Letters to the Editor

Redemption centers messing up bottle bill

It never ceases to amaze me that our great leaders can mess up the simplest things. There have been deposit programs in existence for decades, and only in Hawai'i can no one decide how it should be done. In most places, the retailers are required to take back and refund the deposit. But here the lack of leadership has resulted in a program that no one understands.

Some genius made the decision to have redemption centers. This is a thinly disguised scheme to have customers discard the containers rather than make a trip to a redemption center. Hmmm, wonder who keeps the deposits that are not reclaimed. Oh well, it is just business as usual and part of the price to be paid for living in paradise.

Please at least mark chemical-treated spots

This is in response to Terry Hill's Nov. 23 letter on the use of poisons in public parks. We live near Nahele Neighborhood Park in 'Aiea, and a little over two years ago, the city used a vegetation killer along the fence surrounding the park. We regularly walk our dogs on the public sidewalk next to these fences.

Unbeknownst to us, we walked our two papillons shortly after spray had been put on the vegetation. Unfortunately it was still wet. We don't know the cause for sure, but about two days later one of our dogs died unexpectedly from a lung problem. We called the parks personnel and they actually laughed. The supervisor finally said they wouldn't do it again, or would let us know if they did. A few months ago, they sprayed again. When we asked them about it, they said it was a public park and they could do what they wanted to maintain it.

I feel that as a minimum, the city should be required to use special little flags (like the ones often used to mark sprinkler heads) to mark areas that have been sprayed with anything that is considered a "chemical." This is mandatory for everybody, even private homeowners, in many states on the Mainland. It was bad enough losing a dog; I'd hate to think of somebody losing a small child due to careless chemical spraying.

Subject of article was attacked unfairly

I read your Nov. 21 article about Chang Yoo ("Official's role in friend's contracts probed"). I am serving with him as his platoon leader in the 29th Brigade. Never will you find a more honest man. Your evidence was circumstantial and was based in part on the words of a man's ex-wife who seems intent on bringing him down.

I have known Chang Yoo for many years now. There is no better non-commissioned officer in our entire brigade. He is honest and has the support of all of the troops in his platoon, and is a man whom I would die for or walk through hell and back for. I am going to stand next to him in combat, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be there to watch my back.

I find it even more distasteful that reporter Jim Dooley badgered Yoo for weeks prior to the printing of this article. He was instructed by the judge advocate general to not answer any questions or conduct any interviews with Mr. Dooley. We are in Fort Bliss, Texas, training to fight in an unpopular war, and the paper ran a story without hard evidence on a man who is up here trying to defend his country. It is cowardly to attack a man who is out of the state in the military trying to train for war.

I am putting my life in Chang Yoo's hands; I wouldn't do this if the man were a crook. Instead of making up stories, why not focus on the truth with all evidence available and not hearsay. Have we sunken so low in this country that we debase our heroes? I feel that you need to research and find evidence, not an ex-wife's gossip.

Furloughed pilot didn't present facts

In a letter you published last Sunday, furloughed Hawaiian pilot Daniel Moore took his own flier — from the facts. I'd like to set the record straight.

At a time when airlines are terminating their pensions and slashing wages, Hawaiian is trying a different path. At Hawaiian, unlike other airlines, everyone has pulled together. Hawaiian Airlines is now the best carrier to Hawai'i and one of the best in the nation. We need new labor agreements to exit Chapter 11, but unlike United and USAir, our goal is a fair agreement negotiated at the bargaining table, not imposed by a court. We think that's what Hawaiian's employees want, too — and what they deserve.

And, if we're successful, Hawaiian can get out of bankruptcy and grow — and Mr. Moore might get out of writing fiction and back into the cockpit where he belongs.

Continue the aloha

The events that have been available to tourists and locals such as Brunch at the Beach, Sunset at the Beach and Aloha Friday concerts at the Mission Memorial Auditorium are all such a beautiful gift to the community and so representative of the best of aloha. We hope the new city administration will continue to fund these events.

The Akaka bill is about U.S. political recognition

The Akaka bill cannot simply be likened to lessons presumably learned from a new book ("Affirmative action has not served U.S. well," Nov. 22).

Columnist Cliff Slater points to a book about the black experience in America in an attempt to question the long-overdue federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. He says that author Thomas Sowell concludes that such legislation does "not achieve its original goals, but far worse, the politicizing of ethnic group disparities exacerbates interracial dissension."

That is not the case in Hawai'i. The Akaka bill is about establishing a political relationship between Hawaiians and the U.S. government, based on the pre-existing sovereignty of a native people. It is not a racial classification. The bill in fact seeks to eliminate the race issue altogether.

The distinction is important, and one of the reasons public opinion polls in Hawai'i show an overwhelming support for the Akaka bill among both Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian residents.

Just like American Indians and Alaska natives, we Native Hawaiians lived on our lands and had our own government long before Western contact. Yet we are the only indigenous group in the United States without federal recognition.

Our experience is unique, not something that can be lumped together with other policies and laws passed to address racial inequities in our country.

Passage of the Akaka bill would also provide another shield against the litigious elements of our society determined to tear down programs that help Hawaiians and the state as a whole. They include OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and Kamehameha Schools.

We could also lose some 150 congressional measures that provide more than

$45 million a year to Native Hawaiians in areas such as education, health, housing and small-business development. We could lose revenues from ceded lands that help Hawaiians recover from being the sickest, the poorest and the least educated group in the state.

We hope that Mr. Slater and other critics of the Akaka bill stop to consider these consequences as Congress next session again tackles the Akaka bill. That's because the future of our state is very much at stake. After all, what would Hawai'i be without Native Hawaiians?