Letters to the Editor

Rail system for Hawai'i will be solid investment

I lived in San Francisco in the 1950s when a hugely expensive multi-county rail transit system was put up for public vote. We were lucky. We did not have a blinders-on naysayer with regular access to the editorial page of San Francisco's leading newspaper bad-mouthing the proposal at every opportunity.

Sure, the Bay Area plan was expensive, and we could have solved 1952's traffic congestion problems in cheaper ways, and we had no iron-clad guarantee that rail transit would be cost-effective over the long run, but a majority of the voters recognized that the plan represented an investment in the community for future generations, and voted for it.

Today that transit system is indispensable to the economic life of the San Francisco Bay region.

If I thought Honolulu were a dying city, rotting away at the core like the has-been cities of the Mainland's rust belt, I would agree with your opinionated regular columnist, Cliff Slater, that it would be stupid to put money into a new transit system here. But I see things differently. I see a vital, growing community with no end to its expansion and population growth in sight. I see a community that can be an American economic powerhouse in the Pacific.

And I see a rail transit system as a solid investment in our future.

O'ahu's roundabouts aren't being built right

Consider the roundabouts that are very common in Scotland, and those on O'ahu that have been, are being and will be installed.

To start with, the latter are not being built right. After writing to the DOT and being told I don't know what I am talking about, I went back again to the Ke'eaumoku roundabout and found that I almost had to drive over the center edge of it every time I entered the intersection. It is difficult to use, even at 5 mph.

A roundabout is correctly constructed to make you slow, not stop, so that the traffic continues on. If the DOT wants to stop the traffic, then it should put up stop signs and save us thousands of dollars. If it wants the traffic to continue to flow, then it must round off the street corners more. Or, the simple and correct way to do it would be to make the center part a bit smaller, as it should be. In Scotland, the roundabout many times takes the place of a stop light and saves millions of dollars of taxpayer money every year.

If the DOT still insists it is right, then will it please tell me why the roundabouts work fine in Scotland and other places and cause problems here in Hawai'i?

Probably the problem is that the roundabout was installed at an American intersection where two streets cross each other at right angles, whereas the rounded Scottish intersections are built for roundabouts.

Centerpieces that are too large are the other part of the problem.

These two things make the Hawai'i roundabout version not right, and yet the stubborn people at DOT, once again, refuse to consider the possibility that they could be wrong. Go try it for yourself and see.

CIA analysts were pressured on Iraq

The headline of your Jan. 31 CIA story, "CIA Iraq analysts felt no pressure," was completely misleading, as the story itself in three different places mentioned, indeed, evidence of such pressure. The headline writer thus had the facts upside-down.

The pressure in question was from the White House, for the purpose of getting the CIA to slant its intelligence findings about the danger posed by Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his group of warmongers in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans were determined long before the 9/11 calamity to bring about, for geopolitical reasons, "regime change" in Iraq.

Within hours of the 9/11 catastrophy, they seized the opportunity to push for the invasion of Iraq on the false theory that Saddam Hussein was connected with the terrorist act, possessed weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, and therefore posed an imminent threat to America's national security.

The CIA had strong reservations about all of this, hence the unrelenting pressure to get it to slant and thereby falsify its findings.

Binding arbitration cap would hurt workers

Gov. Lingle's proposal to cap binding arbitration awards to 1.5 percent discourages the employer from negotiating with the HGEA. Why would the employer negotiate if the ceiling of increased wages is fixed?

There is money, but where to spend it is the issue, and Lingle does not value spending on public worker families. Originally she said no raises due to the Iraq War, but our economy is flourishing as seen by high hotel occupancy, stocks and tax revenue, and low unemployment.

She said clerks are unimportant. Clerks are mostly women, many single mothers, low-income, working-class citizens who take on second jobs and live paycheck to paycheck. We pay 40 percent of our medical, unlike private workers, who pay as little as 1.5 percent. It's a good thing we have HGEA to negotiate equitable benefits.

Voters, beware. Democrats ensure balance in power. It's not budget-busting to pay a decent wage; it's union-busting to pass power-gaining measures by Lingle. Talk about self-interest.

Stop glorifying speed

Give us a "brake" on speeding. In a recent magazine, I read this Road Test report about a new 2004 car: " ... The GTO has a spectacular V-8, 350-horsepower engine and a sport-tuned exhaust that belts out a sonorous grumble. It's fast (0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds) ... " Isn't this an invitation for speeding? Or isn't it glorifying it? This nonsense should be stopped. That'll save lives.

'Passion of Christ' film is not anti-Semitic

I read with curiosity your Jan. 31 Associated Press story by Rachel Zoll reporting that religious groups are wary of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ." I have seen a screening of the unfinished "Passion." My father's family is Jewish. The movie is not anti-Semitic. It is a very accurate depiction of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus as portrayed in the four Gospels of the New Testament.

The movie shows various Jewish and Roman characters, some of whom are sympathetic to Jesus and some of whom are opposed to Jesus, and his message as is reported in the Gospels. The film does not blame the Jews or the Romans for what Christ suffered. In fact, the movie, faithful to the Bible account, blames all of humanity and depicts Jesus as volunteering to be crucified as God's original plan for him.

After seeing the movie, which very graphically shows the scourging and crucifixion, I looked at all four Gospels and saw that all the different scenes are found in the Bible. Aside from it not being anti-Semitic, it is a very moving film. I encourage everyone to see it, but be warned that it is painful to watch.

School board debate: What about libraries?

Facts to consider in the big Board of Education vs. seven little ones:

• The idea of an inflexible, unhearing "big brother" board is not quite accurate. The BOE regularly schedules meetings all over the state. There is always a place for public concerns on the agenda.

Back in 1996-7 when a library contract with a "big name" in the library industry went awry, the BOE first learned of the problem when public librarians went out on a limb and testified as private citizens. Over a one-year period, slightly more than half of the elected board moved from disbelief to action. Three members visited Liliha Library to gain a better understanding of the problem. A blue-ribbon panel of five community leaders and three concerned librarians was established.

In just three months, information was collected and action was taken. The problem was solved and the panel dissolved. The system in place worked for us. If we had had a decentralized system, major reform would have been even more difficult.

• Public libraries are part of the Department of Education. We carry the secret weapons of mass literacy, interesting stuff for all ages and stages. We have similar needs for adequate staffing (over 100 vacancies), and more centralized services to help reduce the paperwork (no money for new positions). Clearly, this is where we belong.

What happens to us if there are seven boards instead of one? The flip side of having many newly elected or appointed community representatives is the probability that many will not understand the practical problems teachers and librarians face.

Last year, Linda Lingle shocked the library community when she proposed we eliminate our slaves, the student helpers who work for less than minimum wage and are responsible for getting everything back on the shelf in finding order. The reason for the suggestion was "economy."

Fortunately, we didn't have to comply, but the story provides a telling example. The further away from the day-to-day operational problems, the more likely people with good intentions will make the wrong decisions.

The fans of increased local control haven't even thought of the impact of a splintered board on the governance of public libraries. Moving us to another department is not the answer.

• If the issue of seven school boards comes up for a vote, how many citizens will have considered the issues raised here?

Hawaiian sovereignty issue murky

It was encouraging to read Vicki Viotti's Jan. 26 article that "divergent groups advocating ... sovereignty" have begun to talk with one another, even though such meetings were not publicized.

And it was very refreshing to read the articles by Charles Rose and Anne Kelly (both of Jan. 18), clearly separating the Akaka-Stephens bill from the sovereignty enigma. For it seems to me that what has been known as "splintering" of various groups (within the context of the monarchy's 1893 overthrow) could be tremendously helped by some uniting force, some uniting entity.

At this point, I understand that the Akaka bill cannot be such a uniting force. I understand that going along with the Akaka bill for the "reparations" would result in only a temporary satisfaction for those who might somehow benefit from it, as, otherwise, the bill is unhelpful to the issues of sovereignty.

The Akaka bill might even be passed in Washington, and, as some clearly said, that would be the end of sovereignty issues as the Native Hawaiians could then not be treated any differently than any of the Native American tribes are.

The double talk of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs can be easily seen from Rose's urging for all Hawaiians to register to vote, regardless of blood percentage; on the other hand, one can qualify for the OHA and DHHL's piece of land only if he had a minimum 50 percent of Hawaiian blood. This is a confusing issue and will haunt everyone and every group unless it is publicly discussed and understood. The way things stand now, Mr. Rose urges anyone who claims to be Hawaiian to register; on the other hand, Ms. Kelly would like only the descendants of the 40,000 Hawaiians who were alive 111 years ago to be able to count as members of a sovereign nation.

While Mr. Rose urges everyone to register to vote as a Hawaiian, OHA trustee Linda Dela Cruz clearly confirms that there have been two separate registers of the Hawaiian people (NHR-1 and NHR-2), neither certified. I know a Caucasian woman who married a Filipino immigrant in Hawai'i, and had her three children certified as Hawaiian at birth, "just to be sure." Well!

Thus, in the end, it does seem that OHA is attempting to steamroll anyone who has a strong emotional attachment to the issues at hand. Otherwise, please, will anyone from OHA, or any other group for that matter, explain to us how those 160,000 Hawaiians living on the Mainland could register under the current OHA "drive"? How many of us knew that such a large number (2000 Census) live on the Mainland? And even more complicated, who can explain how the 40,000 Hawaiians living 111 years ago grew tenfold and still maintain any significant amount or percentage of the Hawaiian blood in them?

I am puzzled, are you not? Unresolved issues such as these spill some mighty murky waters over the issues of overthrow and the future of the true Hawaiian people.