Most people will agree that rail is good. The flaw is everyone wants everyone else to use the rail so they can continue to use their cars in less traffic.

Think of the inconvenience of using the rail. When you do get off the rail, how far are you from your actual destination? A block? A mile? Do you now have to catch a bus? Still think rail transit is a great idea?

"I'm not giving up my car," said everyone.

Beware the dangers of private accounts

If it were not for Social Security, my husband and I would not be able to live as comfortably as we do. When my husband first retired, we found that the largest part of our retirement was in a pension fund that was dissolved by the new owners of the company. We received a check for $25.68 to close our pension fund account after 25 years with the same company. Needless to say, we were both in shock.

So my husband had to find a new occupation and basically start over. I will not tell you all the particulars of how very hard it was, but we now have our Social Security and a lifetime annuity that we had from the previous company. We are most grateful to have the Social Security, and the annuity is wonderful, but we planned on having the annuity and the pension fund along with Social Security.

If we did not have Social Security, we would possibly be among the homeless. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to have Congress make some adjustments to the current program.

Retirement is not all it's cracked up to be if you don't have the income to afford it.

I feel that private accounts would be like betting on Enron or WorldCom to support our future generations. Private accounts! Without Social Security, these people would have no future income to count on at all. If our young people want to take a chance in the market, let them do so with some of their savings funds, but not any of their Social Security deposit. That is at least a guaranteed payment each month for the rest of their lives.

Pro Bowl parade would be welcome

I would like to thank those responsible for bringing the NFL Pro Bowl to Hawai'i once again. Every year, it is exciting to have the NFL in town. It also gives Hawai'i the opportunity to showcase our beauty, weather and culture with our nation.

For years, I have felt that a great addition to the Pro Bowl festivities would be to add a Pro Bowl parade. Imagine the thrills for residents and visitors alike to see a future Hall of Famer such as Dan Marino or Steve Young or your favorite NFL player riding in a convertible from Magic Island down Kalakaua Avenue to Kapi'olani Park. There they could join the NFL festivities in the park.

Ethics award program a great morale-booster

After all we've been through with the Enron scandal, the brokerage house scams, even our beloved Martha Stewart, I find it inspiring to learn about an old program recently revived by the Better Business Bureau of Hawai'i called the Torch Awards for Business Ethics.

The Torch Awards put a positive light on businesses that do care for their customers by doing the ethical thing when dealing with them. It's a welcome relief from what we've been hearing in the business world lately.

The Torch Awards date back to 1989 in Hawai'i. The BBB had to shelve the program for a few years, but last year resumed this annual honors program recognizing Hawai'i's top ethical businesses.

People can nominate any business or businessperson they want without any fee involved. It gives everyone an equal chance to voice their praise about a business that treats its customers well.

The Torch Awards are a refreshing twist to the stories about businesses gone bad. It doesn't always have to be another "buyer beware" horror story. Thanks to the Better Business Bureau, consumers have a place to find reputable businesses and avoid the bad ones.

To nominate a business or individual, call the BBB at 536-6956 or check its Web site at www.hawaii.bbb.org.

Proposed cell phone law discriminates

Lee Cataluna's comments on "Watching driver with plate lunch makes you want to laugh (and cry)" (Feb. 6) were great.

Among other observations, she noted that "inattention to driving" was already the basis for a citation. Thus, it appears there is already a law on the books.

So why would a new law to ban cell phones be desirable? If the proposed cell phone law was passed as a safety measure, why indeed is eating or applying mascara not addressed? Or, even more to the point, it seems obvious that driving with passengers, particularly kids, in a car is a safety hazard.

There must be a hidden agenda that triggers the anti-cell phone crowd.

What would it be? Jealousy? Dislike for technology and progress? Love of extraneous law so supporters can "feel good" about telling someone else how to behave?

Whatever it is, it is not a move toward a more civil society of responsible, accountable people.