Posted on: Wednesday, July 9, 2003

Letters to the Editor

U.S. unemployment determines poverty

Robert Rees' commentary on conservatives in Hawai'i brought back a lot of memories for me.

My longest-running difficulty with conservatives has not been in the civil rights arena. Rather, it's been the difference between their view and my view on poverty and its causes. The view of poverty as expressed endlessly on conservative talk radio is that poverty is the fault of those in poverty. "If only they were as smart, as hard working, as persistent, as self-sufficient ..." In other words, "If only they were as wonderful as I, they wouldn't be poor."

Poverty is not caused by folks not being as wonderful as you. As hard as it may be for you to believe, poverty is caused by not having a job — by being in a system that cannot, must not and will not provide enough jobs for all.

My conservative friends have great angst over the billions we've spent since President Johnson started the War on Poverty because poverty over all this time is relatively unchanged. Well, of course it's unchanged. Unemployment levels are unchanged.

So, it seems to me that those of us who benefit immensely from our beloved system owe it to those who are victimized by it for survival essentials: food, clothing, housing, education and medical care. It seems to me that the tax burden this entails is one that we should gladly bear.

The conservative conclusion is that we should eliminate all "welfare state" programs and give the taxes back to the rich. They're busily engaged in doing just that as we speak.

Witness' anonymity taken away from him

A couple of weeks ago in the Police Beat column, you reported that the police and prosecutor's office were asking for help in finding a man who was believed to be a witness to a murder. You ran a picture of the man and a description of him, which included his age, height, weight, and eye and hair colors. You also disclosed the places he is known to frequent and that he is homeless. The following day you reported that he was picked up by the HPD and where that pickup occurred.

I am wondering what you, the HPD and the prosecutor's office were thinking.

First and foremost, a man who witnesses a murder, especially of someone he knows and cares about, is a victim. Victims need to be provided with information and provisions for their safety.

They do not need to experience betrayal by the criminal-justice system, which leaves them feeling alone, frightened and vulnerable. If the victim is homeless, his only protection against retaliation from friends, family or perhaps fellow gang members of the accused may be his vague identity and uncertain whereabouts. You took both of those away from him.

Second, he is a witness to a crime and may be able to provide key testimony in support of the prosecutor's case. We all know that prosecution is a priority, especially in a murder case. However, a witness' safety should never be compromised for the sake of prosecution.

Akaka bill safeguards Hawaiians, all others

Whereas Gerard L. Friend (Letters, June 27) lists a whole litany of probables that would befall the Hawaiian people should the Akaka bill fail, he provides no answers as to how the reinstated Hawaiian government would provide a solution for (Friend's quote) "the inhabitants of the present-day Hawai'i," which consists of Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. He also refers to safeguarding the assets of the Hawaiian people.

Which is it? Is it providing a solution for all inhabitants of present-day Hawai'i, or is it safeguarding the assets of the Hawaiian people?

The Akaka bill remedies both issues.

HTA must develop better management

The headline of the commentary by Eduardo Hernandez ("Focus on good work by HTA," June 26) suggests descriptions of advances made by the Hawai'i Tourism Authority to create a vision for tourism and to fund relevant tourism-related activities. Instead, most of the article is spent trying to downplay criticism lodged against the HTA, such as holding secret meetings and having an inadequate accountability system.

Mr. Hernandez refers to these as "minor developments" without providing any rationale for his appraisal.

As if to refute the column, The Advertiser reported the following day on an audit conducted by the well-respected state auditor, Marion Higa. Although its subject was the Hawai'i Visitors and Convention Bureau, the draft report cites inadequate oversight by the HTA, which contracts with the HVCB, thereby allowing a multitude of serious abuses in the way substantial public monies have been spent.

In hie column, Mr. Hernandez highlights as an accomplishment the creation of opportunities for the public to participate in HTA meetings where tourism policy is developed. In a democratic society, any public agency such as the HTA is expected to seek public input. Indeed, the HTA manages about $60 million in annual revenues from the hotel room tax.

If its greatest accomplishment since it was established in 1998 is to involve the public, the HTA has a long way to go. The responsible thing for the HTA to do now is to adequately develop the management infrastructure that is needed to ensure that public money is being spent wisely before throwing any more of it away.

Administrators should be made accountable

As a teacher who cares about students, I have to respond to Will Hoover's June 15 article about school violence. While it is true that lack of discipline plagues schools, the source of the problem is not the students but the administrators.

Young people are malleable. They will react according to how they are treated. Most of them would not be disruptive if their school principals had a clue.

The solution is not to stigmatize students with a new law, but to make school administration transparent, accountable and competent.

Talk of three-strike rule by lawmakers is a joke

The July 1 front page of the Hawai'i section reads, "Lawmakers get 'ice' education." If they want a real education, I invite any lawmaker to come to work with me for a week.

It's a joke to hear these lawmakers talk about the three-strike rule (three felony convictions) like they have in California. That would require the Hawai'i Paroling Authority to release people early because there would not be enough room in our already overcrowded prisons. So if people would stop complaining about where to build our new prison, we could be saving many people from emotional stress and financial loss.

It's good to offer more drug treatment to inmates or to people as a condition of their probation. But it should be optional. In order for drug treatment to work, the person being treated has to feel like quitting. Most ice users don't want to quit. You can't just order them to go to drug treatment and expect it to work. Why waste counselors' time (and taxpayers' money) with people who are not willing participants?

Shifting federal funds for needy is shameful

The DOE circumvented the needy when it lowered the requirements for Title I federal funds and shifted those funds to less "entitled" schools (73 percent of the schools need Title I funds — give me a break!).

Instead of lowering the percentage of students needing reduced-price meals (if that's a good criterion, I don't know), the DOE should have raised the percentage and more specifically targeted those schools that truly need federal assistance.

Shame on you, DOE, for taking money from high-poverty schools, such as Nanakuli Elementary, and shifting it to less-deserving schools. Just because you and the Legislature can't generate enough funds or use enough ingenuity to find ways to properly educate all of the students within our public school system is no excuse for doing further injustice to the poor.

The Felix Consent Decree has proven your ineptness at handling special education, and now this proves you don't give a diddle about helping those specific public schools that truly need federal assistance.

Give 400 free trips to Hawai'i instead

I believe that the trip the governor and associates are taking to Japan will end in futility. The former governor, Ben Cayetano, did the same thing after the 9-11 disaster. The estimated expense for this trip is $200,000, and it will only put passengers on a plane to Japan, not Hawai'i.

I have a suggestion. Send two individuals to Japan with 400 free, round-trip tickets to Hawai'i. Let the 400 individuals make their hotel, car and excursion reservations via the Internet or a local travel agency in Japan or Hawai'i. Do the math. These people will help stimulate the economy in Hawai'i. All you have to do is put them on a plane and go from point A to point B.

Let's elect judges to curb judicial activism

With all the criticism about the recent Supreme Court rulings concerning affirmative action and anti-sodomy laws, no one seems to be able to suggest a solution to the blatant judicial activism these rulings represent.

I would like to suggest that we start electing all judges.

Judicial activism is rampant in U.S. courts at all levels. We, the people, are being ruled by unelected, black-robed lawyers who see no problem with ignoring the Constitution.

If judges insist on ruling us, then they should stand for election. This is the only way we can have a truly representative government.

Anti-helmet claims unfounded

It's discouraging that the controversy regarding motorcyclists' helmet use and safety never ends. When letters suggest helmets improve accident outcomes, the loyal opposition sends a flurry of letters suggesting otherwise — and the Legislature never acts.

Ken Chapman's June 12 letter "Mandatory helmet law would kill more people" is a case in point. If helmets improve safety and prevent death, mandatory requirements such as for car seat belts might be established. The only argument then would be as to whether wearing helmets should be a matter of "personal freedom of choice."

I don't think anybody would intentionally wear a helmet if it increased his risk of death or serious injury. If Mr. Chapman were correct, with appropriate documentation, serious consideration would have to be given to their use.

But is Mr. Chapman correct? Upon reading his letter, I weighed my DOT ancient and heavy police-style helmet. I wear the largest size available; it weighed in at only 1.9 pounds. Not the 4.5 he suggests.

Mr. Chapman suggests that most helmets restrict forward and peripheral vision and hearing. My ancient and heavy DOT-approved helmet does none of this. The style of helmet I wear does not cover my ears, does not interfere with hearing or vision, and, when parked, I can even use a cell phone. The small tinted visor coupled with my motorcycle's windshield protects me from rain, bugs and other flying objects.

Mr. Chapman also suggests that because of the injuries induced by helmets, "many states over the past few years have abolished their helmet laws." Hawai'i does not have a helmet law and loses millions of dollars a year in federal highway funding. This is not something that would be lightly addressed by other states. Since Mr. Chapman suggests "many states," perhaps he would be kind enough to give us a list of half a dozen or so as I am unaware of this having happened. If the injuries are caused as he suggests, I rather imagine the police and military, which require helmets because of the liability they might incur on the job, would be quite concerned. They should be asked.

This leaves us with the matter of freedom of choice, which I wholeheartedly support. But the taxpayers should also have freedom of choice. People in motorcycle accidents frequently suffer significant neurological damage, causing them to be wheelchair-bound or bedridden for the rest of their lives. Few if any carry enough insurance to cover the expenses. They then become wards of the state whom other taxpayers pay for.

Perhaps riders who do not want to wear helmets could form a "helmetless bikers league," obtaining insurance to cover them for the rest of their lives when their regular insurance runs out.

I think it is incumbent on Mr. Chapman and The Advertiser to publish the safety data that he lists as a matter of fact because my impression is that perhaps Mr. Chapman has treated the data a little too lightly. Without such data, I believe that a mandatory helmet law for many reasons would benefit all citizens of Hawai'i.