Letters to the Editor
Send a message to the career criminals
The recent death of a Honolulu police officer, killed in the line of duty, is a grim reminder that we all live in a cruel world and life and relationships cannot be taken for granted.
But I wonder how this tragedy could have been prevented. It is so obvious to me that Hawai'i has to have a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" law. There are so many repeat offenders, many violent. It's time to get tough on criminals and create a law that puts career criminals in prison for a long time.
On top of that, have mandatory drug rehabilitation while in prison.
We'll send a very clear message to all criminals that we are not going to take this behavior anymore, that they need to change their evil ways in order to experience freedom and life in Hawai'i. Since many of them take away people's lives, theirs should be taken away in prison.
Alan Kim
'Aiea
There was no more time to wait for war
What do the following have in common?
- A stagnant national economy.
- Increased airport security, which results in increased burden on travelers, as well as higher costs to taxpayers.
- Poor performance in the stock market, with billions of dollars lost in investment equity.
- A plane flies off course, or a bomb threat is made at a school, and everybody thinks "terrorists!"
- My children, afraid of the future because they are worried about being victims of terrorist attacks.
All these things — and more — indicate how the American way of life has been threatened since thousands of innocent Americans died in the 9/11 surprise attacks on the World Trade Center. Thousands, if not millions, more stand to die if Saddam Hussein is allowed to continue violating the truce that ended the Gulf War.
Yet, before launching our much-anticipated attack on Iraq, Sen. Inouye wants even more evidence of an "imminent threat to our national security"? Does he need more innocent Americans to die, or to live the rest of their lives in fear? Go figure.
Jerry DeGuzman
Mililani
Bush, aides started this war, not military
My compliments to Diantha M. Goo for a well-thought-out letter (March 16) in answer to Malia Nash's explanation of why most war protesters are not against our military (Letters, March 9). But we are against the Bush administration, which abuses the use of our military for their private war for power, financial gains and oil.
Love our military. The military does not start wars; it is ordered to wars by elected or unelected powers in office. I value and love our military for its patriotic service to our country in time of need. Every life is precious to me; I was one of them in the Korean War, but I am against the abuse of our military for private empire building.
Bush's private war with Saddam does not represent the needs of the working Americans who must shoulder the cost of an unnecessary war with our taxes, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers in the long run while our own economy is in the dumps and unemployment growing.
Chester Lau
Pro-America rallies aren't being covered
The Advertiser has done an exceptional job at covering the anti-war rallies around the world, even when there have been fewer than a couple hundred participants.
What I haven't seen is coverage of the pro-American rallies, which drew over 25,000 in Atlanta on Saturday and over 10,000 in Philadelphia on Sunday. Recent rallies also have included 10,000 in Cleveland, 10,000 in Houston, 8,000 in San Antonio, 6,000 in Oklahoma City, 5,000 in Omaha, 4,500 in Tulsa and 3,000 in Nashville, but I didn't read that in The Advertiser.
This paper is in danger of becoming nothing but one large editorial page.
Tom Schaub
Waikiki
FDR made 'fear itself' remark on Depression
R.W. Burniske's essay in Sunday's Focus section is just another inane "it's all our fault" whine from the anti-war left. It contains one glaring factual error that must immediately be identified and corrected.
In an effort to disparage President Bush as being overly bellicose, Burniske misrepresents FDR's reaction to the attack on Pearl Harbor as being far more restrained than Bush's reaction to the crisis we now face. Burniske erroneously states that it was after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR told Americans that the only thing they had to fear was "fear itself," implying that FDR would agree with the essence of Burniske's New Age idiocy: "Today we should fear nothing more than the evil within ourselves."
But the truth is that FDR made the famous "fear itself" remark in his first inaugural address to buck up the country in the grip of the Depression in March 1933 — over eight years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred in December 1941. In fact, FDR's galvanizing speech the day after the Pearl Harbor attack — in which he called Dec. 7 "a date which will live in infamy" — was one of cold fury and steely resolve.
FDR clearly identified the evil we faced in 1941 and, contrary to the impression Burniske tries to create, FDR did not conclude that it resided within the American people, i.e. "within ourselves." He knew that it resided in Japan and Germany and that it must be forcefully confronted and completely defeated.
Tom Fagan
Decision hasn't been easy for the president
Some of the women at WCCC have been following the news on all channels about the war.
We haven't forgotten the 9/11 disaster. It hurts to hear how people are questioning President Bush's intelligence. If they put themselves in his place, they'll see he is doing what needs to be done. It hasn't been easy for him. Americans need to show more respect and stand by the president in his decision.
I have a special prayer for my nephew, Johnny Arruda, who serves in the Navy. May God give you the strength and courage to carry out your duty. May God guide you home safely. Love, Auntie Sandra.
Prayers also go out to all U.S. soldiers. May God walk with each and every one of you. We have great respect and love for all troops who stand up for America. God bless all of you.
Sandra Bryant
Roxanne Mitchell
Amy Colbaugh
Tammy Rio
Halting tourism ads is not a good idea
Regarding the Feb. 22 article titled "Tourism board drafts war plan": I'm shocked that the Hawai'i Tourism Authority has drafted a war contingency plan that includes halting all of its tourism advertising for a month because of the war.
Advertising professionals know that there are penalties charged for canceling ads for a month or two, and that we will ultimately pay more to reduce our presence than to maintain our presence, and remain competitive and top of mind with potential visitors.
Studies show that businesses that continued their advertising campaign after 9/11 recovered faster than the businesses that did not.
We must keep a consistent advertising campaign in front of potential visitors because if we don't, our competition will, and in effect they will gain market share advantage.
I hope that the HTA will rethink its strategies so that our visitor industry will get through this difficult time.
Mindy Sue Ash
Parole Board losing an exceptional person
I had many years of experience working with Al Beaver through my tenure in the state Legislature. He always gave us up-front and honest answers to our questions and inquiries, and I found him to be a tough but fair chairman of the Parole Board.
I had no reason to doubt that Mr. Beaver and the board performed thorough research and analysis on each and every individual whom they dealt with. His decisions were based on facts and information obtained by him and the Parole Board rather than public opinion and hearsay. His attorney was quoted in the media describing his client as a "straight shooter." I agree.
I just wanted to tell you, Al, that you did a great job. Hawai'i is losing a good man who was also an exceptional public servant.
Whitney T. Anderson
Waimanalo
Writer misunderstood environmental record
Regarding Karen Shishido's March 12 letter critical of my record on environmental issues: During the 2001 and 2002 legislative sessions, I passed through my committee and voted in the Senate chamber for several important environmental measures enacted into law.
One of these was Act 272, which included two key environmental provisions: (1) a provision making the utility companies accountable to reach certain benchmarks in terms of their renewable-energy production and purchasing and (2) another provision that allows for "net energy metering."
Another environmental law I helped pass was Act 176, the "Bottle Bill." In addition, just last week, I voted to kill SB 1532, the measure that would have allowed the location of refuse collection sites over drinking-water aquifers.
Ms. Shishido is also critical of my perceived position on several Senate bills that were introduced this session. Contrary to her understanding, one of those bills relating to net energy metering is still very much alive. If the bill is passed to my committee, I will schedule the measure for a hearing and consider the bill on its merits.
Concerning the other Senate bills referenced in Ms. Shishido's letter (i.e., SB 1614, SD1; SB 499, SD1; and SB 1609, SD1), many of my legislative colleagues have concerns about them, including the potential negative impact on consumers and rate-payers, the lack of adequate resources for the PUC to implement these measures, and the fact that these measures raise complex legal and technical policy issues.
Ron Menor
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Housing
Blame the doctors, not the lawyers
I heartily agree with April Ambard's suggestion (Letters, March 6) that doctors, insurers and lawyers charge only what people can afford. But she is wrong that lawyers' contingency fees are the reason for rising medical malpractice premiums.
Ms. Ambard believes insurers are raising premiums to cover the cost of "exorbitant" lawsuit settlements. She believes the settlement amounts are driven up by the rising cost of going to court and blames lawyers' contingency fees for that increase. I respectfully disagree.
First, insurance companies are experts at calculating risk. After all, it's their business. They are very capable of calculating the risk benefit of paying a certain amount in a specific lawsuit.
Second, insurers are hard-nosed business people who do not pay out a penny more than necessary. Anyone who has fought an insurance company over a claim knows that.
Third, insurers have access to all the pertinent medical records and consultants from a lawsuit's get-go. So once an insurer takes the plaintiff's deposition to lock down that testimony, the insurer is in a position to calculate the reasonable amount of damages for that case, even zero if the lawsuit really is frivolous.
Fourth, once an insurer has determined the reasonable value of a particular lawsuit, it can make an "offer of judgment" to the plaintiff. An insurer can make such an offer very easily in the lawsuit before high litigation costs have been spent. By court rule, a plaintiff has to accept or reject that kind of offer within 10 days, and if that offer is rejected, the plaintiff must then pay all the defendant's fees and costs incurred after rejection unless the plaintiff ultimately gets more damages than the offered and rejected amount.
Fifth, so if, rather than making such an early reasonable offer, an insurer drags out a lawsuit, running up hours and hours of both parties' attorneys' time, the insurer, not any contingency fee, is responsible for the "stratospheric" costs of going to court.
The plain truth is that the legal system has long protected defendants from "unscrupulous" plaintiffs and lawyers who want to use a defendant's potential defense costs for leverage in settlement. Perhaps premiums would level off if doctors and their insurance companies protected plaintiffs from the 4 percent of doctors whose incompetence accounts for 50 percent of the total malpractice damages paid.
Lunsford Dole Phillips
