Posted on: Friday, June 25, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Kalihi Street needs fencing to shield keiki

I have driven on Kalihi Street between King and Nimitz a couple times in the last month around 2:30 p.m. This sticks in my mind because of the huge amount of pedestrian traffic around this area. There are little keiki running all around this area, some so little it's hard to believe they are walking already.

I propose a fence between Kalihi Street and the sidewalk in this two-block area. The kids are too young to realize the danger of crossing the road at any point, and there is no way to watch all of them due to all the traffic. The crosswalks are inadequate for the number of children using them, and not enough warning signs are posted.

Along with the fence, the crosswalks should be better marked and have big speed bumps about 30 feet in front of them. There is no way to alleviate all the risks to our keiki, but there are definitely ways to reduce those risks.

Letter on 'Aina caught spirit of Bruddah Iz

Just read George "Keoki" Gosselin's June 21 letter "We are the ones who trashed beautiful 'aina," and after reading a few words, within my mind, I heard the voice of Iz reading along with me.

Kudos to you, Keoki; your words and the voice of Iz brought tears to the eyes of this 70-year-old man who has spent less than half of his life on his 'aina, which is soon to change. Articles such as yours not only make great reading but a lot of sense.

High court should have affirmed "under God'

The U.S. Supreme Court left the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, but the court's decision might not be the great victory it should have been. The majority of the justices did not rule that "under God" is constitutional. Instead, the court dismissed the lawsuit on a legal technicality.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in his opinion that "under God" is constitutional. If the rest of the Supreme Court justices had done the right thing and agreed with the chief justice, we would not have to endure this kind of attack on the Pledge of Allegiance again. But only two other justices agreed with Rehnquist.

This could very well mean that the language "under God" will be put on trial again and again until the Supreme Court finally says the words are constitutional, or until the court uses the bogus "separation of church and state" to blot out another public expression of our country's heritage. This is the ACLU's version of the so-called "separation of church and state," and we must not take this lying down.

When President Eisenhower signed the bill to add "under God" to the pledge, he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Eisenhower was right, and the court should have said so.

Letter that criticized Sharon misses mark

It was with some surprise that I read in Mark Guerin's June 15 letter, "The Sharon government does not respect basic principals of justice and human rights. The Sharon government rules with military might in the Middle East ... "

Perhaps Mr. Guerin needs to be reminded that Sharon is the only democratically elected leader in the Middle East. As such, Sharon doesn't even "rule" Israel with military might, much less the rest of the Middle East.

Now as far as principles of justice and human rights, let's examine the Palestinian intifada, which encourages Palestinian adolescents to blow themselves up and kill as many Israelis (both Jew and Arab, for that matter) as possible, and pays children $1 to throw explosives (which often go off prematurely) at Israeli soldiers.

As far as military might goes, that is precisely how Yasser Arafat has "ruled" the Palestinians for decades.

Still Guerin does come close, sort of, to touching on a difficult issue. How does a democracy protect itself from a population sworn to its destruction, that has rejected peace proposals without a counteroffer, that brainwashes and sacrifices its own children, in a way that preserves justice? Unfortunately, there is no handbook for that, and as we Americans are finding out, this is a tough nut to crack.

Renewable energy legislation is flawed

Gov. Lingle recently signed a bill (SB 2474) that requires renewable sources of energy be used by Hawai'i electric utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity by the year 2020. Renewable energy sources are such non-fossil fuel sources as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.

The worthy objective of this bill is to reduce the state's dependence on expensive imported oil and thereby keep our cost of living under better control. Unfortunately, this is one of those feel-good laws like the gas cap bill that have no sound economic basis.

Electric utility use of renewable energy sources in Hawai'i is presently about 7 to 8 percent. This level is possible because these sources can generate electricity at or below the utility's costs, which are based on oil. Under present economic conditions, a higher level is not possible without driving up the cost of electricity to consumers. This then would be the cost of "feeling good."

The preamble to this bill contains the wildly inaccurate statement that dependence on oil imports "allows electric utility companies to enjoy a financial windfall when they sell electricity to Hawai'i consumers" that in turn leads to continued importation and dependence on oil. This, of course, is nonsense since the utilities recover the cost of fuel, but no more, in the electric rates set by the state Public Utilities Commission.

With this kind of flawed economic underpinning, it should be no surprise that the subject bill is equally flawed.

Hawai'i nationals must be compensated

In his June 6 commentary, "Recognition bill a step toward reconciliation," U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka states, "I see this as the next step in the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States."

Reconciliation, as called for in U.S. public law 103-150 adopted in 1993, is a process between two or more parties whereby a process of negotiation to repair damages takes place. In this case, the offender is the United States, the injured are Hawai'i nationals, the lawful claimants to Hawai'i's sovereignty and national lands.

Over the past four years, there were seven substantive amendments to the Akaka bill, with no process to receive comments from the injured parties. Akaka bill supporters proclaim how great the Akaka bill would be for Native Hawaiians, but we can see by the language in this so-called "step toward reconciliation" that the emperor has no clothes.

The Akaka bill is also a racist effort that excludes non-Hawaiian nationals. Hawai'i was a multiracial nation, not one comprised of Native Hawaiians only.

Understanding and bitterness in Hawai'i nationals grows, calling for a true reconciliation process, one that begins with Hawai'i nationals proposing remedies to the offender, not the other way around. Funds to bring the collective thoughts of Hawai'i nationals together are required. The federal government, as the offending party, should make these funds available.

Who is the target in women's health arena?

Tayshea Aiwohi is one of approximately 275 women nationwide who have faced charges related to drug use during pregnancy — 100 in South Carolina alone.

We are looking at the inglorious and dangerous intersection of the drug war and anti-choice movement where a pregnant woman has no legal right to healthcare services, adequate housing and daycare, and where her pregnancy is just "a crime waiting to happen."

We must stop the development of laws allowing women's bodies to be treated as vessel objects. We must ask ourselves who, really, is the target of such prosecutions. Is this state looking for another way to incarcerate Native Hawaiians, just as South Carolina's prosecutions have targeted African Americans?

Comparison shows education problem

The debate about our government education system's faults continues apace. The governor wants local control, the DOE says no, the HSTA says this and that, and our Legislature tinkers; common (is that the same as dumb to some?) citizens weigh in with complaints, and the end result is confusion.

Let me try to put the whole situation in simple perspective using some round numbers gleaned from DOE documents as well as some observations and questions of my own.

After a glance at the above, do you need to know any more to answer these key questions:

• Does the DOE need more money?

• Any change called for by "dumb" citizens?

• What kind? Tinkering, massive or none at all?

You decide. Then remember in November.

The pitfalls of relative foster care

The June 11 commentary on foster care by my dear friend Sarah Casken was indeed an important one. Yet she failed to mention the enormous crisis that the "special licensed" relative caregivers face.

These families are the silent majority of foster caregivers. They are handed the arduous and unpopular task of raising, albeit temporarily, a family member's children. Sure, it's the right thing to do when faced with the choice of having beloved children placed in a stranger's home, but how does the Department of Human Services and the rest of the "system" support those families who put everything on the line for their nieces, nephews and grandkids? Who protects these families from the risks and hardships involved with becoming part of the system?

From experience, I can assure you that the situation is indeed a perilous one, where family member is pitted against family member in a vicious tug-of-war over the life and safety of "the children." These battles can last a lifetime, even after the case is closed.

Ask anyone who has had to raise her relative's children — it is the hardest position to be in, especially when there is no training provided, and the systemic family issues that may have contributed to a parent's abuse of drugs or alcohol are actually heightened within the family dynamic.

Think about it — when social workers and judges tell a relative caregiver that the kids cannot see their parents, and those same parents are that caregiver's brother, sister, cousin. That creates much stress in a family, especially in Hawai'i where 'ohana is such an important core value.

This kind of situation does not bode well for the unwitting relative caregiver, who must choose between the safety of the children and their loyalty to their own 'ohana. The emotional strain can prove too much for a relative, who must put the interests of the kids above all else, including her own relationship with family members. Major disjointing within a family is a sad result, with the children bearing the most scars.

So are children really better off with relatives? Does it hurt families or bring them together? Both questions depend on how much support caregivers, social workers, guardian ad-litems and others get from those in the judicial system and the larger community. And it depends on the strength of one's family to remain intact and weather the storms together, instead of getting caught in a downward spiral that leads to more heartache and misery for generations to come.

Still, no magic bullet has been found, but something must be done to address this hardship on families trying to keep it together for the sake of the children. Reunification with biological parents is an admirable goal of the department, one that everyone involved aims for and works toward, but it must be coupled with ongoing follow-up services for everyone involved, instead of just dropping the case once the kids are back home or adopted.