Bush proposal would help on child support

In your recent editorial on child-support enforcement, you made the case for a greater effort toward garnering resources that children need and deserve from their non-custodial parents ("Child-support system needs an overhaul," April 17). President Bush has a plan to help.

The president's welfare-reform proposal includes initiatives to improve child-support automation, enhance medical support for children and increase collections to families by closing loopholes and enacting common-sense reforms to help children and families. In fact, we estimate that a $52 million investment over the next five years will result in almost $3.4 billion in additional financial support to families.

At the same time, we realize there is a big difference between a dead-beat parent and being dead broke. That is why we also are working to assist non-custodial parents who owe child support by helping them remove educational, cultural and economic barriers so they can make the money to pay it, including initiatives to combine court oversight of those who owe child support with case management and links to employment and training.

The Bush administration's plan to strengthen child-support enforcement is a comprehensive agenda to modernize and enhance child-support systems while helping non-custodial parents gain the skills and resources needed to support their children.

Opponents of UARC are doing a disservice

With so many other problems at UH, the opponents of the University Affiliated Research Center should spend their fervid efforts on better causes like stopping poverty.

Most of the people who oppose UARC are not from scientific fields and just want to show off their misplaced anti-government and anti-military sentiments.

I am a graduate student in a scientific field at UH, and I can assure you that UARC opponents are doing a disservice to the university system and the state of Hawai'i. UARC will require some classified research, but it is minimal compared to all the other important non-classified research that it will fund.

UARC opponents stand like religious zealots trying to transform this into a radical movement that is based not on hard facts and reliable information but on assumptions and irrational emotions.

Individual values can make a difference

Rejecting our reliance on oil comes in many forms. Some folks carpool or use fuel-efficient cars. Others send letters asking politicians to solve the problem.

Beginning in the '60s, my pop began commuting to downtown Honolulu to work via bicycle. For the next 35 years, he saved about a half-gallon of fuel per day, totaling roughly 5,000 gallons altogether. He saved about $7,500 and reduced air pollution.

It's a fallacy to claim that heredity trumps individual values when we make small decisions that add up to a big difference over time.

Price-cap law would devastate the Islands

This is in response to Frank Young's April 28 letter to the editor, "Don't let misinformation sway you on gas cap law." Mr. Young is as full of misinformation as one can get.

Three separate consultant firms and numerous federal and state agencies have warned our enlightened legislators that this is a bad idea. Yet they still choose to believe in a very suspect group of "advisers" and just disregard the expert opinion that they paid for.

From someone who works within this industry, this is what I see happening: If the oil companies cannot turn a reasonable profit because they are forced to sell their product at a reduced rate, they will either sell their product outside Hawai'i or they will shut the refineries down.

Either way, this will mean gas shortages for the regular consumer. If they shut down for an extended period, this will also mean diesel, jet fuel, propane and fuel oil shortages.

Still, I think this will go through, and we will suffer for it. Our legislators have gained national attention over the way they run this state. Why should this be any different? At least it will show the rest of the nation what not to do.

Some pet peeves about those drivers

You asked for it. You opened the door to every driver's peeves about every other driver. Here are three of mine:

• Back-in parking. In a parking garage, like at UH-Manoa, the car in front of you sails past an open space, stops abruptly and tries to back into the spot just passed, even if your car is already blocking it. This to save five minutes at the end of the game.
• Merge madness. The sign says "Merge ahead" so some drivers feel they must immediately come to a crawl and try to inch over, slowing the lane they are in and the one they are entering. Better to stay in your lane to the point of the merge, then do an orderly left car/right car melding that keeps both lanes moving along.
• Hummers, period. Apparently these people with the large inferiority complexes have neither friends nor relatives who will be seen with them. They are always driving solo in their behemoths. Always. Same for most Armadas, Escalades and Expeditions. Ugh.

Measure ensures feathered, furry friends an inheritance

With the 2005 legislative session now complete, pet owners should take note of House Bill 1453, which is on the verge of victory. The bill, which would enable you to leave money directly to your pets, awaits the signature of Gov. Linda Lingle.

As it is now, money cannot be left directly to your feathered or furry heir; it must be left to someone you have confidence in for their care. Pets are considered "property" in the eyes of the law, so they do not have legal standing to own property. Currently, you can only leave funds to a guardian to provide for your pet, but there's no way to ensure that your wishes will be carried out. While you'd hope that the guardian you've selected is trusted, there is nothing to prevent funds from being used inappropriately — or in the worst-case scenario, to prevent your pet from being given away or sold.

In having the ability to name your furry and feathered heirs as a beneficiary in your trust, pet owners can enjoy the peace of mind that there's an enforceable means to ensure that your wishes are carried out should misfortune strike. A trustee, a caregiver and even an enforcer can be designated to ensure that your pet gets the standard and type of care it deserves.

On behalf of its 20,000 supporters, the Humane Society testified in support of the bill.

If the governor signs this bill, it will be a huge victory for those who care about animals, as the law not only gives owners better peace of mind that their pets will be provided for according to their wishes, but it's a reflection of the rising status that pets are gaining in the family and community.

Just as we plan for our children's future, our pets need a plan so they can be taken care of, too.

OHA proposal is censorship

As anyone who has consistently read my monthly OHA newsletter columns knows, I never shy away from telling beneficiaries the truth about what is going on at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. However, that may soon come to an end.

On March 15, the Assets & Resource Management Committee held a workshop to review proposed changes to OHA's board of trustees policy manual. Most of the proposed changes were not earth-shattering, except for the following proposed language that was added to the Ka Wai Ola editorial policy: "No libelous or defamatory material will be published. Questions on libel and/or defamation will be resolved in consultation with the editor of the Ka Wai Ola, the public information officer, and OHA's in-house counsel."

If this policy passes, our newsletter might not just get one but two new censors — not to mention a slap-in-the-face to free speech.

OHA currently has a policy in place that ensures all articles are written responsibly and meet the standards of good taste. Trustees have never needed a censor since we are all personally liable for our comments. Each of us can be sued individually for any slanderous or libelous remarks. Any of us could be taken to court if we were to write something that wasn't true.

To my knowledge, no trustee has ever been sued for public comments in our newsletter.

Giving two members of OHA's administrative staff the power to censor trustees will, for all intents and purposes, give that power to the chair. First of all, the chair of the board has enormous power and influence over all staff, not to mention their boss, the administrator. The chair could easily make their work life miserable if they dared defiance. I know of several staff members who have already left because they fell into disfavor.

It is simple for any chair to control the flow of information to trustees once he or she has had enough time to place his or her "people" into important OHA staff positions. If and when a dissenting trustee receives any information requested, it is only months later and with the crucial information missing. This amounts to an ongoing "silent censorship" within OHA. Therefore, there is really no need for an additional policy to make sure that only glowing accomplishments appear in our newsletter.

The trustees' monthly columns are one of the few remaining opportunities we have to communicate honestly with our beneficiaries. If this policy passes, dissent will be silenced, and all you will ever hear is how wonderful things are going. OHA's newsletter will simply be reduced to a propaganda rag.

Freedom of communication is crucial for a healthy democracy. Instead of putting up barriers, we should be tearing them down. It is impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas. However, how can we grow as an organization if there is no room for dissent?

Restricting what our beneficiaries can or cannot read is simply unacceptable. It amounts to a dictatorship and will only lead to political and intellectual repression. It will force our people to consider only a narrow view.

Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must fight with all our strength for the freedom to read, to see, to know and to think for ourselves.