republicans and incumbent Democrats are indeed profound. Report both sides of political issues, and we are sure the good people of Hawai'i will know what the solutions are to Hawai'i's problems.

Sen. Fred Hemmings
R-25th District (Kailua-Waimanalo)

Sen. Sam Slom
R-8th District (Hawai'i Kai-'Aina Haina)