City Parks Department itself needs pruning

I read with interest Ralph Rosenberg's travails with the city over lack of tree maintenance in his neighborhood and the vitriol unleashed by city parks director Bill Balfour (Advertiser, Nov. 18).

When I purchased my home in 1983, the former owner warned me that an ironwood tree on park land had fallen on the home and the city had paid for the damages (no one was injured, fortunately). For years the city topped this grove of ironwoods (non-indigenous) to protect my and my neighbors' homes from damage or us from injury.

The trimming promptly stopped in 1997. I contacted the city for over a year about the situation. Finally, I received a reply from Mr. Balfour on June 3, 1999, to my letter dated Jan. 29, 1999, in which he refused to take any action. I considered the letter condescending and his reasoning unsound with absolutely no concern for me or my family.

I think his actions in Wai'alae Iki confirm my suspicions; the city does not know how to care for trees. His department only understands "leave it alone or cut 'em down," nothing in between.

This department is ripe for mayoral pruning.

What's our policy in dealing with terrorists?

The terrorists intentionally mass-murder, kidnap, torture and decapitate innocent civilians. We know they use suicide bombings and booby-trapped bodies and do not follow any rules of civilized conduct.

Given those facts, what should the U.S. military policy be, during the heat of battle, on approaching possibly wounded terrorists? Should our fighting men and women be required to get close enough to a potentially booby-trapped body and risk their lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers?

Democracy at its best

The opening of the Clinton Library was beautiful for one reason: It showed the world that democracy was alive and well. After a bitter and divisive election, there they were, all the Democratic and Republican candidates and ex-presidents, grinning and back-slapping, praising each other and having a good ol' time.

Moral 'values' aren't applied in Iraq war

Frank Schaeffer's Nov. 21 commentary about the financial struggles endured by the families of many soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the paltry death benefits paid by the U.S. government brought to mind two points:

I What does this unconscionable situation say about our priorities as a nation when we demand pandering politicians lavish us with tax cuts (really, additional debt for our children to repay) and allow the Halliburtons of corporate America to reap large profits from unbid contracts when we send ill-equipped troops to war who then get needlessly maimed and killed?

I This unnecessary and wrongly fought war has extended the devastation to innocents and noncombatants on our shores as well. I, as a pilot of a commercial military charter flight, have just returned from flying reserve troops from the United States to their new Iraq battle stations. During the flight, I met fathers and sons — as well as one grandfather and grandson — serving together in the same units. While I deeply appreciate their willingness to serve our country, I'm saddened that this government has allowed families to potentially deal with the loss or serious injury of multiple family members and has left many devastated families destitute and in need of charity.

Meanwhile, we continue to lap up promises of more tax cuts and evoke little outrage over corporate fat cats who richly profit from war and violence.

Shame on us and our moral "values" that allow this to continue.

Critical thinking is essential to the task

Charlie King, in his Nov. 19 letter, admonishes the Democratic Party for its unswerving views in support of freedom of speech, medical research and women's and gay rights (read human rights). He seems to think that having, or not having, "critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence and a regard for the secular sciences" is somehow associated with liberals' supposed sense of self-righteousness.

I would counter that having those traits is absolutely necessary, living in a world where national leaders lie to their constituents about the need to go to war and to cut taxes (mainly for the rich), the need to deny rights to their fellow citizens, and the need to impose their religious views (i.e., moral values) upon those who don't agree with them or want them. Without the ability to think critically, to be tolerant of others, and to have respect for evidence along with a high regard for the secular sciences, one is led inexorably along a path of blind obedience.

No open democratic society could survive such conditions. That, to me, seems to be the real goal of the current administration, and especially that of the leaders of the religious right wing: to require blind obedience to faith and ideological dogma rather than valuing the critical evaluation of available evidence with the possibility of dissent.

Anti-abortion agenda is a threat to women

In what is seen by many as a reward to their right-wing base, House and Senate Republicans tucked a potentially sweeping anti-abortion provision into a must-pass spending bill being considered by Congress before adjourning for the year.

The provision would allow healthcare providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers, to refuse to provide or pay for abortions or offer abortion counseling or referrals. In addition, it would bar the state from withholding taxpayer money from these healthcare providers. In other words, a hospital or clinic that provides service to the general public could impose its personal and religious beliefs to deny abortion services and there is not a thing the state can do about it.

This provision is yet another in a continual series of assaults on a woman's right to make fundamental decisions about her own body. Social conservatives and anti-abortion activists have poured millions of dollars into electing Republicans to state and federal offices, including that of the presidency, to pursue their anti-abortion agenda. And, sadly for the women of America, they are succeeding more and more often.

As chair of the Patsy T. Mink Political Action Committee, I call upon our congressional delegation to stand firm and do everything in its power to stop this provision from becoming law.

Readers react to landfill sites

High-tech answers may be best for us

After watching much of the hearing on the landfill issue on 'Olelo, I feel that the City Council should not be deciding on where the next landfill should be but, rather, whether there should be any more landfills at all.

Former Councilman John De-Soto's testimony really brought this point to light. No one will argue that a landfill will have negative environmental, social and economic impacts wherever it is placed, and DeSoto's idea of seeking high-tech answers to the garbage problem seems to be the best long-term solution for all communities concerned. Until such facilities can be built, Councilman Mike Gabbard's idea of shipping waste off-island would be a short-term solution.

So, as Councilman Charles Djou says, "Elected officials are elected to make the tough decisions." He and the other council members should say "no" to any more landfills and pay the potential political cost of raising taxes to fund new high-tech garbage-disposal methods instead of deciding on who should have the next dump in their back yard.

Let Harris or Djou make the decision

Rod Tam and anyone else on the City Council who corroborates (in) making Koko Head Crater a dump site will be voted out of office come next election. Where are the intelligence and common sense?

Let Mayor Jeremy Harris or even City Councilman Charles Djou make the final decision since they seem to be the only ones who think, analyze and plan before making hard decisions.

As a matter of fact, from what I see, Councilman Djou seems to be one of the very few on the council who has the capability to think and operate with a sound mind.

Do I hear Punchbowl?

Is Rod Tam serious? Next he will want Diamond Head crater for a dump site. And maybe even eventually Punchbowl crater.

I can see it now. Smoke billowing out of the craters. What a marvelous visual effect for incoming tourists, as our pristine Hawai'i Kai becomes polluted with smoke and dump trucks! Wow!

Here are alternatives as good as council's

I thought we got rid of incompetence when we got rid of the City Council members who ended up in prison. Too bad we can't put the current council members in jail for their recent ridiculous suggestions for the new landfill site. It is a shame intelligence and common sense are not requirements of public office.

In that spirit, I suggest the following locations for our new dump site:

• Aloha Stadium. Even during football season, no one goes there, so fill it up with trash. The trash will decompose nicely with the rusting steel.
• Give the trash to smokers. They'll throw it out their car window and miraculously, it will disappear, just like their cigarette butts.
• The University of Hawai'i. Pile it up in various places on campus and call it art.
• The Natatorium. Oh, like you've got a better idea for the Natatorium?
• Honolulu Hale. There's already a lot of trash going on there. No one will notice.

I hope Rod Tam and Ann Kobayashi take these suggestions seriously as they are as good as the ones they've come up with.

Keep trash in city: Diamond Head crater

The current brouhaha over where to locate a new dump overlooks solutions sitting, literally, right under our noses.

Why continue to transport trash long distances to Waimanalo Gulch, or for that matter to Koko Head crater, Campbell Industrial Park, Kapa'a Quarry, or wherever, at egregious expense when the money could much better be used in righting the ills suffered by our schools, homeless and other underserved sectors of our community?

Most of the trash, after all, is generated within greater Honolulu; within greater Honolulu it should remain.

Diamond Head crater is much too handy a depository resource to be cast aside without serious debate, and, after all, the neighborhood of Waikiki is already a county economic sacrifice zone. Surely one of these, perhaps both, could be pressed into service.

Kapi'olani Park, with its cricket pitch and soccer fields, etc., could certainly be reassigned to such higher use, too.

And don't forget the Natatorium.