Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 127 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Friday, December 21, 2012


POSTED:



Climate change report welcome

My thanks to the Star-Advertiser for bringing attention to the issue of climate change in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands ("Climate-change scientists predict sea to rise 1 foot by 2050," Dec. 10).

The study referred to that came out of the East-West Centerconcludes that a comprehensive evaluation of climate change policies and procedures is needed for better planning and management decisions.I completely agree. Traveling in the Pacific the past several years, I have seen the devastating impact climate change has hadon numerous inhabited atolls.

Hawaii is in a much better position to mitigate such problems because of how it manages its natural resources. Hawaii can lead the way and be a model for all Pacific islands.

Jim Lyon
Kailua

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 Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published.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

Case was voice in wilderness

I first met then-Rep. Dan Inouye in 1962 as a Boy Scout from Virginia visiting Capitol Hill.

In the mid-1990s, I had occasion to repeatedly visit with him in the waiting room at the ophthalmology clinic at Walter Reed Medical Center where we were both patients.

Since I moved to Hawaii in 1997, Sen. Inouye has always been quick to support programs I thought valuable to our nation. I liked Dan Inouye, and may he rest in peace.

Yet one can't help recall Ed Case's 2006 argument that Hawaii needed to plan for Inouye's eventual departure from the Senate; how Hawaii needed to begin staggering its members' tenures in Congress. Unfortunately, Inouye didn't buy Case's sound reasoning and instead supported re-electing fellow octogenarian Sen. Dan Akaka — who retires in a couple weeks.

So our state now has essentially no seniority in either house of Congress. This means that federal funding will grow lean in Hawaii because our state's Democratic Party failed to plan for our state's future.

Michael P. Rethman
Kaneohe

Stop killing kids overseas as well

Every word in President Barack Obama's statement a week ago on the tragic shooting of school children and teachers in Connecticut rang true, and his show of emotion for the loss of innocent life was moving. He spoke from the heart expressing the emotions of a nation grieving.

What I don't understand is that, as a nation, we do not share the same emotions over the loss of innocent lives (collateral damage) — many who are children, too — from ongoing U.S. drone strikes and war policies in countries around the world.

To the parents of the children killed by our drones, etc., the killings are as senseless, and tragic, as the shootings in Connecticut. Where are our tears for the deaths of the thousands upon thousands of innocent children killed in our name?

U.S. killings resulting from presidential "kill lists" and U.S. wars have got to stop. Otherwise, the killing we export will continue returning, like chickens coming home to roost.

Indeed, "May God bless the memory of the victims." But let us stop the killing. Let us repent of our collective violence, at home and abroad.

Jim Albertini
Malu ‘Aina Center For Non-violent Education and Action, Kurtistown, Hawaii

Tweak gun laws to halt murders

A step in the right direction to stop random shooting at innocent people would be to ban high-capacity magazines for firearms except for military and security such as police.

Why would a hunter need these when they use rifles? Why would a homeowner need these to defend the home when a handgun does the job?

Second, I would encourage gun owners to lock up their weapons at home so their kids or thieves cannot get their hands on them.

Lastly, make parents and adults responsible for any of their weapons being used in a killing. They should be responsible and legally charged with murder if their children or a family member takes their gun and kills another person.

My heart and prayers go out to the little children killed in Newtown, Conn.

Toby Allen
Kaimuki

Oshiro wrong to avoid GOP

I am so disappointed after reading outgoing House Speaker Calvin Say and Rep. Marcus Oshiro's statements of not being willing to work with Republicans.

While the nation is clamoring for bipartisanship to avoid the fiscal cliff, Oshiro wants to avoid a "terrible precedent" of working with Republicans.

Is it any wonder why Hawaii politics are so screwed?

Jamie Samoson
Mililani






 Print   Email   Comment | View 127 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(127)
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.
Anonymous wrote:
Hey, Toby Allen! If guns are so bad, we need to outlaw them, just like we outlaw Cocaine and Meth. That'll take care of the problem, right?
on December 20,2012 | 05:37PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 21,2012 | 01:51AM
control wrote:
and the paranoia and fear mongering continues. You are more likely to be hit by lightening. People aren't buying the nra and neo-con excuses any more.
on December 21,2012 | 06:42AM
wiliki wrote:
Not true... the consensus is that warming is caused by man and will accelerate. We must be prepared. Billions will be affected. There's no accepting the excuse that we didn't know.
on December 21,2012 | 07:28AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Then why are you so hellbent on spending billions of dollars to build a rail that will be underwater soon after it's built?
on December 21,2012 | 02:11PM
Toneyuki wrote:
What on earth does that have to do with guns?
on December 21,2012 | 08:21PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Actually the DOJ estimates there are about 1 million instances per year of home invasions in the US vice about 400 people struck by lightning. That's not terribly close. 266,000 of these invasions result in serious assault of the victim in the home. About 430 invasions per year result in murder of the victim in the home. So you're slightly more likely to be murdered during a home invasion than to be struck by lightning and 2500 times more likely to experience a home invasion (defined as a person being in the home during the break-in). Now that you know the odds a little better, do you still have the same opinion?
on December 21,2012 | 11:31AM
pcman wrote:
Toby Allen, if someone steals your car that was locked, should you be criminally liable if the car was used in accidentally or intentionally killing a pedestrian or another drriver? Cars kill more people than guns do.
on December 26,2012 | 07:58AM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 21,2012 | 02:03AM
wiliki wrote:
Not true... the consensus is that warming is caused by man and will accelerate. We must be prepared. Billions will be affected. There's no accepting the excuse that we didn't know. I guess I wasn't paying attention on where this goes....
on December 21,2012 | 07:29AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Then why are you so hellbent on spending billions of dollars to build a rail that will be underwater soon after it's built?
on December 21,2012 | 02:13PM
lee1957 wrote:
Gore <> consensus.
on December 21,2012 | 03:41PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Warming= good for billions. A few degrees warmer would actually make crops grow better and growing seasons longer. How many Billions of people could we feed if Asia produced 25% more rice?
on December 21,2012 | 08:26PM
Malani wrote:
tiki886, it is true that Man-made global warming is a hoax. If they knew the TRUTH they too would also agree.
on December 21,2012 | 08:15AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Mr. Rethman you hit the nail right on the head. The democratic machine iced Ed out of the picture because of some hissy fit and now look at our Congressional reprentation.....I take that back....don't look at them because there is nothing to look at. Our now senior Senator spent the last six years in the House basically doing her best imitation of the witness protection program.
on December 21,2012 | 02:43AM
bender wrote:
Correction. We will not have a "senior senator". Whoever is sworn in along with Hirono will be equal in seniority. Is juniority a word?
on December 21,2012 | 05:19AM
OldDiver wrote:
Ed Case is a self serving politician who lost the vote to Senator Akaka. This is not a complicated story.
on December 21,2012 | 05:39AM
bender wrote:
I think your response should have bee directed to loquaciousone. I said nothing of Ed Case.
on December 21,2012 | 06:07AM
OldDiver wrote:
Sorry, bender it was. Clicked on the wrong reply button.
on December 21,2012 | 07:28AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Did you click the RIGHT button or the LEFT button? If you clicked on the LEFT button that is the right button but if you clicked on the RIGHT button, that is the wrong button. GOT IT? NOW DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME.. Don't click on the RIGHT button.
on December 21,2012 | 12:22PM
wiliki wrote:
I disagree... your quick retort is just an appendix to the first statement. It adds nothing new.
on December 21,2012 | 07:33AM
peanutgallery wrote:
You can't blame OD. He's so far into a jug of Kool-Aid by this time, he doesn't understand half the stuff .that he comments about
on December 21,2012 | 05:55PM
Toneyuki wrote:
All politicians are self serving.
on December 21,2012 | 08:28PM
serious wrote:
No, but stupidity is. A one party system--no checks and balances--it don't work!!! Just like the people who voted HIM in.
on December 21,2012 | 05:40AM
wiliki wrote:
It do work because the Democratic party is diverse and not a single minded ideology that is the Republican party.
on December 21,2012 | 07:34AM
pakeheat wrote:
NO wonder the Democratic Party has done a lot for Hawaii, NOT!!!!!!!
on December 21,2012 | 08:06AM
pcman wrote:
To add to pakeheat's comment, the top ten cities with the worst crime and killings are run by Democrat mayors. If we get too liberal on criminals, we'll get there too.
on December 26,2012 | 08:05AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
We have a 2 party system, it's just that one of them in Hawaii is completely out of step with the vast majority. WHen politiciams do not represent their constituents, they lose... over and over and over again. They are call elections and they have consequences.
on December 21,2012 | 09:06AM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 21,2012 | 04:05PM
Kuniarr wrote:
We are in the 21st Century, the age of many things that are so-called smart.

Smart phones
Smart computers
Smart ipads
Even smart highways and traffic signal lights integrated into a smart traffic signal light system controlled by a smart computers
Smart Missiles that shoot down incoming ballistic missiles in the US Missile Defense System.
Smart bombs that hit a target with deadly accuracy.
Smart medical devices that enables surgeons to operate what was in the 20th century inoperable.

But what do we have in Honolulu?

But what do we have in Honolulu?
Rail as an alternative to traffic congestion from not so smart mayor, councilors, and bureaucrat engineers in the city Department of Transportation Services who think we are still in the 20th Century.

on December 21,2012 | 07:33PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Actually when one party has no limits on how much they will lie and demonize their opponents, when the media chooses sides and lets them get away with lying about their opponents, and help push an agenda then the 2 party system falls out of whack and the Democrats do whatever they want. And then we wind up with substandard schools, roads, sewers, and soon, rail.
on December 21,2012 | 08:31PM
pcman wrote:
Who has run the city/state since statehood? That's about when the schools, criminal justice, roads, sewer, and other social/community programs started going bad. That's where we are at now, with the bottom of the pit and no fixes in sight.
on December 26,2012 | 08:12AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You mean she can't qualify for any of the SENIOR discounts that they give to old farts.
on December 21,2012 | 05:48AM
bender wrote:
Sorry, I didn't look at it from that perspective. But I think being in Congress that she has a better discount/benefits card than you and I will ever see.
on December 21,2012 | 06:02AM
loquaciousone wrote:
I just didn't want any one to mistake her for a JUNIOR. After all, at 65, she qualifies for medicare and Senior discount bus passes
on December 21,2012 | 06:33AM
wiliki wrote:
Se has 20 more years to serve.....
on December 21,2012 | 07:35AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You make it sound like a prison sentence.
on December 21,2012 | 12:26PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Actually bender, with the arcane rules of the Senate, whoever Governor Abercrombie appoints to fill Senator Inouye's seat WOULD be the senior Senator if she/he is sworn in before Senator-Elect Hirono is sworn in later in January in Washington, DC. Strange, but true. She/he would also be Senior to all the others sworn in at that same time.
on December 21,2012 | 07:57AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
When Hanabusa is given the seat (as she will); there will likely be a simultaneous swear-in with Mazie. Mazie will retain the senior position however, based on her longer service in the House. Mazie and Colleen don't much like each other and neither would willingly give up the status as first Asian-American female senator.
on December 21,2012 | 01:57PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Interesting point. I guess we'll see when it happens.
on December 21,2012 | 02:40PM
Wazdat wrote:
AGREE. Power CORRUPTS
on December 21,2012 | 06:00AM
starripoff wrote:
Case had vision, dems were fools (what a shocker!) And what the heck happened to carpenter? He was an OK guy before now he's a crotchety old man!

The big question now is what the heck is hirono going to do? Nobody to follow and not even a partial pea brain up there so she will now be even more confused then before. Is that possible?
on December 21,2012 | 04:28PM
pcman wrote:
Like Obama leading from behind, she will undoubtedly watch the world go by and let Hawaii sink to the bottom of the pit in education, defense, tourism and every other thing that matters to Hawaii. As long as she collects her pay and some of the political kickbacks, she will be happy as a lark. Oh, that's what she has been doing over the past 6 years in the House of Reps. So what's new?
on December 26,2012 | 08:20AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You mean there is still some Republicans left in Hawaii?
on December 21,2012 | 02:45AM
toomuchpilikia wrote:
Hawaii is number one again in the polls...The most liberal state in the union...congradulations!
on December 21,2012 | 04:36AM
wiliki wrote:
Except for Sam Slom, we've got pretty liberal politicians... Slom has got a thin skin. I once congratulated and thanked him for his stand on casino gambling in Hawaii, but he and his staff got huhu when I said I disagreed on his other political positions.
on December 21,2012 | 07:39AM
wiliki wrote:
Well... he asked. He didn't have to.
on December 21,2012 | 07:39AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Polls? Criteria? I would be pleased if you were right, but I'm just wondering what the parameters are for your pronouncement.
on December 21,2012 | 09:08AM
Kalli wrote:
Toby Allen, you are being misled by Obama. Banning assault rifles would not have stopped the Newtown massacre nor would banning of large capacity magazines. He is not offering any solutions to this tragedy he is using it as an excuse to push gun control. We need armed (and secret) teachers. Just like air marshalls, the bad guys do not know who they are or where they are but they are there just in case. If the Principal had been armed or able to get to a gun the killer would have been killed. You can't ban 300 Million guns.
on December 21,2012 | 04:15AM
Biggy2011 wrote:
Obama is certainly going to try......
on December 21,2012 | 05:22AM
serious wrote:
Obama can be brave--notice the number of ARMED secret service people he has with him? The politicians are also brave--they have the ARMED capitol police screening ever visitor to their offices. Our movie "stars", our sports "stars" all have ARMED bodyguards. Just watched the NRA's response on TV---their point is to have an ARMED person at every school. It's guns in the wrong hands that are the killers--guns can save our lives. I had gun safety training from my Dad and the Boy Scouts. It's available--guns can be your friend!!
on December 21,2012 | 05:34AM
OldDiver wrote:
Just what we need around school children, teachers using pistols trying to take down people armed with military style assault weapons. This is Fox News craziness.
on December 21,2012 | 05:43AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Reveals your lack of familiarity with a subject you're so quick to comment on.
on December 21,2012 | 06:05AM
wiliki wrote:
It's a silly idea that the guard wont shoot first and ask questions later. Not to mention kids that think it's funny to provoke the guard.
on December 21,2012 | 07:43AM
wiliki wrote:
The police were there at the scene within minutes... I suspect that any station receiving such a call would have the desk sergeant going directly to scene after receiving the call.
on December 21,2012 | 07:47AM
Toneyuki wrote:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
on December 21,2012 | 08:36PM
hawaiikone wrote:
wiliki, you're right. Just check out all those provoking passengers that were shot at the airport.
on December 21,2012 | 09:19PM
control wrote:
right, just the lesson kids need to learn - don't get your way, pull out your gun and shoot them. Nothing like adding to the problem instead of solving the problem.
on December 21,2012 | 06:45AM
hawaiikone wrote:
"don't get your way" is a little different than stopping a mass murder, but you knew that. Isn't it about time for some sensible comments? Like maximum magazine size, eliminating gun show sales, and similar, rather than simply demonizing guns.
on December 21,2012 | 07:00AM
wiliki wrote:
Teachers probably need training in avoiding to provoke the shooter and delaying him until help can arrive and yes, no rapid fire guns that can devastate a whole classroom in seconds.
on December 21,2012 | 07:52AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Yeah, wiliki, cuz prohibition works. That's why we don't have a meth problem.
on December 21,2012 | 08:38PM
pcman wrote:
Holding all other factors constant or equal, if you wanted to shoot up a school, would you go to a school with armed personnel, or would you go to a school in a gun-free zone?
on December 21,2012 | 10:05AM
cajaybird wrote:
The Fox News retort is really growing old. Please come up with some new lines.
on December 21,2012 | 04:12PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Better than screaming and dying anyway.
on December 21,2012 | 08:36PM
pcman wrote:
Actually, just the idea of armed guards or teachers in a school would deter most potential killers from shooting up that school. The problem is the shooter may then go to a school, church, mall, etc. in a "gun free" zone. But then, that's their problem.
on December 26,2012 | 08:28AM
lee1957 wrote:
He's going to talk the talk, which he is good at. Time for him to shut up and start walking for a change.
on December 21,2012 | 06:30AM
pcman wrote:
Anyone who is not authorized by school officials but is carying "assault-type" weapons in a school setting, deserves to be shot on sight, killed and no questions asked. Any school with such a policy would probably never be threatened by a person with any type of firearms. Don't you think?
on December 21,2012 | 10:15AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Since most of these wingnuts KNOW they are going to wind up dead anyway, I doubt your solution will change much of anything, but it will increase the likelihood of firefights that could kill even more people.
on December 21,2012 | 10:45AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Problem is that crazy people don't go into an area where someone is going to shoot back. A fire fight has a much better chance of stopping a mass murderer from killing more people than not being able to defend yourself.
on December 21,2012 | 08:40PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Correct, but common sense is remarkably absent today.
on December 21,2012 | 09:23PM
lee1957 wrote:
I'm not sure BHO will suggest armed guards in schools, but whatever he professes will have scant action behind it.
on December 21,2012 | 03:46PM
bender wrote:
I agree it would not have prevented the Newtown shootings but we do need to start somewhere. I'm not sure how many guns are on our streets but there are certainly too many. Putting guns in the hands of teachers solves nothing but it might encourage them to act brazenly when a calmer approach might be better. I sure wouldn't want the school district arming my spouse and telling her to shoot first and ask questions later. It sounds good on TV but it doesn't work that way in real life, just more tragedy.
on December 21,2012 | 05:25AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Wonder if the Sandy Hook parents would agree with you.
on December 21,2012 | 06:07AM
bender wrote:
Which part? That there are too many guns, and that we need to start somewhere, or that it would be foolish to try to arm teachers?
on December 21,2012 | 06:12AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Hard to respond. I know nothing about the parents. Which prompted my "wonder" question. And I cannot imagine going through the loss of a child. For myself, I would have been eternally grateful had a guard, or someone else, shot this guy before he murdered my child. That's real. How we proceed from here is yet to be decided, my thought was simply more of a "what if" scenario, which does nothing but make one wonder. Too many "illegal" guns? Totally agree with that, but worry about how to begin making laws that would affect only the "legal" ones.
on December 21,2012 | 07:19AM
wiliki wrote:
This kid fell through the cracks.... they were satisfied to keep him docile in school when he was there. But they needed to strengthen him for living on his own when he go out. It would be good to find out what really happen to the kid that caused him to shoot up the school.
on December 21,2012 | 08:07AM
lee1957 wrote:
Mom giving him easy access to firearms is not falling through the cracks. Mom was stupid and she paid for her mistake with her life.
on December 21,2012 | 03:47PM
Toneyuki wrote:
The crack is a mile wide. Thanks to the ACLU.
on December 21,2012 | 08:43PM
mrluke wrote:
"a calmer approach" (?) PLEEEZE provide an example!
on December 21,2012 | 07:30AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
People and things that you value should be adequately protected. Harsh words and rules/laws do not equate to protection. Banks and government buildings often have armed guards, Many communities are gated and have guards (though not often armed). Pretty much every college campus has a police force. We have been relying on our hopes and wishes about the state of humanity for protection of our children in schools. Just as it did on 9/11, that hope has failed us. Putting up a gun free zone sign does not save lives. Having proper protection in place does. If you are hoping that some combination of gun laws alone will solve the problem, you will be disappointed. Take action to improve security for our most valued citizens - show them that they are important. Do this regardless of the actions you want to take to insult a hundred million or so law-abiding gun owners. If you fail to take action to provide appropriate security to our children, you are saying that our money (banks) and government workers are more important than our children.
on December 21,2012 | 11:46AM
control wrote:
getting out of bed is dangerous so are you going to sleep with a loaded gun to protect yourself?
on December 21,2012 | 07:05PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Yes. And I have a sign stating it on my window. Guess which house a burglar is going to enter?
on December 21,2012 | 08:45PM
Toneyuki wrote:
If you take away the guns from law abiding citizens then only the non law abiding citizens will have guns. Wonder how that would stop mass murders?
on December 21,2012 | 08:43PM
whs1966 wrote:
IRT Jim Albertini: Thank you for bringing this to people's attention. We need to admit that we are one of the most violent nations in the world. Not only are we killing each other in the streets of our larger cities, such as Chicago, N.Y.C. and L.A., but around the world in, often in the name of national defense and freedom. Consider our history of nearly exterminating the Native Americans, the colonial wars against Mexico and the Philippines, and, or course our wars and proxy wars in countries such as Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. It's no wonder so many Americans are violent.
on December 21,2012 | 04:59AM
sailfish1 wrote:
And when the U.S. isn't actively doing the killing, they incite revolutions and unrest and then supply weapons so others can kill. The U.S. is involved in every conflict on earth and are the world's largest arms dealer.
on December 21,2012 | 05:17AM
OldDiver wrote:
All in the name of corporate profits.
on December 21,2012 | 05:44AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Except when there is a Democrat in the white house, then it's in the name of Democracy. See Arab Spring.
on December 21,2012 | 08:55PM
bender wrote:
What war against the Philippines?
on December 21,2012 | 05:21AM
loquaciousone wrote:
I also recall, the Mexicans wiped our arses at the Alamo.
on December 21,2012 | 05:50AM
bender wrote:
Actually they wiped the Texan's okioles. But Texas was still part of Mexico at the time. Still is today from what I hear.
on December 21,2012 | 06:05AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You mean the Heisman Trophy winner lives in Mexico?
on December 21,2012 | 01:34PM
lee1957 wrote:
Alamo=1836, Statehood=1845.
on December 21,2012 | 03:49PM
sailfish1 wrote:
Courtesty of Wikipedia: The Philippine–American War, also known as the Philippine War of Independence or the Philippine Insurrection (1899–1902),[12] was an armed conflict between the United States and Filipino revolutionaries. The conflict arose from the struggle of the First Philippine Republic to gain independence following annexation by the United States.
on December 21,2012 | 07:16PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Yeah!!!! Wikipedia! If it's posted there it must be true!
on December 21,2012 | 08:47PM
bender wrote:
I see Albertini is off his meds again.
on December 21,2012 | 06:08AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Jim Albertini should just go away. He's anti anything American but lives the free life. Guess what Jim, we have a conscious and we don't need you.
on December 21,2012 | 07:07AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Sorry bender, not meant for you.
on December 21,2012 | 07:08AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
I find it odd that this issue is about violence, of which you 'seem' to be concerned, and Mr. Albertini is pointing to why there is so much violence that your America is promoting and you cannot see the connection. You don't seem to have a conscious but unconscious to reality. Pity.
on December 21,2012 | 10:45AM
Bdpapa wrote:
If you are an American citizen, this is your country also. I cannot see the connection but I am not naive. I've been to war torn countries where the women and children are treated on a lower level than farm animals. But this is our country, not only mine, and guys like Jim lives with all of the freedoms and none of the risks.
on December 21,2012 | 01:20PM
Toneyuki wrote:
We are one of the most violent nations in the world? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Try check murder rates per capita.


on December 21,2012 | 08:53PM
DanLBoom wrote:
GOP WRONG TO AVOID GOP. This is why politcal parties need to be abolished ,they are forgetting to serve the PEOPLE" instead they are serving only the Democratic or Republican parties, Margus Oshiro is a perfect example of that...and yes it happens on both sides of the fence.We need to also change the law on Term Limit or Career Poiticians (especially in Washington).4 to 8 years service thats enough ...then they should go get a regular job....,like everybody else. IMUA
on December 21,2012 | 06:45AM
MakaniKai wrote:
@DanLBoom: I agree there should be term limits. However this will never happen. Many become intoxicated with power and forget they work for “the people” and not “us working for them.” But the roles have become reversed. Not what the founders envisioned. They also seem to amass a great deal of personal wealth and receive a retirement, what’s up with that? Aloha
on December 21,2012 | 07:35AM
Tom938 wrote:
Yep, used to be the public servant worked and answered to the public that elected him/her. Now a public servant thinks the public is subservient to him/her. I have heard a lot of folks say that term limits are enforced by voting the incumbent out, but once these guys/gals are entrenched in the system, it is almost impossible to get rid of them (voter apathy).
on December 21,2012 | 09:38AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
If voters are apathetic, that is their kuleana. But for those that work and participate in the system, votes are what count. People can sit by and whine about how the system is "rigged" or "unfair" or lament that "it's a foregone conclusion"... or they can get off their okololes to make a change. We did it to get Mr. Djou out, Mr. Berg out, and we got Mr. Carlisle out. All were incumbents and their terms were limited by the voters..
on December 21,2012 | 09:57AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
We have term limits... they're called elections. You want someone out? Run for office or work hardfor or donate tor a different candidate, but I prefer to not have my choices for who I vote for limited by arbitrary time limits.
on December 21,2012 | 09:11AM
hawaiikone wrote:
An incumbent, through significant seniority, is provided with an increasing advantage. Contrary to you, I would prefer to have 8, possibly 12 years designated as the maximum time anyone can serve in elected office. That at least avoids any appearance of career considerations affecting the decision making process, other than those offered by lobbyists. But that's another subject. Also, eliminating the lifetime benefits simultaneously would insure the motives for serving are relatively pure.
on December 21,2012 | 11:05AM
Toneyuki wrote:
I agree with that, but there should be a mandatory retirement age. Say 80? Do we really think that our senior senators could really follow the debate? Have you seen them speaking on the floor?
on December 21,2012 | 09:01PM
pcman wrote:
The problem is that you can never outvote the idiots who vote for candidates just on name recognition or party affiliation and who they know nothing about, much less what the candidates will do after they are elected. Like Abercrombie, Hirono, Hanabusa, Obama, etc.
on December 26,2012 | 08:37AM
Charliegrunt wrote:
IRT Jim Albertini. We will when terrorists and enemy combatants quit setting up their missile launch sites and other weapons systems among the children. Our troops attack enemy locations from which they are receiving fire. They do NOT look for schools and homes to fire upon. Unfortunately, the misinformed among our population influence politicians to pressure the political appointees placed in charge of our military, many like the present Secretary of Defense, to establish Rules of Engagement that cause the deaths and casualties among our military. I would like to see those who share your views volunteer for the Army or Marine Corps as infantrymen, and assignment to Afghanistan. Then, you can show me how you will withstand withering fire from the enemy without firing back because they are shooting at you from a school, mosque or family neighborhood.
on December 21,2012 | 06:55AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
Charlie, why are we even IN those Countries in the first place. Our troups would NOT get shot at if they were NOT there in the first and second place. They are NOT in our Country, we are in theirs. where is your perspective. America is the terrorist. Pity.
on December 21,2012 | 10:52AM
wiliki wrote:
Jamie Samoson forgets that most of our Republicans are pretty radical and want cut costs of our social safety net. It's essential for survival in our high cost of living area.
on December 21,2012 | 07:25AM
ichiban wrote:
Which party brought us to this "ENTITLEMENT" state of mind? Which party thinks big government will serve the people better? Which party wants take money from the rich (person who merits high income) and give it to the poor (person who merits lesser income)? Which party is bringing our government closer to socialism? Food for thought.
on December 21,2012 | 09:16AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
The term safety net is being thrown around pretty wildly. Our safety net consists of dozens of overlapping and sometimes contradictory programs that have a net effect of removing a certain imperative to be employed or to improve the wages that you are getting. In many cases, getting a raise will cause you to lose more than the same amount of "benefits", so why bother? There are definitely good, well-intentioned programs out there, but they are not all encouraging people to go back to work.
on December 21,2012 | 11:54AM
control wrote:
they want to cut the safety net, call it a tax cut, but redirect the funds to the military
on December 21,2012 | 07:06PM
pcman wrote:
The only safety net I know is working several jobs, saving and good investments.
on December 26,2012 | 08:40AM
Toneyuki wrote:
Our government spends 60K per family to not work.

Democrats are so radical that they think that income equality means that since not every body can be rich then nobody should be. If you make 250K then you should be punished.


on December 21,2012 | 09:05PM
lowtone123 wrote:
There is no "one size fits all" answer to gun control but a ban on assault rifles is a start. The assault rifle was created by the military to do the most damage to the largest numbers in the fastest amount of time. Unless you are being attacked in large numbers this would seem like overkill. This of course would not have prevented what happened in Newtown (see my first sentence) but may have mitigated the damage caused by the shooter and many lives may have been spared.
on December 21,2012 | 07:26AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
The type of weapon had little to do with the numbers of deaths. A completely undefended group with no ability to overpower the killer stands no chance. For someone who says that there is no "one size fits all" answer, you seem pretty sure that you have a "one size fits all" answer.
on December 21,2012 | 12:01PM
Toneyuki wrote:
I can change a clip in under a second. If there was a ban it wouldn't have changed a thing. However if there was an armed secretary or armed janitor, or armed teacher, then they probably would have mitigated the carnage.

Know what else might have mitigated it? If the media would not sensationalize mass murderers names. Do not make them famous.


on December 21,2012 | 09:10PM
Graham wrote:
Newtown is a trgedy, Columbine was a tragedy, all thse high profile killings are tragedies...why is the media not highlighting the killings every week in our major cities..Chicago, Atlanta, LA, Phillie, D,C., etc. those killed far exceed the totals of Newtown, Columbine, etc...
on December 21,2012 | 07:50AM
DABLACK wrote:
The news media has a lot influence regarding notifying important issues. We could use some of these. But keeping the people ignorant is also government/political control ??
on December 21,2012 | 08:25AM
ichiban wrote:
IRT Michael Rethman. The reason why former Sen. Inouye was adamantly against Ed Case is in 2006 Case and Sen. Inouye had a discussion about the election. Sen. Inouye explained to Case to be patient because Sen. Akaka would be retiring soon. Case listened and obliged to Sen. Inouye's request. However when it came time for the election Ed Case put his name in as a candidate. This is what irked the Senator. I agree that the Democratic Party failed us. When you have a one party government like Hawaii there's no diversity of ideas, no check and balance. And don't give me the bull about L. Lingle was a Republican governor when during her time in office the state house of rep., and the state senate was 85% democrats. Gridlock.
on December 21,2012 | 08:48AM
onwardupward wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 21,2012 | 09:07AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Many who are pro gun are also pro life. They recognize that our society contains a number of people who are intent on harming others. They firmly believe that it is important to have protection against those who would do harm, thus preserving innocent life. They are upset that so little has been done to protect our children when they are assembled in large groups under government control, but they do not believe that the answer lies squarely in demonizing or weakening trustworthy citizens. A sign does not stop a predator.
on December 21,2012 | 12:18PM
Maui wrote:
onwardupward. "How come the Pro Life people have been silent re: Sandy Hook elementary killings?" One word, hypocrites.
on December 21,2012 | 01:11PM
cajaybird wrote:
You're making a comparison of Sandy Hook to abortions???? Wow, Im outa here.
on December 21,2012 | 04:17PM
Maui wrote:
cayjaybird. So are Pro Life people pro life?
on December 21,2012 | 07:42PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You make no sense.
on December 21,2012 | 09:28PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 21,2012 | 04:42PM
Maui wrote:
tiki886. So are Pro Life people pro life?
on December 21,2012 | 07:45PM
Toneyuki wrote:
Since you aren't pro-life, does that make you anti life? Your hypocrisy is showing.
on December 21,2012 | 09:16PM
pcman wrote:
Do we care if the president spends millions on his vacations when children in the US are starving, going hungry, or are homeless?
on December 26,2012 | 08:43AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates