Posted on: Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Letters to the Editor

How about targeting cigarette tossing?

Now that the city is spending all the revenue money from the "Click It or Ticket" program on media advertising for that campaign, it may be worthwhile to add a few more one-liners to this type of awareness campaign that could generate lots of money and maybe even balance the budget with all this extra cash from these additional programs that should be introduced.

How about "Flick It and Ticket" campaign? Flick your cigarette butt on the ground and get a $500 fine, if I recall seeing the signs for littering. A lot more cash than the seatbelt fine. The police can witness the incident and fine the person for littering at any bus stop, crosswalk, entrance to any eating establishment, mall, entrance to any city or state building, at public beaches and parks, and following a motorist till he flicks his cigarette butt out the window.

An ad campaign of this type would sure get a lot of butt flickers to reconsider their grossness and lack of respect for others and this state.

Now, if the city and state really want to save lives, how about just banning any person from riding in the back of trucks, period?

Amendment needed against flag burning

In your June 8 editorial "Constitution no place for election antics," the writer states that a constitutional amendment banning flag burning would be an "exception" to the right to free speech. As Americans, we should be outraged that flag burning is acceptable and not labeled inflammatory.

To many Americans in these trying times, the flag is representative of unity and hope. If Americans allow themselves to be lied to by this obviously left-leaning attack on our Constitution, they would be led to believe that a flag-burning amendment is an orgy of emotion by corrupt politicians, a switchblade to the heart of the First Amendment.

It is not.

An anti-flag-burning amendment is necessary to preserve the ideals of American society. In fact, two of our Founding Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, denounced flag burning as a means of free speech. Allowing people to burn the flag opens all sorts of unacceptable behavior to become acceptable. Where does our society draw the line between the protected and the harmful?

Many of the politicians never saw the colors placed atop a hill in a hard-won battle. Their battle cry is for tolerance of the offensive, that pornography is free speech but practicing one's faith in public is not.

The flag to which we pledge will physically grow tattered with age, though it will never be lost. Our soldiers at war today see the flag as more than a mere piece of cloth but as an affirmation of the oath taken as soldiers and a pledge given as civilians: to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and, perhaps more tragically, domestic.

How could the wall be built in the first place?

This is in regard to the massive " 'Ewa Beach Wall" on Papipi Road in 'Ewa Beach, and the city's Planning and Permitting Department's lack of following rules and regulations. Let me see — if I built a wall without a permit, the city would make me tear it down. Haseko built a wall without a permit, therefore the city Planning and Permitting Department should demand Haseko remove the wall immediately.

Nor should a permit be issued after the fact.

The wall must come down! It's as simple as that.

The city's attorney stated in court that even though the wall was built without a permit, if ordered to take down the wall, Haseko would then sue the city, which would cost millions, even hundreds of millions, of dollars. How could the city Planning and Permitting Department allow this to happen? Had it followed the rules and regulations, this would never have happened.

Travel agents are ready for Japan tours

On the evening of June 4, Consul General Masatoshi Muto invited travel agents to the consulate to promote the "Yokoso Japan" seminar. The following morning, your staff writer Kelly Yamanouchi presented her article "Campaign emphasizes affordability."

The tour companies have planned and are advertising in your paper to fully support the campaign. The agencies are not only promoting group tours to Japan but are also giving consultations to meet their desires. If anyone is interested in seeing beautiful Japan, please contact your travel agent. I am sure they will assist you to attain your goals.

Consul General Muto was a gracious host. His comments on Japan were humorous and informative. By the way, that photo of him was really nice.

More Muslims should be condemning actions

This is just a quick response to Mr. Hakim Ouansafi, who wrote the June 8 Island Voices commentary "Faces of evil hijacking our religion, values." I just want to offer a heartfelt thank you, sir, and qualify that by adding, it's about time!

I agree with your position that those animals who murdered Nicholas Berg do not represent Islam, and I, too, am mortified by the actions of our fellow citizens who were entrusted with guarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

But I say "it's about time," sir, because I've not heard enough Muslim men or women who hold positions of influence and respect, like yourself, condemn the actions of the animal terrorists who choose to denounce our values, destroy our way of life and, ultimately, kill us. There should be more prominent Muslims speaking out against the atrocities by al-Qaida and those who wish to mimic their evil acts.

At least, sir, you've done so, and that's a beginning. You've managed to soothe some of the anxiety of this believing Christian.

A matter of direction

In the June 5 Advertiser article "WAC votes to add Idaho," Herman Frazier states, "For football, we'll probably take a charter into Lewiston, Idaho, and then come down the hill." The last time I checked, one had to go up the hill from Lewiston to get to Moscow, Idaho. But then going down the hill for a refreshing dip into the Snake or Clearwater rivers might be just the antidote following an exhausting flight from Honolulu.

Forget about catching Madagascar geckos

State agriculture officials shouldn't bother wasting their time trying to catch giant (10-inch) Madagascar day geckos in Manoa.

It is silly at this point to worry about any insect-eating reptile getting established on this island. We already have many introduced species of day geckos, night geckos, skinks, chameleons, anoles, frogs and birds throughout O'ahu that eat insects.

In spite of that, we have no shortage of bugs here, and the three native forest bird species left on O'ahu have plenty of them to eat (they eat both native and non-native insects). Furthermore, native insects are already threatened by so many insectivorous species, it makes no difference if the Madagascar day gecko becomes established here.

So let's enjoy them; they're pretty!

HHSC autonomy also is jeopardized by bill

This is in response to Beverly Creamer's June 8 article "UH opposes procurement bill."

In addition to the University of Hawai'i, HB 2136 also came as a big surprise to the Hawai'i Health Systems Corp. The midnight-hour nature of this bill prevented any community and public input or discussion as to the merit of this amendment.

This is clearly contrary to the sequence of events that led to the establishment of HHSC in 1996, which involved numerous public discussions and blue-ribbon panel reports. Similar to UH, HHSC was granted autonomy under Act 262, which established HHSC. HHSC needs the flexibility of its present streamlined procurement operation to maintain the ongoing upgrades in service and medical care to the people of Hawai'i.

The present HHSC procurement system is a major factor responsible for leading the state's community hospital system out of the dark periods of days past. It has been time-tested and is a great model for other state agencies. There is no need for it to go back to the hands of the Department of Accounting and General Services.

Unique from other state agencies, the functions of the safety-net hospital system are dynamic — i.e., inpatient and outpatient care, housekeeping, maintenance, dietary, pharmacy, information systems, etc. — and they all directly impact patient safety and care.

Should the governor allow the bill to become law, it would clearly reflect that the community hospital system and the island communities were not taken into confidence. Its impact would throw the HHSC out of gear — much more than an already lean and efficient community hospital can bear.

Biotech claims are unfounded

I would like to take exception to all of the statements made by Ania Wieczorek in her May 16 commentary ("Hawai'i can decide if biotech has role in island agriculture"), but I will limit myself to two.

The first statement of hers is this: "I am convinced that organic, conventional and biotech agriculture can coexist here. The people of Hawai'i have great respect for one another's needs, and I believe that farmers within local communities are capable of deciding for themselves and agreeing among themselves that it is their responsibility to avoid the possibility of cross-pollination between conventional and biotech crop plants."

The burden and expense of preventing cross-pollination, were it an actual possibility to do so, would have to be the farmers' because the biotech companies have made it arrogantly clear, time and again, that they will not be liable for any contamination whether by outcrossing or seed dispersal or any other means. They will, however, as witness the Percy Schmeiser case in Canada, swoop down and sue any farmer whose fields happen to have been contaminated, for illegal possession of their "property."

A few years ago, the head of Oregon Tilth, one of the United States' major organic certifiers, stated that the day was coming when corn could no longer be certified as organic because contamination by outcrossing from genetically modified corn had happened so rapidly and was so widespread that soon no uncontaminated seed would exist. Indeed, many American seed companies have already admitted that they can no longer guarantee uncontaminated corn seed.

Citizens of Hawai'i, if you doubt that contamination is a problem, have the papaya in your backyard tested.

Here is the second statement by Wieczorek to which I will state my exception: "This approach is particularly effective when decisions are based on objective data produced by institutions like CTAHR, USDA and EPA, rather than on biased opinion and misinformation." Oh, how dearly do I wish this were true. It would be wonderful if Americans could rely on their government's regulatory agencies.

In fact, the only thing separating the USDA, the EPA and the FDA from Monsanto and other biotech corporations has been a revolving door through which pass back and forth the corporate executives and the regulatory agency appointees, and, alas, they have been one and the same individuals.