More jobs; so what?

It is good to see that more jobs are becoming available in Hawai'i. However, on the bad side, most of these jobs are still paying low wages, which creates a problem in Hawai'i's expensive economy.

Working two jobs is not much of a solution, because that drains a worker physically and mentally in the long run. I believe employers in Hawai'i should get more sympathetic to the plight of workers who receive low pay.

If the trend continues, I am afraid that a lot of low-paid workers will get fed up and move to the Mainland, where wages are more compatible with cost-of-living expenses. That would really create a labor shortage here.

Make theater into a living museum

The Sept. 22 Advertiser's front page features Sen. Dan Inouye in the opening procession for the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. In the same paper the fall of the landmark Waikiki III theater is announced. What do the two things have in common?

There is a better use for the Waikiki theater than another pizza kitchen and similar stores: open the Waikiki theater as a showcase for Hawaiian performing arts.

We are all aware of the deep anger harbored by our Hawaiian fellow citizens over many injustices for over a century. Material grievances, such as loss of land, etc., are being addressed but nothing is being done to perpetuate the Hawaiian identity as expressed in rituals and, yes, authentic music, chants and dance.

For that purpose I suggest that the Waikiki theater be turned into a living Museum of Hawaiian Arts and Culture to showcase authentic Hawaiian music and dance and to also represent contemporary performers. It could also display Hawaiian art and artifacts. There could be no better location than Kalakaua, where 6 million visitors would undoubtedly fill the house. And this, perhaps, could also be incentive for locals to come to Waikiki.

Perhaps Sen. Inouye could help in bringing about a living Hawaiian museum.

What the nose knows

Mahalo to whoever is responsible for getting the city to repave Makakilo Drive. Now I can drink my coffee every day without getting half of it up my nose.

He's not playing the racial card

Bob St. Sure's Sept. 26 letter guarantees my vote for Duke Bainum because of one line: "We must stop Duke Bainum's attempt to use his Mainland, big-money connections to buy the election."

As a 50-year Hawai'i resident originally from the Mainland, I find this sort of racial garbage extremely offensive. It is in the same category as unprovoked attacks on tourists in Waikiki and at bus stops elsewhere. I know the St. Sure family name also has "local roots (that) run deep," right back to the Mainland many years ago. It is sad these roots seem to express bigotry instead of the genuine aloha spirit.

Also, Frank Fasi's recent endorsement of Mr. Hannemann is another indication of the local old-boy syndrome at work, and an even stronger reason to vote for real change with Mr. Bainum.

Let's hope Hawai'i's voters will recognize the "local boy" cards for the racism they imply, and vote for the candidate of their choice based on the positive qualifications of each.

Abercrombie, Case failed their constituents

Once again our elected officials in Washington did not represent the citizens of Hawai'i this past week. Both Reps. Abercrombie and Case voted against a measure that would prevent federal courts from accepting cases trying to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This measure is necessary because the people who want to do this are merely trying to remove all vestiges of Christianity from the public sector so they may be free to advance agendas of doubtful morality.

Fortunately, the majority of the House of Representatives disagreed with them and passed the measure. Both Abercrombie and Case had previously voted for keeping "under God" in the pledge. Their rationale for voting against this measure was that it limits access to the court system. Sounds like flip-flop partisan politics.

Abercrombie and Case also voted against the responsible consumer act earlier this year that prevents irresponsible and opportunistic people who won't control their eating from suing fast food companies for "making them fat." Again, fortunately, the majority of the House disagreed and passed the measure. There is a reason for limiting access to the court system; it is because people are abusing it and, as a result, our court system cannot keep up with the dockets of necessary cases that need to be heard, not to mention the costs to the taxpayers when frivolous suits are processed.

In both of these cases, the majority of Hawai'i citizens would have preferred that our representatives vote for these measures, however, for their own partisan, personal agendas, they did not. Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity." Our representatives are acting unconstitutionally by not supporting the will of the majority of the constituents that they represent. Voters of Hawai'i need to elect representatives who will represent their values and support their issues.

Natatorium: Council has the common-sense idea

The Honolulu City Council wants to act judiciously in its plans for the Natatorium's future. It is seriously considering a proposal to demolish the pool, move the facade, and bring in sand to provide a lovely continuous public beach for residents and tourists. Its members have spent much time considering all the issues and are rightfully concerned about the costs.

The cost of demolishing the pool will surely be less than the cost of rebuilding the entire structure. The new structure would incur gargantuan maintenance costs. Perhaps to pay those costs, the city would have to commercialize this pristine area that large numbers of our residents currently enjoy. I can even imagine the visitor industry busing loads of tourists to fill the bleachers daily and nightly. I can envision the premises off-limits to many families with young children at many times of the day or evening. The parking would indeed be worse. This would be a horrible legacy.

There are many reasons why the Natatorium should not be rebuilt. Paramount is the health concern. There is no physician I have spoken to who is not aware of the growing danger of staphylococcus bacteria that grows in saltwater pools. Recently, newspapers have run front-page articles on the drug-resistant staph. Infectious disease experts in Hawai'i know that the saltwater pool would be a disaster waiting to happen. Just one serious case of this untreatable disease from someone swimming in this restored facility might find the city liable.

I understand the concern of many preservationists. The most important symbol is the war memorial rock with a plaque on it that sits nearby. Diamond Head is an incredible backdrop as we read the plaque listing the World War I casualties in Hawai'i. The Natatorium and arches were built later. I have been told the pool was intended as the living portion of the monument where there could be active recreation.

I see the adjacent ocean and feel there is always recreational activity there with sailing, surfing, regattas, kayaking, canoeing and swimming. Expanding Kaimana Beach would provide for even more recreational activities. Apparently, long ago, there were two reflecting pools there and this portion of the monument might be restored.

I am a strong believer in historic preservation, but sometimes there has to be compromise. I think the City Council is wise in postponing the reconstruction of the Natatorium. I think a public referendum might be helpful in making a decision about the future of this precious area of Waikiki.

Only politics justifies this idea

Your paper recently ran a disturbing feature on Gov. Linda Lingle's approval of rules that mandate adding ethanol to gasoline starting next year. Has anyone aside from the politicians done any research into this issue?

First the oil companies, who control the refinement and production of fuel, state that it will probably only raise the cost of gasoline, not reduce it. A state expert then laments that "it should decrease the cost of gas." Who are you going to believe, the ones controlling the process or some political crony who is trying to sell the public without having any control of the process?

My bet is with the people selling the gas, that it will only cause another price increase.

Any ethanol added to gasoline is a very bad idea, justified by politics alone. What it truly is, is a very expensive subsidy for sugar and for those of you who think that trying to resurrect sugar is truly diversifying the economy, you are living in the 1950s when labor was competitive. A couple of important facts about ethanol: first, adding it raises the mix's propensity to evaporate (RVP), which in turn creates more air pollution. To counter that, extra-low RVP gasoline needs to be used for any ethanol mix. This cumulative mix costs more to produce, so adding ethanol to this higher priced gas will side with what the oil companies are telling us now, that gas will ultimately cost more at the pump. And if prices are what we are attempting to hold down, then adding ethanol will definitely not work.

Second, ethanol absorbs water, while gasoline floats on it. Pipelines, I have learned, always have some water in them, so ethanol must be transferred separately, further complicating the distribution process and increasing its cost.

These are only two of many reasons why ethanol should not be a consideration as a gasoline additive.

If the politicians had done their homework or if they would just be honest with us all, they should really call a spade a spade. Tell the people of this state who already bear one of the highest tax burdens in the nation that we will be adding again to that burden by subsidizing the long-dead sugar industry and raising fuel prices on your backs.

If you are interested in learning more about ethanol, gasoline or automobiles ask one of the experts at www.caranddriver.com.