Bainum achievements should be celebrated

This is in response to letters by Peter Ahching (Sept. 24) and Bob St. Sure (Sept. 26). First, let me say that I don't find the mayor's race to be entertaining, nor is the statement that all Frank Fasi voters will be backing Mufi Hannemann true.

Second, where is it published or reported that being a "Hawai'i local man" makes one more committed because he went to Harvard? Also, where is it printed that having money (wealth) makes you less committed?

Do both of you think it's appropriate to criticize an individual who has worked hard as a youngster side by side with his family and who was taught important values by his parents that working hard is the only means of achieving a good life?

Any individual who has attained what Mr. Bainum has — a good education, a prominent position as a doctor and wealth combined with his dedication to better mankind — should be commended for his hard work, efforts and achievements instead of being put down for accomplishing what most of us wish we could have achieved.

Day in and day out, stupid remarks are made that, as Mr. St Sure stated, Duke is "buying the election." Mr. St. Sure, do you know what "buying an election means"? It means that Mr. Bainum would have had to pay off all of the thousands of people who voted for him in the primary. I wasn't paid off, nor was my husband, our friends or neighbors — not one was paid off.

As a former member of the city's Planning Commission, I observed Bainum as an individual who embraces Hawai'i as his own, has the warm heart of a Hawaiian, and has a sincerity and compassion of an honest human being who is dedicated and caring in dealing with people graciously and not with threats and intimidation.

Legislature must help nursing school faculty

Last fall, the University of Hawai'i turned away 243 nursing school applicants because there was a shortage of funds to pay faculty. I found this upsetting that the shortage of nurses is due to the lack of teachers and not the lack of interest.

In previous years, legislative bills offered grants to nurses to complete or continue their studies but did not contemplate the monies that would be needed for additional faculty.

As the "University of Hawai'i administrators plan to ask the Legislature for a total of $1.4 million to pay for 29 more faculty, just for the main nursing program at Manoa" (Sept. 4 article), I hope our legislators take into consideration the need for more educators in the nursing field and place this as a high priority at the 2005 Legislature.

Kerry has lost votes from Vietnam veterans

In the Oct. 16 column "The conservative case for electing Kerry," Clyde Prestowitz cites several reasons for voting against President Bush. Something he does not do is provide a single reason for a conservative to vote for Sen. Kerry.

I am sure others will comment on why Kerry's plans will lead to even higher government spending and controls; my focus is on the Swift Boat ads not being "in the Christian tradition." Does Mr. Prestowitz believe that it was "Christian" of Mr. Kerry to provide aid and comfort to an enemy that embraces (to this day) atheistic communism?

Those of us who happened to be serving in Vietnam on the day in 1971 when Mr. Kerry testified to Congress know his allegations of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" to be outright lies. It is unlikely that he will receive many votes from veterans of that era regardless of their current political views.

A matter of courage

As a combat veteran of World War II, I want to thank The Honolulu Advertiser for endorsing Sen. John Kerry for president.

John Kerry's courage as a combat veteran in Vietnam is only surpassed by the courage he displayed while testifying at a congressional committee investigating the Vietnam War.

Lingle's move right is grating on the nerves

Similar to the way the Republican Party dragged Sen. John McCain's record of bravery and lifetime service through the imaginary dirt, Gov. Lingle is taking up "low road" Republican drudge duty.

Lingle attended the presidential debate in Arizona and then hit the Mainland campaign trail in full Bush campaign mode, drip-feeding the Republican line to Hawai'i's people that Kerry is a useless no-gooder (yet an admired warrior and hero, somehow democratically elected to Congress for 20 years).

Gov. Lingle seems to forget that she was elected with the help of many Democrats who were giving her a chance to break the good-old-boy cycle in Hawai'i without bringing extremist baggage of her Mainland handlers with her. Hawai'i voters weren't looking for a carte blanche grip upon the state by Republicans as they had in the past.

Like those moderate supporters, I am gravely disappointed in Lingle and her state party leadership's increasingly tight connections to the extremists of the Republican fold — an apparently blossoming love affair that is taking her hither and yon with the party's most hawkish, neo-conservative leaders.

I no longer believe Republican "we need balance" rhetoric. It's becoming obvious that, through Lingle, the Grand Old Party is working to transform Hawai'i into another muckraking battleground, stealing the essence of aloha, making sure we become even more of a strategic hot seat for neo-con war games, and finally, returning Hawai'i to the bad old years of being a good-old-boy "Red State."

Ethanol will cost us

While the state has decided to give ethanol companies a boost by requiring their product in gasoline, consumers and voters deserve to know what the consequences of this decision will be. According to the state's own experts, this decision will increase gasoline consumer costs by $20 million a year. In addition, the American Lung Association has testified to Congress that ethanol mandates lead to more, not less, air pollution. Are higher prices and increased pollution really the direction we want to take?

Critical concerns about dumpsite were omitted

The Oct. 15 Advertiser story and accompanying graphic about the five proposed sites for O'ahu's next landfill were misleading and incomplete. The article, unfortunately, focused on the superficial NIMBY issues and ignored the more critical concerns at stake.

For example, the graphic focused on wind as a critical determining factor for site selection. While this is an important consideration, it is insufficient as a basis for making an informed decision. To a casual or uninformed reader, the Ameron location in Kailua would appear the most acceptable of the five sites being considered. Yet that particular selection would potentially be the most damaging environmentally, culturally and economically.

Understandably, no one wants the dump. However, such an important issue deserves more than superficial information. The reader should also be provided with several critical environmental, cultural and economic considerations. These include:

• The Ameron site is adjacent to Kawainui Marsh, a fragile ecosystem and the state's largest freshwater wetland.

• Kawainui Marsh is one of O'ahu's largest remaining archaeological and cultural sites.

• Why place a dumpsite next to one of O'ahu's most scenic highways?

• Of the five sites, only the Ameron location would force the closure of a fully operational business and result in the loss of many jobs.

Such a critical and divisive issue requires comprehensive facts and information.

Let's help troops come home for the holidays

I would like to comment about the military spouse I saw on the news the other evening, speaking about bringing all the Hawai'i Reservists and National Guardsmen who left within the month home for Christmas. I think she has a great idea! Why shouldn't we help them all get home to spend the holidays with their families?

We should all do our part and donate, in any way, to help them come home. I think the airlines should offer free or discounted airfare. I mean, we Americans say "Support the troops," right? We should live up to what we say.

We should hold benefit concerts, with local artists volunteering their time to "Support the troops." Or what about local businesses offering a percentage of their sales to go toward a fund to bring our troops home for the holidays? Let's act now!

GMO contamination widespread

Andrew Hashimoto, dean of the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, wrote about the genetically engineered (GMO) papaya in the Oct. 17 Advertiser. As a farmer and a member of GMO-Free Hawaii, I would like to respond to some of his comments.

GMO-Free Hawaii recently brought to light evidence of widespread GMO contamination in the conventional, organic and wild papayas growing in Hawai'i — contamination that has happened in six short years since the University of Hawai'i released the GMO papaya into our environment. Laboratory testing by Genetic I.D., one of the world's leading laboratories for genetic analysis, revealed a 50 percent contamination level among a sample of organic, conventional and wild papayas collected from across the Big Island.

The lab tests also showed that the UH seed stock that they advertise as being non-genetically engineered has become GMO-contaminated. A sample of Waimanalo variety papaya seeds bought directly from UH tested positive for GMO contamination, at a level of between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 seeds.

This contamination is significant for a number of reasons. Cross-pollination and seed stock contamination is particularly threatening to conventional farmers who sell to Japan and other export markets that refuse to buy GMO papayas. Conventional farmers now have to test every papaya tree on their property to be sure they aren't GMO-contaminated, and they must test every shipment going to Japan. This can cost up to $500 per acre. The burden of testing for GMO contamination is falling onto the shoulders of local farmers, forcing them to pay for something that doesn't benefit them, that they didn't ask for and that could cost them crucial export markets.

Dr. Hashimoto claims that contamination of organic papayas by GMO papayas will not cost organic farmers their certification. However, the National Organic Standards contradict themselves. One clause states that unintended GMO air contamination is allowable, but another claims that if any GMO contamination is found on your farm, you could lose your organic certification.

Certainly organic farmers have not intended to have GMO papaya contamination, but the University of Hawai'i did not protect them from this contamination.

When UH introduced the GMO papaya into the Hawaiian environment, it was already known that the GMO papaya could cross-pollinate with conventional and organic papayas. It was also clear that once the GMO papayas were sold in local grocery stores, unlabeled and looking just like conventional varieties, the seeds would be distributed randomly as consumers threw them out the window, into the compost bin, or planted them in their backyards, inadvertently planting GMO trees.

Coexistence of GMO crops with conventional and organic crops is simply not possible. Cross-pollination and human errors in handling the seed supply prevent coexistence from working. The GMO papaya is a test case in this.

Instead of returning to the outdated and inaccurate ideal of coexistence, the University of Hawai'i needs to offer real solutions to local agricultural problems with long-term health and environmental benefits that do not take away the choices of local farmers.