Letters to the Editor
Kalaupapa settlement remembers Patsy Mink
The residents of Kalaupapa settlement express their sincere sorrow at the death of their great friend and benefactor, Congresswoman Patsy Mink. We also offer our deep sympathy to her husband and daughter.
Thanks to her, we had a strong voice for our defense and benefits, which was expressed many times for any need we had, even for our very existence here when the idea of a national historical park came up. A letter to her office brought an answer right away offering whatever help she could provide.
In 1989, on the centennial anniversary of the death of Blessed Damien, she was the one to lead the drive to provide enough support to repair St. Philomena Church, built by Father Damien, which is still of interest for thousands of visitors.
May the good Lord now bring her into the company of Blessed Damien, Mother Marianne and Brother Joseph Dutton, who reminded us with these uplifting words, "I was sick and you visited me. ... What you do for the least of mine, you do unto me."
Mahalo nui loa, dear Rep. Patsy Mink. Aloha, until we meet again.
Gloria Marks
Chairwoman, Kalaupapa Advisory Council
Mink was tenacious in being forthright
Lee Cataluna's column, "Playing politics with Mink," was superbly written and kudos go to her for her frankness. I totally agree with her that Patsy Mink "had little tolerance for game-playing."
Throughout the years, I have admired Mrs. Mink for her unshaken integrity and grit, her tenacity to be forthright and critical even with unpopular issues and her desire to make our Hawai'i and this nation a better place for all.
Certainly no one can "fit into her shoes" because she was a unique individual who weathered discrimination firsthand, not only as a female attorney, which was unheard of during her time, but one of Asian descent.
Hawai'i and our nation will eventually forget. But for me, she will forever be one of my heroes, for if I had the means and abilities, I too wanted to be an attorney.
G.T. Oshiro
Why won't Lingle address gas cap?
Linda Lingle talks about corruption in Hawai'i. She preaches fairness and respect to all, yet will not discuss why she will attempt to repeal the gasoline price cap law if she is elected governor.
I have been fighting for fair gasoline pricing in Hawai'i since 1997. Attempts by myself and others to contact the Lingle camp have gone unanswered.
Since 1998, internal oil company documents and disposition of oil company employees prove to me that the people of Hawai'i were being ripped off and deceived by the oil companies. A recent study by two accounting professors shows possible tax evasion by Chevron and Texaco and pricing schemes that inflated oil prices used by the Hawai'i refinery.
Key campaign supporters of the Lingle camp know who I am and know I represent the truth. Why doesn't Lingle want to deal with the truth? All my testimonies at the Legislature in regard to gasoline pricing have been substantiated by documents in the state antitrust lawsuit.
I love Hawai'i and its people and I have made great sacrifices to represent the welfare of our state. I question the integrity of Lingle's "New Beginning" and I wonder if this is just another scam at the expense of the people of Hawai'i.
Frank Young
Former Chevron dealer
Did Democratic Party sell out to Mainland?
The Democratic Party pointed out that Linda Lingle's campaign raised a considerable amount of money out of state. The GOP retorted that the Hawai'i Democratic Party raised over 35 percent of its campaign war chest out of state compared to Lingle's 25 percent.
The intimation by the Democratic Party that Lingle has sold out to Mainland interests raises the question: Did the Democratic Party sell out to the Mainland?
Does this mean that any Neighbor Island politician who receives money from Honolulu sold out to Honolulu? Does this mean that any politician who received money from those not in his district sold out to the outside contributors?
Think about it.
Ken Taira
The Harono Tunnel should be restored
There's a need for correction of a great injustice done to an individual at the whim of a higher-up: the name change of Harono Tunnel to Burns Tunnel betrayal.
The governor can remedy the situation by acknowledging his misjudgment and make the right move to reinstate the original name to the tunnel project.
History has shown that great leaders are made when they can admit mistakes and correct them.
I would suggest that the highway be named the Gov. Ben J. Cayetano Highway, leading into the Harono Tunnel.
Our governor should want to leave a lasting legacy. Now, will a great leader emerge and restore the Harono Tunnel name, or do we forget the Cayetano era and hope that someone down the line will correct this wrong?
The name change will happen — the public demands it.
Yasu Nakamatsu
Kapa'a, Kaua'i
Terrorists will attack us with Iraq's help
The Sept. 26 editorial "War with Iraq: What threat to the economy" is a tired old mouthing-off of liberal leanings with words such as "we'll take the cost out of our poor" or "extravagant tax cuts for the well-to-do."
As Ronald Reagan would have said it, "There you go again."
We should all never forget the events that occurred on 9/11. We should never ever forget that the U.S. is vulnerable and will continue to be vulnerable to terror attacks. The so-called threat to our economy pales in comparison to an atomic device exploding in the middle of New York City.
We're not talking about a nuclear explosion from an Iraqi missile but of a "made-in-Iraq" nuclear device exploded by suicide terrorists.
We're not talking of 2,000 or 3,000 people dead, but of a number 100,000 times more than those killed on Sept. 11.
To talk of tax increases in today's depressed economy is to talk of economic suicide. To completely ignore the danger posed by an Iraq acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons is to be completely naive.
What makes Iraq distinct is its waging war against Iran, invading Kuwait, using biological weapons and firing Scud missiles. This distinction makes Iraq dangerously unique with its ties to terrorists.
If Iraq does obtain the capability to produce nuclear weapons, it will use surrogate terrorist groups as a tool to explode a nuclear bomb in the middle of New York City. This will happen as surely as the sun rises from the east.
The disarmament of Iraq is an imperative that should not and cannot be ignored — much as an operable brain tumor should not and cannot be ignored. For to do so, a time will come when it will all be too late.
Ruben R. Reyes
Waipahu
Declare war on U.S. oil consumption waste
Since 9/11, virtually nothing has changed to cure our nation's dependence on imported oil. Conservation is not brought up in any of the patriotic speeches.
Sixty-five percent of all known oil reserves are in the Middle East. Think about who you are helping when you fill up your SUV.
Forty percent of U.S. oil is consumed by gas-guzzling SUV trucks and cars. It is a national disgrace that the current U.S. m.p.g. is the lowest in 20 years and U.S. car manufacturers do not sell gas-saving clean hybrid electric/gas models.
Japan has successful Toyota and Honda hybrids since car buyers have learned these cars do not have to be plugged in.
Dirty coal and oil industries get billions in tax breaks. Automakers that develop alternate cars and consumers who buy them get peanuts. The president's energy policy finally offers a small tax break for consumers who buy hybrids ($2,000) and tax breaks for installing solar energy panels on homes. Why not offer 50 percent tax breaks on hybrid cars and 100 percent tax break for solar energy consumers?
Recent news reported off-road diesel equipment (tractors, etc.) pollute more than all cars on the road today. This problem can be solved quickly by converting all construction diesels to run on soybean oil. No sulfur, no acid rain. Soybean oil can be purchased at $1 per gallon.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and President Bush must declare war on wasteful U.S. oil consumption. Our nation's long-term economic and physical health depends on fast action today.
Tom Sebas
Police escort for UH Warriors is justified
This is in response to the questions asked by Frankie Quinabo in her Sept. 4 letter regarding the police escort for our UH Warrior football team.
The buses need the police escort because our team must arrive promptly at Aloha Stadium so the hundreds of employees (parking lot attendants, ushers, police, concessionaires, janitors, etc.) who are on duty there — as well as the many nonprofit groups that man the concessions — may resume their commitment to serve the 30,000-plus fans who spend their Saturday evenings cheering the Warriors on. (Do I need to mention all the stores that profit from tailgate sales?)
Using our tax dollars is the least we could do. Family and friends of those who benefit from our Warriors should be holding "Mahalo" & "Go Warriors" signs and cheering them on while drivers beep their horns to show their support.
Lilinoe Wong
Mother of a Warrior
Due process is under attack
Question No. 3, the proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that calls for the elimination of grand juries and preliminary hearings as prerequisites to the issuance of indictments and arrest warrants in criminal cases, poses a serious threat to the due process and other constitutional protections accorded every citizen in this country.
Proponents of the measure are relying on two basic arguments in garnering support for this legislation. First, that grand juries, or the alternative preliminary hearings, are financially onerous and burdensome to the taxpayers. And second, that victims of crimes are further traumatized by the requisite that they may be compelled to testify at either of these proceedings. Neither argument has merit.
The issue of the financial hardship related to the utilization of grand juries and preliminary hearings is undermined by virtue of our constitutionally mandated system of justice that requires the state to establish that it has probable cause to charge an individual with a crime.
Traditionally, the determination of whether probable cause exists entails the presentation of evidence by the state prosecutor to a neutral fact-finder — a grand jury or a judge — who in turn determines whether the state has met its burden. In the latter instance, the accused has a right to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence to assure a more accurate presentation of facts. In both instances, if an indictment is issued, the accused has the right to review and utilize, at a subsequent trial, the evidence presented in either venue.
At the heart of this system, one that distinguishes our country from all others, is the concept that the preservation of individual liberty outweighs the concomitant costs of assuring those rights. To suggest otherwise opens the door to the proposition that the preservation of all of our constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, equal protection and the plethora of protections guaranteed our citizens, are financially burdensome.
Were the cost of preserving these protections at issue, they would never have been provided in the first place.
It is worth noting that the advent of DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of convicted persons. This indicates that mistakes are frequently made by the police and prosecutors, suggesting a need for heightened vigilance in assuring the protections of due process, rather than the opposite.
The argument that victims are again traumatized by requiring them to testify at preliminary proceedings is equally chilling in its implications. In the first place, victims are not often required to testify at grand jury proceedings, though they may be required to do so more frequently at a preliminary hearing. More importantly, our Constitution mandates that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty.
Despite the presumption of innocence, accused people are often incarcerated and unable to make bail. Elimination of the safeguard inherent in the grand jury and preliminary hearing system would undoubtedly result in the unnecessary and, incidentally, expensive incarceration of people who are subsequently found innocent at trial but whose cases have not come under earlier, expedited review by an independent authority.
Perhaps the proponents of these changes would do better to watch a few fewer episodes of "Law and Order" and spend a little more time boning up on the U.S. Constitution and what it really means.
Arthur E. Ross
Member of Hawaii Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
