PRESIDENTIAL RACE

CARTOON PROMOTED FALSE MESSAGE OF HATE

What did you have in mind printing the cartoon from the Augusta Chronicle showing Barack Obama espousing 20 years of "hate" (March 21)?

The figure drawn in the cartoon is Obama, not even Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has been accused of hateful preaching.

Is the inclusion of this an attempt at "balanced" editorializing? Does reporting a speech calling for dialogue require a counter-image, even if blatantly false?

In his speech Sen. Obama said that, if we like, we can continue the campaign with a media that seizes on short, distorted messages of hate. I am sorry to see his prediction borne true here in The Honolulu Advertiser.

CONCERN OVER WRIGHT'S INFLUENCE REASONABLE

I am sure that Sen. Barack Obama wants us to look to the future and not to his preacher's past, as your editorial hopes.

However, it is reasonable to wonder about how much influence Pastor Wright's beliefs, some of which are very extreme, have had on Sen. Obama.

Across the country, Americans choose where they worship according to where they fit in, where it is comfortable for them and their families.

Sen. Obama chose to attend the church led by Pastor Wright and did so for 17 years.

Should we assume that Sen. Obama was comfortable with the preaching of Pastor Wright?

NOW REGRETS VOTING FOR SEN. BARACK OBAMA

Sen. Barack Obama's excuses for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright cause me to regret my vote for him.

His use of denial, minimization, rationalization and blaming others stands in stark contrast to another leader who sought to bridge the gap between the races back when I was a child.

To my memory, Martin Luther King did not hesitate to disown angry black militants and racists.

He was confronted all the time by associations with the likes of H. Rap Brown and Stokely Car-michael and the Black Panthers.

He never hesitated to point out that they were not practicing his philosophy of nonviolent direct action.

He loved America and its ideals, and challenged us to live up to our essential goodness.

CONGRESS

CARTOON PUT SUBPRIME BLAME IN WRONG PLACE

On April 1, you ran a cartoon by Hitch captioned "Subprime Intellect" which blamed the mortgage meltdown on Congress "pressuring lenders" to provide money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.

But the facts are that unscrupulous mortgage brokers arranged high-risk, high-interest loans, consolidated large numbers of those loans into bonds, persuaded bond rating firms to rate them as low-risk, then sold them for more than they were worth.

The whole thing began to fall apart when we suffered an economic downturn, leading to an increase in defaults, which had a circular effect of causing more defaults as real estate values dropped.

When the actual risks of those bonds were revealed by the default of some of the borrowers (something that should have been covered by the high interest rates paid by all of the borrowers), then investment groups (notably Bear Stearns) that had over-invested in those bonds began to find themselves in trouble.

VETERANS

GI BILL UPGRADE SMART AND RIGHT THING TO DO

Sen. Daniel Inouye wants the GI Bill to cover the cost of public college education for veterans. The Pentagon and some congressmen resist this because it might entice soldiers away from re-enlistment, and the cost to the taxpayer.

Young Americans risk their lives to carry out the policies of the government we elect. The military recruits the volunteer force from the poorest and least-educated parts of our society.

By limiting their options, the Pentagon aims to retain these Americans in lengthy and dangerous service. It is simply wrong to reward the soldier's sacrifice with a denial of a prosperous future.

This program would pay for itself. A college graduate makes almost $1 million more over his or her lifetime than a high school graduate.

Assuming they pay 25 percent in taxes, each college-educated vet would produce more than $200,000 in additional tax revenue. Critics say the new GI Bill could cover 2 million vets, costing $70 billion. But even if only half the vets graduated, they would contribute more than $200 billion in additional tax revenue.

This upgrade of the GI Bill is both the right thing to do, and is a smart investment.

MOLOKA'I

HAWAI'I MUST PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR MOLOKA'I

Why does it take something like the Molokai Ranch action to get our attention?

Moloka'i has been the "poor cousin" of Maui County for many years. While Wailea enjoys the highest room and occupancy rates in the state, Moloka'i has had the highest unemployment rate. The children there have basically no education options, very limited job prospects and few reasons to stay home.

While we all should respect the people of Moloka'i for sticking to their guns — and no one wants to see the island become another manufactured "destination" — we turned our back on Moloka'i a long time ago.

Hawai'i needs to support Moloka'i now.

MOLOKAI RANCH SHOULD HAVE EXPRESSED ALOHA

In its closing statement, Molokai Ranch could have incorporated messages of gratitude and aloha to the island it has called home for 111 years. It chose instead to finger-point.

A company with any real investment in Moloka'i would have gone on record to thank its employees, to whom the Ranch gave minimal notice.

A company that claimed to have overwhelming support for its failed master plan would have acknowledged community supporters.

But the official statement contained neither a mahalo nui loa nor an aloha 'oe, neither admission of company accountability nor mention of numerous legal setbacks that thwarted the development plan.

Peter Nicholas' admission that the decision was "purely business," is telling evidence of how the company treated Moloka'i: as an offshore bottom line. Molokai Ranch failed because it ignored the importance of pono and believed the life of the land was perpetuated only in dollars.

The company might have altered its fate had it heeded the advice of a local bumper sticker: "Don't change Moloka'i. Let Moloka'i change you."

HUNDREDS PROTESTED LA'AU DEVELOPMENT

It wasn't just a few "activists" who opposed Molokai Ranch's plan to build 200 luxury homes on pristine oceanfront land. Hundreds of lifelong residents turned out for public protests against the development of La'au Point.

They were concerned about things like water, a precious commodity there, which would have been diverted to fill swimming pools and provide lush lawns for the millionaire buyers — who would also have private beaches, in effect.

Molokai Ranch intended to have only two public accesses: one at each end of the five-mile row of "McMansions." And now, Molokai Ranch is threatening to deny access to shoreline areas they own as retribution for not getting their way.

For many of the island's residents, the ocean isn't just a place for recreation or lounging on the beach. Fishing and gathering rights are an important part of their everyday lives. When unspoiled places like La'au are developed for quick profit, there is no going back. There is only more building and developing.

Companies will come and go. But the land is forever.

CEDED LANDS

SETTLEMENT OFFER IS NOT ENOUGH FOR HAWAIIANS

Sen. Clayton Hee is right. The ceded lands settlement is not enough.

In 1999, OHA turned down a settlement offer in which it would have gotten $250 million and 365,000 acres of land. Now it has accepted $13 million and a couple of hundred acres of land. In the next settlement proposal, OHA will be paying the state.

Whenever the state gets together with itself to settle Native Hawaiian claims, the state gets the mine and Native Hawaiians get the shaft.

Meanwhile, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is mismanaging Hawaiian homelands on the Big Island. Gorse has destroyed 25,000 acres of Hawaiian homelands and is rapidly destroying another 25,000 acres. This is one-fourth of the 200,000 acres of homelands and no one is the least bit interested in this gross breach of trust.

ACCOUNTABILITY

OHA AUDIT SHOULD BE PASSED BY LEGISLATURE

Transparency and accountability of those elected into government are not only fundamental tenets of a civilized democracy, they are the essence of what any government expects of its citizenry.

To accept anything less than an audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs would be a travesty of these fundamental principles in the U.S. Constitution; to average citizens it is a betrayal of public trust and confidence.

Recently, this public trust and confidence in government has eroded considerably, as the Superferry fiasco has demonstrated. The same has taken place with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and its present leadership.

SCR 138 SD1 can remedy this unfortunate reality and avert further misconduct and divisions within our fragile community.

Call and write your state legislators demanding an audit (SCR 138 SD1) of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs be conducted immediately.

MILITARY

PARENTS CAN OPT OUT OF RECRUITMENT EFFORT

I respect the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. I spent three years as one of them, including a year in Vietnam.

So I was outraged to learn that sexual assault against female soldiers, while down 9 percent in 2007, remains pervasive and that females are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

My daughter, a high school senior, recently began to receive calls at home from military recruiters, as did my sons during their senior year.

The calls are the result of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which contains a little-known provision that requires Hawai'i's public schools to provide military recruiters with addresses and home phone numbers for every student or face a cutoff of federal aid.

I have no quarrel with military recruitment at the right time and place. What irks me is the invasion of my family's privacy and inappropriate military recruitment that comes cloaked as part of a law ostensibly aimed at improving the quality of education.

Parents and students should know they can "opt out" of the recruitment provision by informing their child's school.