For Tuesday, July 27, 2010
POSTED: 1:30 a.m. HST, Jul 27, 2010
How to write usThe Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~175 words). The Star-Advertiser reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed and include a daytime telephone number.
Letter form: Online form, click here
Let's see: There are the homeless with tents and/or tarps at many parks, beautiful Hawaiian beaches, under freeways or in Chinatown, on every corner of our tropical paradise. So let's wonder why of all beaches to clean up, Maili Beach Park was recently swept clean, with every possibly relevant organization to help the eradication process? Gee, perhaps the grand opening of the Disney Resort in Ko Olina in late August has something to do with it.
With so many organizations and government agencies coordinating with each other to clean up Maili Beach, you'd think there'd be the proper coordination and organization to do such the same on Oahu's ground zero in tourism: Kapiolani Park near Waikiki.
Contrary to the myths promulgated by the legislative and executive branches of government (aided by the mass media), there is no immigration problem in this country.
There is, instead, a problem with semantics, thanks to our elected officials (many of whom are attorneys) who live in a world of word manipulation.
The euphemism "undocumented migrant" is probably the most blatant misnomer, which was probably crafted to legitimize illegal activity by appeasing and misleading the public.
One usually assumes that a migrant has entered the country legitimately. A more appropriate label is "illegal alien," both words correctly identifying the individual.
Because the problem is not immigration, we do not need a new immigration policy. Instead, we have a trespassing problem, a serious trespassing problem. So, Mr. Obama, stop the nonsense about immigration reform and, in your own words, just plug the damn border.
The latest letter on why Christians should oppose civil unions ("Real common union based on Jesus' gospel," Letters, July 24) suggests that allowing same-sex couples to enjoy equal legal rights would have devastating consequences because it would "legitimize sin." Yet the "sanctity" of marriage is under no threat at all from civil unions.
People will not cease to marry if another 3 percent of the population is allowed equal rights. Civil unions are legal relationships between people who love each other, and they can be for heterosexual couples, too. Civil unions have nothing to do with church weddings.
What is devastating is misrepresenting Jesus, who preached love, sided with the marginalized and persecuted against bigotry.
Dolores Kim's letter ("Former govs pay back fat cats," July 22), on the two former governors was right on target. Ex-politicians of high stature should keep their noses out of our justice system. When people are convicted of felonies and serious crimes, they have to pay for it and not be given special treatment like probation. Judge Susan Oki Mollway's decision has to be her own and not from some ex-governor's letter trying to sway prison time for these convicted criminals.
People will be watching to see if justice will be served.
Ethnicity and politics can be divisive and decisive.
Mufi Hannemann's comments relating his German-English and Samoan heritage to the experiences of Hawaii carpenters may seem to some as pushing it.
My take is that Hannemann has a broad base of ethnic experiences with family, education and work from which he can relate to those of many groups.
It is similar to President Barack Obama's book coupling himself with his father.
I am a Duke Aiona supporter. I have met Aiona. All of what I see as important and necessary for the future of Hawaii, I see in all that Duke Aiona represents.
At the same time, I do not believe Hannemann went too far when relating to the Hawaii Carpenters Union, and to those in the audience with whom Hannemann shares a heritage.
Gary Kubota's article on the McCandless Ranch ("Ranch to sell carbon credits," Star-Advertiser, July 18) begs the question: Does this carbon credit musical-chairs scheme really reduce greenhouse gases in the final analysis?
Those entities that produce little or no greenhouse gases are given a bunch of credits, which allow them to release a given amount of pollutants into the air. Now, these entities who don't need these credits, (because they don't pollute) can sell these credits to those entities who can continue to generate more greenhouses gases than they should. What's wrong with this picture?
Wouldn't it be better for those states who want cleaner air to reduce taxes on businesses and privately owned forests that are a net reducer of bad gases, and increase the taxes of those that aren't?
Do the geniuses behind this realize that countries can buy up all the carbon credits they want and keep polluting our planet? How is it possible for any honest government to police such a convoluted system, to make sure cheaters aren't gaming it?