Posted on: Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Plan for Natatorium doesn't make sense

I understand Mayor Harris, who has little time left on his term, has arbitrarily elected to proceed with restoration of the War Memorial Natatorium immediately by inserting more than 80 cement pilings into the pool area. Shouldn't there be a total plan before permanent structures are imbedded into the beach? Shouldn't the plan be acceptable and affordable to the electorate?

So far, the initial cost will be $6.1 million for the pilings and patch-up, with a low estimate of $50 million to restore the bleachers and restrooms for use. And since the ocean will always have its way, the costs of repairs and maintenance will be eternal.

Would we, the electorate, rather minimize the memorial and instead use our tax dollars in more practical, needed ways: properly repair the sewer system, make the roads safer, lower taxes? Wouldn't a more modest, more appropriate, more beautiful memorial plan be more justifiable? And appreciated?

If you feel $50 million is more than we can afford and does not make realistic sense, speak up, call or write the mayor — and your City Council representative.

A perfect solution

Cam Cavasso, currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate, opposes abortion and favors a constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage. Perhaps Mr. Cavasso should consider supporting same-sex marriage, thereby eliminating the need for abortion.

Elect candidates who will focus on crime

Why does this state refuse to pass laws that are tough on crime?

Mi Haeng Yamasaki was optimistic upon learning that a suspect was captured after allegedly killing Edwin Medeiros in his wife's Nu'uanu liquor store. Mr. Yamasaki, I am sorry to say that as many times as he has been caught, he has been let go. The suspect has 23 prior convictions, including five assaults, four for domestic abuse and two for terroristic threatening, but he is released because Hawai'i's laws are notoriously soft on crime.

California passed a "three strikes" law nearly 10 years ago and has seen a dramatic decrease in crime (52 percent drop in murder and an overall decrease by 43 percent), but Democrats in the Hawai'i House of Representatives killed this proposal when I brought it to the floor last year.

While I offer condolences to the Medeiros family, I offer a suggestion to the voters of Hawai'i: elect people who will enact strong laws to crack down on dangerous career criminals.

Pressure the DLNR to ban nylon gill nets

Nylon fishing gill nets are wasteful and cruel; they should be banned.

These curtains of death indiscriminately kill fish, turtles and monk seals, damage coral reefs and decimate the herbivorous fish that control algae.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources seems paralyzed by the resistance of a small number of net fishers. The cost to the environment and other ocean users is far greater than the economic benefit to gill net fishers.

Meeting after meeting is held, study after study examined, and our reefs continue to decline. The department cannot make everyone happy; its inaction now in the face of clear and present danger to our nearshore ecosystems is unconscionable. There is nothing Native Hawaiian about nylon fishing nets.

The DLNR should initiate a buy-back program of nylon gill nets and ban any future use.

Write or call Peter Young, DLNR director, and tell him to do the right thing: ban gill nets. Mr. Young's address is 1151 Punchbowl St., Room 131, Honolulu, HI 96813; phone number on O'ahu is 587-0400, from Maui County toll-free 984-2400 then 70400#, from the Big Island toll-free 974-4000 then 70400#, from Kaua'i toll-free 274-3141 then 70400#.

State should be more pro-active against ice

More and more often we are reading news about the ice epidemic with no real solutions to abate this problem. Currently, we are only arresting and sending these addicts to rehab to recite some superficial adage that they will not do illicit drugs again. Sooner rather than later, they are in this vicious cycle, in and out of rehab.

What these people need is a genuine foundation to hold their lives intact.

It's time for the state of Hawai'i to take more responsibility in providing a vocation or hobby for our residents. Open up the swimming pools and sports facilities. Increase the library with a larger inventory of new books of interest and have the library open longer hours, including Sundays and holidays. Having a skill not only distracts from drug use, it also is paramount in increasing self-esteem and self-respect.

Natatorium proposal is worth exploring

What to do with the Waikiki Natatorium has created such turmoil for so many years. And I have to admit that I am not informed on all the issues surrounding it.

However, an idea recently caught my attention. The Waikiki Aquarium director wants to turn it into the world's biggest fish tank. The tank would be filled with an amazing variety of large and small ocean creatures never before seen on exhibit in Hawai'i — or most other places. Visitors would view the display while walking through a series of acrylic tubes.

I think this solution is worth exploring for a number of reasons: The Natatorium would be a living memorial; it would serve to educate people about our Islands' ocean; and it would give our aquarium more space.

Federal law specified that blood quantum be used

In an Oct. 17 commentary titled "Akaka bill consistent with values of America," lawyers seeking reparations for lineal descendants make numerous false statements designed to win the sympathy of the public. One of which is refuted below:

The commentary said "the U.S took control of 1.8 million acres of land that had been controlled by the kingdom ... without any compensation of the (capital "N") Native Hawaiian people." This is a cleverly phrased misstatement of the facts.

Fact: The United States compensated the nearest kinship group to the tribal kingdom of Hawai'i in July 1921 with land when Congress, using its plenary powers, passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which mandated compensation for (small "n") native Hawaiians of the blood (from pure to 50 percent blood quantum) with some 200,000 acres of public land for a federal reservation. This original federal act has never been repealed. The state's amended version of this act is a state law, not a federal public law. Neither the federal nor the state law conferred a differential standard of judicial review on a category termed (capital "N") Native Hawaiian, or a category termed Hawaiian.

Fact: The United States compensated the nearest kinship group with money in 1959 when it mandated revenues derived from the public lands for native Hawaiians of the blood in the Hawai'i Admissions Act.

Hawai'i diverted both this land and this money to a category it invented: (capital "N") Native Hawaiian, or Hawaiian in state law, by inventing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court found the state's scheme unconstitutional, confirming that the state's (capital "N") Native Hawaiians or Hawaiians have no mandated federal standing. Now they are scrambling so the state's scheme can continue and will fabricate any fable in desperately trying to recover their control over our land and our money.

Kerry endorsement reaction

Kerry should have apologized for actions

As a Vietnam veteran, I was quite disappointed to see that your newspaper has come out in support of John Kerry. Disappointed, but not surprised.

This is a slap in the face and very disrespectful to not only the many Vietnam veterans here in Hawai'i, but also the many Vietnamese who have made their home here.

I do not suggest that you should have endorsed President Bush, but a responsible and professional journalistic publication would not have endorsed either man.

Mr. Kerry was a true traitor to this country and has never had the guts to apologize to the country or his fellow veterans. His actions directly influenced many Vietnam veterans' lives upon their return. Kerry has never been truthful about his service in Vietnam, and I do not expect that he could be trusted as the commander-in-chief of the greatest military in the world. His voting record alone provides proof that he does not support the military, a military that is very important to our Islands.

Jane Fonda, his comrade, had enough decency to apologize to us (Vietnam vets) for her actions.

Rationale for backing John Kerry shallow

Whereas your endorsement of the Kerry/Edwards ticket comes as no surprise, the shallowness of your rationale indicts a feeble editorial policy. From your endorsement, I quote:

"It is clear that the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on a conviction that the United States can and should use its military might, unilaterally, whenever and wherever it feels threatened."

You finished this paragraph with a sentence that denigrates every brave soul resting in Punchbowl:

"That is dangerous policy in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world."

Be assured that this American does not feel "interdependent" upon the rest of the world. Further, while Kerry vigorously invokes the first sentence when he is on the flip side of his floppy rhetoric, even he has the sense not to utter your second sentence.

Your qualities of Kerry leadership, "intelligence, experience, sincerity and passion," are highly debatable. Do you recall his mother's effort to instill in a son she knew quite well, "integrity, integrity, integrity"? I suggest her effort failed.

Mr. Kerry is opposed to labels. Would The Advertiser please define "neo-conservatives"?

Bush administration is duping the electorate

Fearing your paper will forever be labeled "liberal," I wholeheartedly agree with your decision to back the Kerry/Edwards presidential ticket.

What frightens me is that the Bush administration is using its complete incompetence, baseless war, falsified "intelligence" and moral corruption as the basis for its Republican platform, and have convinced 50 percent of Americans that we're to give this team four more years.

I cannot believe the reality that Bush & Co. may very well win this election, based on duping the American people.

Kerry's war record rules him out for job

After years of ridiculing, criticizing and otherwise demeaning President Bush, is it any surprise that you are endorsing John Kerry?

As a Vietnam combat veteran who served a complete tour of duty, I find it repugnant that you cite Kerry's naval experience as proof he will be a strong commander in chief. There is overwhelming evidence that this officer shirked his duty, inflated after-action reports, and then cut out on his comrades after an abbreviated four-month tour.

Upon returning home, Kerry became a mouthpiece for a highly suspect anti-war group that undermined the morale of those of us still in the field of fire. Can anyone imagine how our POWs in North Vietnam's prisons must have felt hearing a United States naval officer say the things Kerry was saying?

Shame on you for endorsing a tap-dancing senator who is doing the same thing to our troops in Iraq today that he did to us 35 years ago.

Newspaper should declare contribution

It is interesting that many articles, almost daily, note the reported or not reported contributions of businesses and individuals to specific campaigns.

These articles always note the value of the contribution, and many times the top contributors are especially highlighted.

Never have I seen an accounting of the contributions, actual cash and in-kind service of your newspaper. Tuesday I noted your endorsement of Sen. Kerry and all the editorializing associated with that endorsement. Isn't your printing and circulating such an endorsement an in-kind service contribution that should show up on Sen. Kerry's campaign finance report? After all, your business is communication of news, advertisement and views. This endorsement is exactly that and therefore is an in-kind service of some monetary value.

Either declare your contribution and its value, or don't make endorsements and claim yourselves to be "fair and balanced."

Reasons for backing Kerry don't hold up

I find it unbelievable that The Advertiser chose to endorse the Democratic Party of John Kerry and John Edwards. Yesterday's editorial states that "Kerry has been sharp on the issues, clear on his stand on difficult matters such as the war in Iraq and resolute on his domestic agenda."

I beg to differ, but please tell me and your readers when he has been sharp, clear and resolute on anything except abortion and raising taxes. He's just another tax-and-spend liberal who doesn't deserve the opportunity to lead our country.