Contrasting cartoons point out the problem

The two political cartoons in your July 11 Focus section provided an unintentional but nonetheless depressing illustration of what's wrong with American foreign policy discourse in this election year.

The comic at the top of the page condemns the United States for fighting abroad in Iraq before weapons intelligence could be completely corroborated, while the bottom cartoon lambastes the United States for not moving abroad fast enough to confront a quickly-growing humanitarian crisis in the Sudan.

The contrast between the two is doubly laughable because the criticism leveled in the Sudan comic shows Uncle Sam actually acting — albeit painfully slowly — to verify what's happening on the ground there, while the cartoonist slams him for taking too long. I wonder if this artist ever penned something similar about Iraq while Saddam tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands while the rest of the world stood aside and did nothing.

Look, we can't have it both ways. On a single page of your newspaper, the current administration is being criticized both for acting in one instance and not acting in the other. The hypocrisy is self-evident; nothing this administration does will satisfy its mostly unreasonable and irrational critics.

But what saddens me most of all is that I have no doubt the same sort of thing would be happening if a Democrat were still in office. Only then it would be Republicans criticizing the handling of the war and taunting those in power for not moving fast enough to help the suffering of Sudan.

Tell me, what exactly does all of this self-criticism and self-hate do for us?

Soldiers were indeed interviewed for film

While James Roller avoids bashing Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" in his July 10 letter, he asks, "Would Mr. Moore be willing to go to Iraq to interview the thousands of troops who are over there fighting for what they believe in and what their commander in chief has asked them to do, and for which they do so willingly, even enthusiastically?"

I don't know for certain, but that question alone strongly suggests that Roller hasn't seen the film himself. Troops in Iraq were interviewed in the film. Tear-jerking footage of a patriotic mother reading a letter from a deployed and now deceased son in Iraq shows that not all troops are there enthusiastically. A Marine who fought in Iraq also states that he refuses to go back and "kill other poor people." Another soldier in Iraq states, "We weren't supposed to be here this long."

While Moore doesn't point the camera at the schools, hospitals, public works facilities, etc., that have been put back into operation benefiting Iraqis, citizens nonetheless were interviewed. The ones shown in the film are outraged at the unnecessary deaths of their innocent family members and friends.

I agree that Moore's depiction is one-sided. Moore himself stated that "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't balanced journalism. By depicting the other one side, Moore brings balance to journalism.

Speeder responsible for taking bird's life

To those who speed recklessly every day down Halekoa Drive on Wai'alae Nui near the water reservoir, know that on June 30, one of you was responsible for the death of an innocent creature — a fledging Brazilian cardinal, just learning to fly.

That beautiful rust-crested bird will never see its parents again, never have a mate, never have the red crest of an adult cardinal.

As you barrel down Halekoa Drive jeopardizing your life and the lives and property of your neighbors, remember that cardinal who began its day with a song of joy and ended it in death.

Ka'ena Point highway would be a bad idea

Bradley Coates (Letters, July 6) must have a different slush fund from the rest of us.

Let me see — a five-mile elevated unexitable highway bordered by steel or concrete with a simple elevated parking lot designed in an unexitable configuration, should indeed cost "next to nothing."

Although I am not sure this highway would alleviate all of Wai'anae's woes, it seems a pricey venture just so visitors and locals can take advantage of the hiking trails to Ka'ena Point.

While Mr. Coates experienced "a blast" wiggling his way around the point, I experience a blast simply knowing that Ka'ena Point remains relatively pristine due to the road closure. Let's keep in mind that it is not really necessary that man leave his footprint everywhere.

And, incidentally, if a hiker is averse to walking two miles to the trails, perhaps the term "hiker" is a misnomer.

Mayor isn't living up to his hyperbole

I would expect nothing more than the flippant attitude displayed by Mayor Harris when confronted about his excessive taxpayer-subsidized travel.

Instead of sarcasm, maybe he can explain the following statement from his farewell State of the City address as it applies to his extended departures: "I have 1,000 more dreams to make this city great, enough to fill two lifetimes, and I have 337 days left to bring to fruition those that I can. I pledge to you tonight that I will make every one of those days count. This city deserves every last hour of our devotion."

Hyperbole is the mayor's best contribution to Honolulu. No wonder he's an ardent Evan Dobelle supporter.

State should find a way to save Waimanalo 'village'

On Dec. 5, 2002, The Advertiser featured an article by Kevin Dayton headlined "Cayetano grants 20 final-day pardons." The Advertiser reported the expunging of the record of Hawaiian activist Bumpy Kanahele, quoting Gov. Cayetano as saying Kanahele "is not the same guy he was way back then ... Bumpy Kanahele in my opinion has turned his life around and has become a community leader in the Hawaiian community. We've dealt with him, and I just thought he was deserving of a pardon."

To most people, "expunge" means "to strike out or obliterate," but it seems that your paper must have a different understanding to continue bringing up dead issues. Could it be to manufacture opinions?

To make things worse, last Friday's article, "Hawaiian group faces eviction," did not include even one statement from the leaseholders and was positioned inferior to an article touting Republican Gov. Lingle's signing of a bill aimed at easing the market for affordable housing units and which notably never included a reference to just what she thought an affordable rental cost was.

Pu'uhonua o Waimanalo is a social innovation of the highest order. Not only did it take people who had no place to live and no money to spend on housing, but it created an entire community that, by its own efforts, cleared the land and built homes and are respected members of the workforce and surrounding community.

The "village" sponsors programs of social and cultural significance and is raising a generation of children with respect for themselves, their heritage and their rights.

Perhaps in the effort to create affordable housing, the governor should take a closer look at this model of a successful social experiment. Hawaiians and others of aloha need more Pu'uhonuas, on all the Islands, not the eradication of this wonderful model of what can be done with hard work and aloha.

As for insurance, if the state can create a special class of insurance for lifted and lowered vehicles, it can certainly find a way to help these people insure the community they have worked so hard to create and maintain.

To do anything else is just another act of genocide to Native Hawaiians by the system that usurped them.

Probe of regents warranted

The suspicion that the Board of Regents fired President Evan Dobelle primarily because he upset a few influential people continues to bother me.

It wasn't Dobelle's East Coast arrogance, extravagant lifestyle or even the few accounting errors that seem to have upset these individuals, but the loss of power and privileges these people experienced from the changes initiated by Dobelle. Whether these changes actually made the university better seems irrelevant.

The message seems to be this: If you are a president committed to transforming the University of Hawai'i into a world-class academic institution, we do not want you. Oh, we will say we want you, but if you upset enough influential people because of these changes, we will publicly humiliate you and run you out of town. No one will support or defend you, nor will your good performance protect you.

Evan Dobelle believes this was the main reason for his firing, and I am inclined to agree with him — unless there is strong evidence otherwise. Therefore, the regents should present an explanation that would remove all doubts about their decision. If they do not present such an explanation, I recommend the following:

The Legislature and governor should create an independent body to investigate the firing of Dobelle. If the findings remove doubts about the regents' motives, then they will have preserved the public's trust in them, and the university can move on.

However, if the findings do not show this, then we should consider serious disciplinary actions against the board, including removing board members. This may seem too extreme, but consider that the regents said they fired Dobelle because he lost their trust. If the public loses trust in the Board of Regents, shouldn't we consider removing them?

Not only is the public confidence of the board at stake, but so are the prospects of making the university great. If we do not protect university presidents from influential individuals who want to maintain the status quo, we cannot expect a great university. What president desiring change and excellence would come to the University of Hawai'i under those conditions?

To avoid this situation, we need to discover the truth about the firing, and we need to hold the regents accountable if we have good reason to believe they fired Dobelle as a form of retaliation. Not doing these things would not only affect future university presidents, but future public administrators in general. Do not think that administrators from every public agency in Hawai'i are not getting the same message: Don't make too many changes or you will lose your job.

The citizens and our public leaders who genuinely desire great public institutions must emphatically reject this. They must send a powerful message that the state of Hawai'i does not support protecting the power and privilege of the few over the well-being of the many, and they will not tolerate the benefactors of the status quo destroying the public servants who strive to make our institutions great.