Posted on: Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Bridge over canal could be discussed

I read with interest Ruth Beard's Jan. 11 letter and Ash Kapoor's Jan. 14 response to the idea of a bridge over the Ala Wai Canal at University Avenue.

I would like to invite both of them, and any others interested in this topic, to attend the McCully-Mo'ili'ili Neighborhood Board meeting. We'll meet on Thursday, Feb. 3, 7 p.m. at Lunalilo Elementary School in the cafeteria. While this topic is not an agenda item for the evening, comments on an Ala Wai bridge, and other neighborhood concerns, are welcome under "Resident Concerns."

This topic deserves a lengthy discussion as to why the McCully- Mo'ili'ili Neighborhood Board is on record as being against such a bridge.

Chance was missed for high-tech hookup

It seems to me the state of Hawai'i will not be getting fiber(optic connections)-to-the-home (FTTH) anytime soon. With the omission of this by the consumer advocate in negotiations with The Carlyle Group, only people living on Department of Hawaiian Home Lands will be getting FTTH in the near future before anyone on non-DHHL land will.

The consumer advocate's response to this omission was that Verizon was not planning to implement FTTH here. But Verizon is one of the few companies capable of implementing FTTH on a statewide scale.

Legislature should remove loophole

Readers of the Jan. 14 story "School board tries to put a value on each student" may have been puzzled because, although the intent of Act 51 is for principals to control at least 70 percent of the education budget, only 48 percent is being proposed to the Board of Education by a committee. An additional 24 percent would be allocated to the schools, but these funds would be for predetermined programs.

The concept of giving principals more control over school funds is commendable because currently bureaucrats in the Department of Education are making the decisions about how a very large proportion of education funds is spent. Principals, with input from teachers, should be making these decisions because they have the best understanding of what their students need. Yet, according to the article, principals control only 15 percent of the education budget. Act 51 takes a good first step by increasing that proportion to 70 percent. Some school districts elsewhere have moved it to 90 percent.

The committee was able to propose only 48 percent and not 70 percent due to a loophole in the law. Act 51 specifies that at least 70 percent will be expended by principals. Technically, the 24 percent for predetermined programs will be expended by principals even though they will have very little to say about how it is spent. When the bogus 24 percent is added to the bona fide 48 percent, the 70 percent minimum is attained. The Legislature should remove this loophole.

HECO rate-hike story missing some basics

A balanced report about HECO's proposed rate hike (Jan. 13) was oxidized by an incendiary, unanswered question at the end and an overheated headline at the top ("HECO under fire at hearing"). So is the company now seeking shelter?

Resident Kenwynn Goo was reported to have asked why electric rates should go up when revenues are rising in a growing economy. Fair question, but what happened to the idea of getting a response from the other side? Do rising revenues mean rising profits? Does a growing economy mean rising costs to meet growing demand? Is it some combination thereof? You gave us only Goo's oddball conclusion that the utility's "absolute power is corrupting absolutely." This builds heat, but doesn't shed light.

As a former HECO employee, I found it to be a well-managed company that doesn't always get it right but tries very hard to do so. As a former Advertiser reporter, I remember the paper the same way. At a tabloid minimum, pithy views from two opposing economists would have helped. A response from the accused, in the same story, used to be an ethical requirement. Otherwise, you are on the road to creating a slow burn under an issue that, if gotten wrong, could scorch our economy.

Tougher fireworks laws obviously needed

The homemade bomb that seriously injured 11-year-old Cyndee Somera on New Year's Eve is evidence that Hawai'i needs tougher laws for people to sell, purchase and display fireworks.

Adults and children have gotten seriously injured due to negligence, carelessness, poor supervision and idiocy.

Firecrackers, which are the main ingredient for making homemade bombs, should be banned in residential areas. Fireworks displays can be seen every New Year's and Fourth of July at Magic Island and Aloha Tower.

The person or persons who packed that bomb with rocks and metal objects had every intent to cause damage.

The charges of reckless endangering and assault send the wrong message to the people responsible. This case is worse than a previous case in which the person planted bombs on the University of Hawai'i campus.

Turning themselves in to authorities and later accepting responsibility by pleading guilty to the charges are not going to take away all the pain and suffering that Cyndee and her family are experiencing.

Convention Center pulled out the stops

My husband and I would like to offer our congratulations to the Hawai'i Convention Center for making the Hawai'i Bioscience Conference, which celebrated the opening of the medical school's new campus on Jan. 13 and 14, a tremendous success.

After years of watching the Convention Center from the outside, I finally faced the ultimate challenge: planning and executing a multifaceted meeting. The skilled staff guided me through every detail from menus and room layout to audio-visual requirements and registration.

The Nobel Prize-winning speakers raved about the setting, which they felt provided the perfect balance between serious business and the tropical ease they had eagerly anticipated.

A University of Hawai'i scientist said he had wondered if the large building would swallow a group of 400 attendees, yet was pleasantly surprised to discover how intimate and appropriate it felt for an assembly of any size.

One visitor from Japan biked from his hotel in the middle of the night to enjoy the high-speed wireless Internet access on the Ala Halawai Concourse.

Best of all, the eternally amiable staff managed to make an amateur meeting planner like myself look like a professional.

Fund-raiser great way to dispose of empties

What a great idea to turn our trash into treasure! This past weekend, I dropped off our family's empty cans and bottles at the Sierra Club's fund-raiser for tsunami victims. It only took a few moments and the volunteers were very helpful and polite.

I've seen so many letters in the newspaper saying that the bottle law is no good and too hard to understand. But what could be bad about a law that helps charitable organizations raise money for good causes while also keeping our island clean and litter-free?

My only complaint is that I can't return my cans and bottles to Manoa Marketplace all the time. When I lived in Oregon, I could return my deposit cans to any supermarket while I did my shopping. Why do they refuse to do this service for the community in Hawai'i?

Hippocratic Oath doesn't say to 'first do no harm'

Jim Henshaw's Jan. 18 letter is factually incorrect.

He states that "physician-assisted suicide legislation is really about allowing doctors to violate their Hippocratic Oath — to ignore the injunction 'first do no harm.' " The dictum "first do no harm" is not in the Hippocratic oath. Read it and you will see it is not there.

The Hippocratic Oath does state that "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked." It also states that "I will follow what method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients." I believe the distinction is that a physician should not be party to assassination or execution of others (anyone). Poisoning was a common method of murder and execution in those days. However, physicians should use their own best judgment when treating their own patients.

One could argue this means that, ethically, physicians should try to relieve suffering in any form.

Today, the Hippocratic Oath is largely ignored by laws and governmental agencies and common practice. For example, the oath prohibits abortion and charging for medical education and entitles families of physicians to free medical care. It also grants the physician the right to use his or her own best judgment in deciding treatment. However, there are a myriad of laws, agencies and third parties that now decide on treatment that frequently overrides the physicians' best judgment.

As a compassionate physician as well as a cancer survivor myself, I strongly support death with dignity. I consider opposition to death with dignity in today's world simply inhumane. No one should be forced to suffer needlessly against his or her will.

Akaka bill just doesn't cut it for us

You continue to publish articles extolling the benefits of the Akaka bill (articles by Beadie Kanahele Dawson and Bill Meheula, Sunday). There seem to be two main arguments for the Akaka bill:

• It would eliminate challenges to federal funding for programs benefiting Hawaiians.

When will Hawaiians learn that we cannot rely on the federal government for funds, particularly when the government is facing a massive spending deficit and is in the control of a party that has never shown much interest in the problems of minorities?

Because of the power of Sen. Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i has presence in Washington that is far beyond its due. With all due respect to our other senator and congressmen, when Hawai'i no longer has Sen. Inouye to represent us, our little state 5,000 miles from the seat of power will be thought of only as an American military base far out in the Pacific Ocean. We should not then be surprised if federal handouts for Hawaiian programs suddenly dry up or are seriously curtailed.

• It would somehow revive a Hawaiian nation.

It would instead be a make-believe nation that would isolate and wall off Hawaiians from the rest of Hawai'i's people and the life of our land.

Only by achieving an independent Hawai'i can we have a true Hawaiian nation. In a few generations, people with Hawaiian blood will be the largest ethnic group in Hawai'i. With a sovereign Hawaiian nation, we can realize our true destiny. We can control our own values and not have them dictated by waves of rich new immigrants and investors, whether from the Mainland or other foreign places.

We should not discount the reality of creating an independent Hawai'i. In our world, new nations are continually being created from parts of existing nations.

The Akaka bill is an old-person's solution. Its thesis is again going hat in hand to the federal government for help and turning Hawaiians inward in their own land. For more than a hundred years, this has not worked.

Instead, we can seize the opportunity to create a dynamic new nation through which we can maintain our culture and values, have more control over our future and be a leader among the Pacific nations.

Let that be our legacy to our future generations.