Quantcast

Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 90 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Thursday, November 10, 2011


POSTED:



Occupy protesters have valid gripes

"Occupy movement hurts the 99%" (Letters, Star-Advertiser, Nov. 6) claims the protesters don't know what they're protesting about.

Someone should read their signs and listen to their words. They are out there because of a decade of favoring short-term gains for the wealthy over the needs of the rest of us.

The big banks, corporations and investment firms that caused the recession got the biggest taxpayer-financed bailouts. Taxpayers are now expected to foot the bill for wild speculation on mortgage derivatives. Yet a permanent underclass is being created in this country, as outsourcing and automation increasingly make U.S. workers obsolete.

What is needed is more investment in education and infrastructure and regulation of big business to help the U.S. escape a downward spiral into Third World status. Otherwise, who will remain as consumers, except the rich? The 99 percent may soon all be out in the street, one way or another.

David Chappell
Kaneohe

How to write us

The Star-Advertiser welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~150 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 Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published.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
E-mail: letters@staradvertiser.com
Fax: (808) 529-4750
Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813

Virtue of selfishness drives public policy

The class war is over. The rich have won. To the winners go the spoils. While some of our American middle class still believe in trickle-down economics, the upper-class believes in the sucking-up theory, in which more and more wealth and political power are placed in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals and large corporations.

A crude and sometimes cruel social Darwinism, the survival of the economic fittest, has become a part of the radical right's agenda and ideology:

» The rich and super-rich deserve everything they earn. The poor, and increasingly the middle-class, are suffering and have less because they don't have the tools and mindset to make themselves successful. They deserve having less and sometimes they deserve nothing at all.

» Reform Medicare, cut Social Security, close post offices, lay off public servants — the common good should no longer be governmental "business." Let free markets reign.

Whatever happened to the fundamental belief that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers? Selfishness has become a primary virtue.

Roman Leverenz
Aliamanu

Turn off some lights to save some money

Two articles in the Nov. 4 Star-Advertiser caught my attention.

The first said that debt-saddled Highland Park, Mich,. reduced the city's monthly electric bill by 80 percent by shutting off unnecessary lighting ("Debt-saddled Michigan city leaves residents in the dark"); the other said that carbon gas emissions leaped to record levels worldwide ("Carbon gas emissions leap to record").

Since most electrical power is generated by either burning coal or oil, which causes the rise in carbon gas emissions, cutting back on unnecessary lighting can save the environment and save cities a huge amount of money in electrical costs. Perhaps Highland Park went to extreme measures to save 80 percent, but imagine the money and power saved by a 25 percent reduction.

There are huge high-rises in Honolulu that are lit up with spotlights. Why is this lighting necessary? And why do high-rise business offices have their lights on all night?

Tom Sebas
Waikiki

Ansaldo treated with kid gloves

Rail contractor Ansaldo settled a bidding irregularity of not having a proper license by paying the city $150,000.

At the same time, other bidders received less-than-friendly treatment and one was rejected for requesting a clarification with its bid.

Something is really fishy here.

William Kibby
Honolulu

Pay for food at store before consuming it

Am I a minority in feeling that it was wrong to take merchandise from a store and not pay for it? Oops, a mistake … so sorry! Yeah, right.

Why did Safeway have to apologize to a person who took a sandwich, ate it, and did not pay for it? Perhaps Child Welfare Services overreacted, but that certainly wasn't Safeway's fault.

It is wrong to eat or drink an item in a store before paying for it. Period.

When my children were small, I always taught them that it wasn't right to eat something before paying for it. It was a basic lesson in ethics and morality.

When shoppers eat or drink merchandise without paying for it, it is the other shopper, like me, who ends up paying for it. And that's wrong.

Dorcie Sakuma
Kakaako

Clean freeway was refreshing to see

I drove from the airport to Ko Olina last weekend on H-1 freeway. It was so nice to drive the entire route without seeing any trash alongside the freeway.

The cleanup crew has been working to pick up the trash, mow the grass and cut the weeds along H-1 for weeks. I have never seen our freeway so clean.

Thanks to our government officials for sending the crew to clean up our island in time for the APEC conference. I hope we can all be inspired to do our part to help keep our beautiful islands clean of litter and trash.

Henry Chen
Waianae

Consensual sex is not sex harassment

Alice Costales, in her Nov. 8 letter to the editor, maintains that former President Bill Clinton set an example for GOP nomination hopeful Herman Cain to follow. And I concede her First Amendment right to say what she believes to be true.

However, consensual infidelity is nowhere near the same thing as sexual harassments, and for a letter to assert as much is no better than any accusation that turns out to be false.

Neither may be characteristics of an ideal president, but one is definitely "worse" than the other.

Max Mooney
Honolulu






 Print   Email   Comment | View 90 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(90)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Kuniarr wrote:
Ansaldo was indeed treated with kid gloves because it should not have been qualified to bid as it did not have a license yet.
on November 10,2011 | 01:33AM
wiliki wrote:
Indeed, it seems that Sumitomo should have gotten the bid.
on November 10,2011 | 06:23AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
This website, Kuniarr is not the place for making jokes. Nor for making fun of those who post comments. You seem to enjoy joking and making fun of comments made in this website.
on November 10,2011 | 08:17AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Lemon
on November 10,2011 | 09:56AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
"Advice for Kuniarr to avoid double posting of a comment:----> After you hit "SUBMIT COMMENT" and you do not see your comment showing up below, wait for the page to refresh. Wait. Do not hit SUBMIT COMMENT again. Normally, you get a message that your comment has been added. If that message saying your comment has been added does not show up do not hit SUBMIT COMMENT again. In that case, if you do not see your comment showing up below, exit the website of Staradvertiser and then go back in and go to Letters to Editor. You will then find your comment showing up." reply by Kuniarr on Nov. 8th. Seems your advice does not work.
on November 10,2011 | 11:16AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Lemon
on November 10,2011 | 11:25AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
"Ansaldo Honolulu JV has agreed to pay the state $150,000 to settle two cases alleging that the company didn't have a contractor's license — as required by law — when it bid for the rail contract." http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/10/21/13411-ansaldo-state-reach-deal-on-licensing-violation/ Yet?
on November 10,2011 | 09:10AM
Kuniarr wrote:
LS, license was requred in order to bid. Much like a person is required to have a driver's license before driving. That Ansaldo did have a license, it was precluded from bidding.
on November 10,2011 | 10:08AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
Really?
on November 10,2011 | 11:00AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Yes, really
on November 10,2011 | 11:30AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
Really?
on November 10,2011 | 11:00AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Lemon
on November 10,2011 | 11:26AM
Kuniarr wrote:
correction: That Ansaldo did NOT have a license, it was precluded from bidding.
on November 10,2011 | 10:10AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
You making up stories now saying they did have a license and you made a correction that Ansaldo did not have a license, it was precluded from bidding. Yet? People without driver's license still drive.
on November 10,2011 | 11:08AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Lemon
on November 10,2011 | 11:26AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
You making up stories now saying they did have a license and you made a correction that Ansaldo did not have a license, it was precluded from bidding. Yet? People without driver's license still drive.
on November 10,2011 | 11:08AM
LemonySnickets wrote:
A Series of Unfortunate Events made by Kuniarr.
on November 10,2011 | 11:19AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Commenting on your own comment again, LS?
on November 10,2011 | 11:29AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Lemon
on November 10,2011 | 11:27AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Double vision again, LS?
on November 10,2011 | 11:34AM
nitestalker3 wrote:
man, why don't you two get a room and settle the issues you have between you and not the rest of us.
on November 10,2011 | 01:07PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
I was thinking the same thing.
on November 10,2011 | 03:09PM
nitestalker3 wrote:
man, why don't you two get a room and settle the issues you have between you and not the rest of us.
on November 10,2011 | 01:25PM
LemonySnickets wrote:
Seems you have a problem.
on November 10,2011 | 02:10PM
mischal wrote:
Re: consensual sex is not sex harassment While Clinton had a litany of consenting girlfriends, there were also claims against him for sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape. Juanita Broaddrick accused him of rape, Paula Jones, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey are a few others, claiming sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. Check it out, Bill was a very busy man.
on November 10,2011 | 02:18AM
OldDiver wrote:
The "Arkansas Project" created many of the sexual myths about Clinton.
on November 10,2011 | 05:28AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Funded by the Koch brothers, Glenn Beck, and Fox News, right? LOL I imagine they created Ms. Flowers and the long list of others in a genetics lab hidden deep under the south pole.
on November 10,2011 | 06:23AM
OldDiver wrote:
The Arkansas Project was funded by Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. It was the right wing project to spread lies about Bill Clinton to destroy him. One of the laughable claims which was repeated by right wing talking head Rush Limbaugh was that Clinton while Governor had dozens of people murdered in Arkansas. Remember the State Troopers who said they saw Clinton with Ginnifer Flowers? They were bought and paid for by the Arkansas Project. When they were brought into a grand jury and faced charges for perjury they recanted their story. You are blaming the wrong billionaire for the Arkansas Project.
on November 10,2011 | 07:44AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Were you in hibernation when Clinton CONFESSED to the Flowers affair? Wikipedia and memory: "In his presidential deposition in January 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Bill Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers." I also seem to remember something like, "I did not have sex with that woman." being proven a lie, and I also seem to remember "On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with [Paula ]Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal."
on November 10,2011 | 08:08AM
lee1957 wrote:
Hard to tell who's doing who without a program.
on November 10,2011 | 10:53AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Yup, careful record keeping is essential to efficient and effective philandering.
on November 10,2011 | 01:08PM
lee1957 wrote:
Hard to tell who's doing who without a program.
on November 10,2011 | 10:53AM
Toneyuki wrote:
"Rush Limbaugh was that Clinton while Governor had dozens of people murdered in Arkansas." ~OD ... HAHAHAHAHAHA more LIES from Democrat TV (MSNBC). Or wait, maybe mediamatters.
on November 10,2011 | 01:41PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
I seem to recall that he was never found guilty of having extra-marital sex.
on November 10,2011 | 03:06PM
Toneyuki wrote:
How is someone found guilty of extra-marital sex? Is it a crime? And actually a little blue dress with his DNA is pretty good proof that he had sexual relations with that woman.
on November 10,2011 | 03:09PM
LMO wrote:
"Ansaldo treated with kid gloves... Something is really fishy here." Nothing is fishy. Just business as usual in Honolulu.
on November 10,2011 | 03:18AM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
And you better believe they will continue to be treated with kid gloves as long as campaign contributions continue to flow to select individuals.
on November 10,2011 | 03:58AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
Actually, it really smells. Trying to help the economy of Italy is a nice thing, but not when our economy is in such bad shape. Kill the rail; use a fraction of those billions to solve some of our problems at home -- transportation, and others.
on November 10,2011 | 03:08PM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
IRT Henry Chen's ltr, "Clean freeway was refreshing to see." Henry let's see what happens after APEC is over and has departed the Island. Trash as usual. It's those darn tourist cluttering up our Island home, throwing their old worn out tires, refrigerators, couches and various other items along the sides of our highways and biways (Tongue in cheek).
on November 10,2011 | 03:57AM
OldDiver wrote:
Roman Leverenz "Whatever happened to the fundamental belief that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers? Selfishness has become a primary virtue." Money changes even the most hard nosed Christian.
on November 10,2011 | 05:30AM
toomuchpilikia wrote:
I agree that we should be our brothers' and sisters' keepers. That is why we donate money to our church. The money is used wisely within the community in the form of food, clothing, and helping the elderly. Government is incapable of helping the needy effectively. Government money must pass through too many hands of bureaucracy creating more agencies. This includes the Aloha United Way. When a non-profit director receives more than $400,000 in salary....WE GOT A PROBLEM! When you find yourself saying: Oh My God!....yes, and give to the church.
on November 10,2011 | 06:30AM
soundofreason wrote:
When my own brother/sister continue having 3-6 kids that they can't afford and they expect other "family" members to pay for them - I'd have a problem with that too.
on November 10,2011 | 06:34AM
OldDiver wrote:
You have fallen into the message trap that the rich have set for right wing middle class conservatives. The rich have fooled you into thinking the enemy is the poor which allows them to destroy the middle class without you noticing.
on November 10,2011 | 08:00AM
Anonymous wrote:
The poor need 'help' not a hand out. PS - The 'poor' are not the ones bankrupting our nation.
on November 10,2011 | 09:31AM
kiragirl wrote:
Huh? They do not help the situation as they only take and not give.
on November 10,2011 | 09:48AM
soundofreason wrote:
47% of people are not paying Federal taxes. 53% of the people are picking up their tab for them. This......helps? Within that 47% are the same ones DRAWING section 8, food stamps, welfare, medicade etc so NOT contributing on ONE end and TAKING on the other - Double whammy.
on November 10,2011 | 05:33PM
Toneyuki wrote:
There is a difference between helping others and being our brothers keeper, and what the government does. Charity and helping the poor is when you as a person donate your time, money, etc. to helping those in need. What the government does is take money from people involuntarily to help those in need, and in the process enrich a lot of people in the bureaucracy. Stealing from Peter to help Paul is not being your brothers keeper.
on November 10,2011 | 01:46PM
wiliki wrote:
Max Mooney has a point. In the case of President Clinton, it was consensual sex. That's less worse than Cain's sexual harassment problems.
on November 10,2011 | 06:21AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Reminder: None of the accusations against Cain are proven, as if that matters.
on November 10,2011 | 06:24AM
toomuchpilikia wrote:
The OB1 media did an excellent job with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney in the last election. Now the media is driven to focus on Herman Cain. These complaints are now surfacing some 14 years after the fact. Were these complaints ever documented? Any police report? I guess they were not very important? Oh, but they are surfacing now and are unsubstantiated probably or who knows? The OB1 media has been digging deep and looking into every pothole and hoping to find something, anything, no matter true or false. All I know is that I will no longer be considered a racist since I am a supporter of Herman Cain. By the way, I like Cain because he is a successful business man and understands the red and black column. I am not looking at the color of his skin nor am I feeling any guilt!
on November 10,2011 | 06:47AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Seems like class warfare and smear campaigns are the only tools left in the democrat's tool kit now. Wonderful. No national budget passed in over 900 days, failed economic policies, the country headed toward sovereign debt problems worse than the 2008 financial crisis, the democrats walking away from the debt reduction talks in spite of Republican offers to increase tax revenue, and an administration which says it's all about job creation while its environmental, energy and labor policies kill job creation. Unfortunately, I think this is the best this administration can do.
on November 10,2011 | 07:09AM
OldDiver wrote:
Well of course they were not proven. Cain paid them off to shut them up before it ever got to court.
on November 10,2011 | 07:46AM
Pacej001 wrote:
More revelations from Liberal Fairy Land, the make believe world where reality is based on what you want to believe than what is represented by fact.
on November 10,2011 | 07:51AM
OldDiver wrote:
Funny statement coming from a Republican TV viewer.
on November 10,2011 | 08:07AM
Pacej001 wrote:
I think you're out of ammo, time to call for reinforcements from the Huffington Post of Daily Kos.
on November 10,2011 | 08:09AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Even Huffpo isn't making that allegation. Who is lying? http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#.TrsYjx89_BQ.twitter
on November 10,2011 | 01:51PM
Toneyuki wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OfNDbGRZnaw
on November 10,2011 | 01:51PM
wiliki wrote:
Cain himself has mentioned the deals with the women who he paid off. He should probably have kept his mouth shut because they have every right to defend themselves in public of his lies about their actions. Having these accusations come out at this time will mean that Cain will be tried in the press. Voters will be the juries. Cain will drop out of the race. Who will donate to his campaign in view of this scandal. Ans: the very very few Republicans who deny the truth.
on November 10,2011 | 07:18PM
Toneyuki wrote:
What lies wiliki? He didn't pay off a single person. There were 2 settlements made by the NRA. That is different than him. Those settlements were reached and paid after Cain no longer even worked for the NRA. People are still contributing to his campaign because he is telling the truth. The funny thing is when lefties like you and OD, automatically believe the accuser simply because the accused is a right wing Republican. There hasn't been a single detail about what allegedly happened 14 years ago, except that Cain made a gesture that WASN'T OVERTLY SEXUAL. The left and the media are trying to destroy a good man because they can't compete in the arena of ideas. But the right in this country is sick of it and will not fall for the lies again.
on November 10,2011 | 08:35PM
Toneyuki wrote:
More lies from OD. Cain never paid any of them anything. He had nothing to do with the settlements that the NRA made with the 2 alleged victims.
on November 10,2011 | 03:10PM
ISCREAM wrote:
The question has to be is what has been described sexual harassment. If I have the facts straight...they went in a single car...they had drinks together...they had dinner together...he made a pass at her...she said no...he complied...sounds like a date that a million couples have had.
on November 10,2011 | 06:31AM
likewise wrote:
That's a good point. Many a pass is made women, some are accepted by the woman and some are declined and unwanted. If it's declined, therefore unwanted, does it automatically make it harassement? Or is it just a failed attempt at hooking up? Is the eye in the beholder? It must sometimes be hard to tell, lots of mixed messages when you accept a dinner date with a man.
on November 10,2011 | 07:13AM
OldDiver wrote:
ISCREAM, The woman was being interviewed for a job. Cain was pressuring her for sex in exchange for that job. This is illegal and does not reflect a date millions of couples have.
on November 10,2011 | 07:50AM
lee1957 wrote:
The woman asked for his help in finding a job, not the same as being interviewed for a job.
on November 10,2011 | 10:58AM
lee1957 wrote:
The woman asked for his help in finding a job, not the same as being interviewed for a job.
on November 10,2011 | 10:58AM
ISCREAM wrote:
OldDiver you are obviously over the hill and have not gone on a date for while which constitutes "clueless"...She was not "interviewing for a job". There was no "pressure" for sex. By the testimony of the accuser, she approached him, they were in HIS car, after having drinks and dinner over which they discussed how she might get her job back after being fired at the restaurant association, when he put his hand on her leg and tried to get her to kiss him. She said that she had a boyfriend and was not interested...he complied. EOS (end of story). This is another left wing assassination attempt.
on November 10,2011 | 12:48PM
Toneyuki wrote:
There is no evidence that they ever even had dinner.
on November 10,2011 | 01:54PM
kauakea wrote:
Funny. I always heard from the sexual harassment drum beaters that, when a boss goes after a subordinate, it was ALWAYS sexual harassment because of the power that the boss had in the relationship. Clinton was Lewinsky's boss. Consensual or not, it fit the harassment definition.
on November 10,2011 | 06:46AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Yes, it does fit the description if the target chooses to call it that. Ask any HR professional. Ms. Lewinsky didn't pursue it.
on November 10,2011 | 07:42AM
OldDiver wrote:
As her employer Clinton was definitely wrong. I believe Ms. Lewinsky was pursuing Clinton. Doesn't make it right but is a little different than the Cain situation.
on November 10,2011 | 07:57AM
tiki886 wrote:
There once was a gal named Lewinsky Who played on a flute like Stravinsky 'Twas "Hail to the Chief" On this flute made of beef That stole the front page from Kaczynski.
on November 10,2011 | 09:42AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Very different. There is no credible evidence that Cain did anything wrong. None, zilch, nada.
on November 10,2011 | 08:37PM
ISCREAM wrote:
There is a legal difference between sexual harassment and sexual politics. Sexual harassment requires the offended to tell the offender and the offender does not stop. Sexual politics is sex between consenting adults in an employment situation where one seeks promotion or favor. As much as I hated the guy, I don't think Clinton harassed anyone...they didn't say no.
on November 10,2011 | 12:52PM
Toneyuki wrote:
At least one of them did. "Better put some ice on that."
on November 10,2011 | 03:07PM
kainalu wrote:
And another point would be is that Clinton was impeached. Cain? Has had his campaign coffers filled to the tilt by the conservative-base, growing with each new allegation. Clinton? - impeached. Cain? - got rich.
on November 10,2011 | 11:46AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Clinton, guilty of the allegations. Cain, not guilty of the allegations.
on November 10,2011 | 03:11PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Cain is presumed innocent until proven guilty of something in a court of law. That is different than not guilty.You couldn't possibly "know" that he isn't guilty of the allegations.
on November 10,2011 | 09:31PM
aiea7 wrote:
Dorcie - right on - agree 100%. Max M. - are you serious - consensual sex infidelity is not as wrong as sexual harrassment? You forget about the spouse , his or her feelings. Sexual harrassment is attempt to obtain sexual favors from someone who is not a willing participant; and generally, there is no sexual intercourse involved. Sexual harrassment is indeed a very serious matter and should not be tolerated, but based on the level of activity, consensual sex infidelity appear more severe, expecially if the activity is regular and continuous. It may be fun for the willing participants, but it shows Are you attempting to ratlionalize your behavior?
on November 10,2011 | 08:14AM
Pacej001 wrote:
"Democrats on the [debt reduction] supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package, according to a summary of the $2.3 trillion plan obtained by The Hill. " Only the democrats could have the nerve to call money NOT spent due to the end of the wars as savings. Hilarious/troubling. Just think of all the "savings" we had after the end of WWII. Oh never mind that we've spent nearly a trillion on "stimulus" already and it didn't work, wasn't "shovel ready", didn't lead to a boom in green jobs and added massively to the debt. Meanwhile, we continue steadily down the road to national financial disaster due to the very entitlement programs liberals are swearing to protect LOL! COL!
on November 10,2011 | 10:25AM
Pacej001 wrote:
"The Obama administration will announce Thursday that it is re-evaluating the route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a move that will likely delay a final decision on the project until after the 2012 election, sources briefed by the administration said."----Uh, this thing represents an investment of private capital, around $7 billion, that would create tens of thousands of American jobs for years and increase the certainty of our energy supply. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO "WE CAN'T WAIT"? Uh, maybe some jobs can wait, after all, if approving the pipeline now might hurt Mr. Obama's election chances. So, while yammering on about the Republican obstruction of his mini-stimulus II legislation, he's happy to punt on the matter of allowing private investment to create those jobs without increasing the national debt. Does anyone else see the nonsense in this contradiction?
on November 10,2011 | 10:34AM
nitestalker3 wrote:
apologies to be off topic a bit, but the last posting before this was at 1034 am, rite after the ibew went on strike at 1030. their spokesman, harold dias has accused HECO of setting up the timing in regard to apec and that it's not the union's fault that they're off the job til late friday nite. does the union really believe anybody is going to believe this. they walk off the job when ewa beach was dark due to the wind bringing down about 15 or more telephone poles, now they walk off the job in the middle of preparations for apec with no regard toward embarassement for the state, the nation or the union's most beloved president...obama. they're going to expect support fm the public and other unions. i, for one, after looking at the heco offer compared to what is offered to other companies to include federal workers, conclude they are nothing more than very selfish individuals with no respect for those who actually pay their wages...the public. can you imagine 26 WEEKS of sick leave EACH YEAR with a $500 per year signing bonus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! is it any wonder why the power of the unions needs to be broken.
on November 10,2011 | 01:23PM
LemonySnickets wrote:
The past governor lingle was spoon fed by the unions. She would not bite the hand that feeds her. unions donate to campaigns to pull the strings of our governors, past and present.
on November 10,2011 | 03:14PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
> Max Mooney.... You are so right. Those who try to liken sexual harassment to consensual sex are trying to hard to smear a former President. They can't seem to get over it, especially since he left us in great shape with a surplus, and his successor blew it all and left us with a huge deficit. Comparing sexual harassment to consensual sex is not even apples and oranges; it is like black & white.
on November 10,2011 | 03:03PM
AtomicMonkey wrote:
To be honest, the President of the United States molesting an intern sounds a lot like sexual harassment, Keith But, since to a hardcore partisan, only the other side can do wrong it is a wasted argument.
on November 10,2011 | 04:04PM
nitestalker3 wrote:
actually, i believe it's called an abuse of power when the ceo/president/coo of a company, or the president of the u.s., has that type of a relationship with someone working for him or her. that, on top of lying to the country...remember the phrasing...it's how you define the word is...and his staff is what i, as well as a lot of others, find digusting. as far as the condition of the country on his leaving office...if he had done his job and killed bin laden, or taken him as prisoner fm the sudanese when they offered him FIVE TIMES to the u.s., bush would not have had to contend with september 11th.
on November 10,2011 | 04:29PM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
I agree Keith, he did leave us with a surplus, which was money stolen from the Social Security Trust Fund, and never repaid.
on November 10,2011 | 07:28PM
saveparadise wrote:
Roman Leverenz, You make a lot of sense. Yes, the primary virtue seems to be selfishness these days. No one wants to give up their safe seat on the boat, bus, plane, nor share their financial status. Why should anyone share what they gained through fortune or worked so hard for when you never know what the future holds? Chivalry is gone and there are many able bodied among the needy that are hopping the train for a free ride as well.
on November 10,2011 | 03:06PM
AtomicMonkey wrote:
All I want to know is why do all the Cain accusers live within ten miles of David Axelrod?
on November 10,2011 | 04:09PM
Toneyuki wrote:
I would also like to know why "registered Republican" would hire Hillary Clinton's friend as her lawyer, especially since she supposedly isn't planning on filing any kind of suite.
on November 10,2011 | 04:51PM
LemonySnickets wrote:
"suite"?
on November 11,2011 | 08:10AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout