Letters to the Editor

Military has no 'need' to blow up sacred land

Regarding Ronald L. Edmiston's May 11 letter citing the U.S. military's "need" to blow the sacred 'aina of Makua Valley to dust and slaughter all of the endangered species contained therein:

Let me get this straight. Edmiston is saying that not only are the people of Hawai'i supposed to endure 111 years of military occupation by U.S. forces, we are now supposed to allow them to destroy our 'aina so that they may be more effective in illegally invading and occupying other countries as well?

As for EarthJustice and Malama Makua "using" the American court system to block the U.S. military: Isn't that what the court system is for? To seek a just resolution to an unjust situation? Well, justice for Americans, at least. Citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom have yet to find justice in American courtrooms.

Rather than debating the merits of U.S. forces wreaking further destruction on Hawaiian soil, isn't it time we considered inviting them to pack up their mau mea make pilau, and go back where they came from?

Jasmine critics should take a big step back

To those of you who are putting down Jasmine Trias and saying you are ashamed of Hawai'i for putting her through, I have four quick comments:

• It is not a voice-only competition; it is an "American Idol" competition — total package.
• People have different tastes when it comes to music. Bob Dylan had a terrible voice, but people still loved him; it's all subjective.
• Hawai'i alone could not have carried her this far; the rest of the United States is voting for her, too.
• If you are that upset, you are taking this show way, way too seriously. Lighten up! If you support her, show your support; if you don't, no one said you had to watch.

I'm proud of both Jasmine Trias and Camile Velasco for getting into the top 12 and how they represented Hawai'i in this competition.

'American Idol' ended up with the best three

I agree with B.F. Muldrake that the "American Idol" judges' criticism of Jasmine was unwarranted, but I wonder if he is missing something.

In my opinion, the departed Jennifer and LaToya are clearly not "Idol" "divas" (leaving aside the question of whether an Idol should BE a diva) because they are too old, too jaded and too faded, already having been low-level professional singers for several years, and too boring — they are guarded, keeping their emotions bottled up and unavailable. Who needs it? George Huff was at least emotionally available, but (1) didn't have enough voice and (2) was also too old. The other losers were clearly less capable.

Jasmine, Diana and Fantasia are a great final three because they are young, wildly talented and show their emotions, which makes them endearing and easy to admire and empathize with (Fantasia is a mom, but in her case a sympathetic and likable one). They are talented dreamers with massive potential, and that, to me, is what "American Idol" is about, not the "best singer," as the judges keep repeating.

Technical merit is not the final word, and I think Simon knows it. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Simon blasted Jasmine to make sure she would make it, thereby ousting the technically perfect but soporific LaToya and guaranteeing the best final three possible for the show.

Finally, a group without a weak link!

Democratic output certainly needs 'spin'

In the opening of the article "Attention turns to re-election campaigns" in the May 9 Advertiser, I came across this statement: "I guess who puts the best spin forward is going to win out the day," said Senate President Robert Bunda, D-22nd (North Shore, Wahiawa). "Hopefully we have good things to say for our constituents."

Now this sounds like a man of confidence and wisdom. The best spin? Was the Legislature's performance so pathetic that it requires "the best spin" in order to get it past the voters? This from our supposedly wise and esteemed Senate president? Is this the best the Senate president can come up with to explain their performance — or lack thereof? Is this the best person we can elect to our Legislature to represent the citizens of Hawai'i? Are there no leaders in Hawai'i anymore?

The Democrats are running around patting themselves on the back. For what? Screwing the citizens again? The quality and quantity of legislation passed this session is nothing more than a stockpile for the next toilet paper shortage.

I will say this for the Democrats: They do have a good reason for patting themselves on the back and for those little smirks on their faces. They have once again done it to the citizens of Hawai'i, and with "the best spin forward," they will likely do it again in November.

Ala Wai boss first-class

The Ala Wai Golf Course is a great municipal golf course, acclaimed to be the most widely used public golf course in the country. Full credit for its excellent shape should go to the hard-working manager, Clarence Nakatsukasa, and his dedicated staff.

You won't find Clarence sitting in his office all day, but rather working outside with his men, rain or shine.

Personal responsibility, character are critical

David T. Johnson's May 9 commentary titled "Blame prisons for brutality" was very intriguing and revealed how prisons can cause even the best of us to conduct ourselves in a most negative manner. Mr. Johnson stated that "Situations shape behavior profoundly" and that "Prisons have the power to transform ordinary people into monsters."

In other words, if you put good people in evil places, they will do bad things.

I can see where an institution such as a prison may cause people to behave badly, but where I disagree with Mr. Johnson is how he goes on to equate "cause" with "responsibility." Mr. Johnson concludes by saying that "beware of believing that you would have acted differently than the prison guards at Abu Ghraib." In other words, our personal behavior is the responsibility of large, uncontrollable external forces and not our own.

This message about personal responsibility is the wrong one to send out, especially to our young. Our young are being conditioned to believe that they do not have to be concerned about their personal behavior because whenever they do something wrong, they are most likely a victim of the "system" and it is the system that should take the blame. Mr. Johnson's call to action is therefore to focus on the system for change.

Most unfortunately, he makes no concurrent calling for any personal action or introspection because it is not the individual's fault or responsibility.

It is clear that where there is an absence of morals or principles, we may decline individually and as a society to immoral levels. But the real point is that it should still be the responsibility of each of us to instill in ourselves and each other a sense of personal ethics and fairness that tells us the difference between good and bad, and right and wrong.

How we behave and control ourselves as individuals is basic to the creation and maintenance of a peaceful and law-abiding society.

Don't be fooled; it's not regular ed vs. special ed

I was disheartened to read Arthur Choy's response to Larry Geller's May 3 letter on special-needs children ("Regular-ed children are the ones being ignored," May 12). Substitute the words "regular ed" with "white" and "special ed" with "black" in the final two paragraphs of his letter and it seems that Mr. Choy's argument is the one used in Brown v. Board of Education 50 years ago.

Thankfully, our country is based on civil rights for all people: black, white, women, children with disabilities and so on. It is time to put the divisive "special-ed children get more attention than regular-ed children" to rest. In fact, their education has been badly neglected nationwide, and especially in Hawai'i, leading to the Felix lawsuit in 1993.

His wife being a special-education teacher, Mr. Choy must be aware that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 are simply about making sure all children have "access to the general curriculum" by requiring schools to make accommodations for individual abilities and disabilities. For example, a child without legs gets a wheelchair ramp into the classroom; a child with a specific learning deficit gets a program that will allow him to learn. Everyone pays for public education; therefore, every child is entitled to one.

The real problem is that most children, special ed and regular ed, are being ignored in public education. The percentage of regular-ed children functioning at grade level in core subjects is only marginally higher than those with "learning differences." Perhaps the DOE's failure to educate its diverse student body is not for lack of teacher effort but due to the absence of best practices methodology and a common core curriculum for all children.

Mr. Choy suggests incorrectly that the cost of special education is taken from children in regular education. These are two separate budget items. Although the DOE is often criticized because students lack textbooks, for example, the situation was the same before 1993, when virtually nothing was spent on special-needs children.

Services to special education may cost more, but state and federal special-education funds are used to benefit all children under the Comprehensive Student Support System. Unfortunately, the DOE has manipulated funds to justify more administration and bureaucracy versus direct services to children.

It is far easier to blame the children for their failures, especially the ones who cannot defend themselves. How frightening and sad it must be for a child to have a teacher or parent who views them as "not normal" and considers them instead to be an expensive burden and a chore, as Mr. Choy implies.

Beheading coverage disturbing

I am deeply troubled by your coverage of the slaughter of Nick Berg on three counts.

First, you gave headline space to al-Qaida's contention that this was done to "retaliate" for the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Any reader who follows the actions of Islamic terrorists knows that this is their common tactic. Namely, they plan their terror strikes in advance, but the statement they give the press the day the strike is carried out typically exploits whatever convenient excuse was in the news that day.

This is further borne out by the fact that the slaughter was done by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who also claims to be trying to set off a civil war in Iraq by setting off dozens of truck bombs that have killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians in the past few months. If he really meant to avenge the humiliations of the Iraqi prisoners, you'd think he would be less prone to slaughtering their family members in truck bomb attacks.

Second, I see that you are still running front-page stories on the Abu Ghraib situation for the umpteenth day in a row. That may be justifiable, but not in the context of absolutely no further coverage of the Nick Berg story, the very day after the news of his slaughter first broke, except for a long story, the gist of which is how he brought it on himself.

Imagine if you had stopped covering the Abu Ghraib story after the first day, but then ran a story the following day about how the violent acts of the Abu Ghraib prisoners may have contributed to their being in prison in the first place and explained their abuse. Or is the "blame the victim" trend going to be a new feature in which The Advertiser will stop covering rape stories, except to report how the victim "should not have been in that neighborhood" or "should not have been wearing the type of clothing" that may have "contributed" to the crime?

Your story on Nick Berg states that "it is not clear what combination of naiveté, self-confidence and bad luck" got him killed. Gee, I know this is a stretch, but is there any chance that what got him killed was a knife-wielding Islamic terrorist who was driven by an ideology of ethnic and religious hatred?

The third troubling aspect is again seen in comparison to your Abu Ghraib reporting. Your underlying theme in the Abu Ghraib story is how this seems to be reflective of the entire American military, from GIs all the way up to the top echelon. This, despite the evidence that the abuse was limited and despite the fact that this whole story was based on a leak of the Pentagon's own investigation, which is being done to gather evidence for court-martial proceedings.

Contrast this with your need to write an editorial stating that Berg's beheading "unfairly stains the name of Islam." If only The Advertiser spent as much effort defending the stain on the reputation of American soldiers than in being complicit in the libel against them.