Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 17, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 66 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Sunday, December 23, 2012


POSTED:



Pay package for Jay is way too generous

Considering the fact that the University of Hawaii athletic program has a net deficit of more than $11 million and an athletic director was just hired for $293,000 plus other benefits, why would the UH administration offer him bonuses for doing the job he is expected to do? Balancing the budget should be a minimum requirement of the job, not grounds for a bonus.

And, why should he get an extra $5,000 if women's volleyball participates in the NCAA tournament, which is something it does every year?

Success in competition is a reflection of the work of the coaches and the athletes they recruit, not that of the athletic director.

In addition, letting him take his wife and three children to eight mainland events each year is another excessive concession.

I do not blame Ben Jay for negotiating a goodcontract for himself. However, it is obvious that the people who were negotiating for UH knew very little about what they were doing and, once again, gave away the store.

Linda Estes
Koloa, Kauai

Food products should have truthful labels

While the federal government has jurisdiction over labeling our foods, a short-term multinational corporate agenda has been substituted for a healthy, nutritious, transparent food security policy.

The regulatory role of our government has been "captured" by this industrial food agenda through which our politicians, both federal and local, have become local agents of that same industrial machine. None of this is controversial.

What is controversial is the letter writer who rails against "misinformation" yet dishes out the same while suggesting that an inconvenient democratic meeting notice process stands in the way of progress ("Anti-GMO crowd hijacked hearing," Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 8).

Transparency is a bedrock principle, a core right of citizens in a democracy. Food is a fundamental common need for survival.

When it comes to our foods, all humans have a duty and right to both demand a truthful label and to know precisely what is in our food and its source.

Rob Kinslow
Kaimuki

Krugman's analysis defies fiscal reality

According to Paul Krugman, "We are not having a debt crisis … The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its deficit" ("GOP's existential crisis is about politics, not debt," Star-Advertiser, Dec. 16).

How did Krugman pass Economics 101, much less get a Ph.D.?

He advises me not to worry about my continual overspending as long as I can put it on my credit card and pay the interest. And, of course, the U.S. government has no trouble paying its interest because it prints its own money. What a deal!

I have news for Paul Krugman: Credit cards have limits and history shows that governments have limits, too. Stop castigating those who want fiscal sanity.

Bob Henninger
Foster Village

U.S. afflicted with too many firearms

The National Rifle Association and its irrational opposition to any reasonable gun control policy will tragically condemn us to decades of senseless slaughter of innocent people.

The recurring spate of murderous shootings is the direct result of the unchecked availability of guns to anyone who wants to commit unspeakable harm on others.

Logically, there should be no reason to permit assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which have no legitimate purposes.

But, even the absurd availability of legal weapons — without reasonable controls — makes murderous assaults possible due to the sheer abundance of now legally accessible guns.But as we have painfully learned in the Newtown tragedy, even lawfully purchased guns can fall into the wrong hands.

When the U.S. suffers 12,996 murders by firearms in 2010, compared to 11 in 2008 in Japan, 18 gun deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009 and 158 in Germany in 2010 — all countries with stricter gun laws — it takes no brains to conclude that reasonable gun safeguards, like trigger locks, banning certain firearms and stiffer registration requirements may reduce our absurd level of violent deaths.

It is way past time to restore sanity to our gun laws.

Francis M. Nakamoto
Moanalua Valley

Guns, mental illness both issues of concern

The massacre in Connecticut has raised numerous questions: It involves all types of weapons.

One person wrote in and said it wasn't a weapons problem but the guy's brain. That is partially correct. However, if his mother's weapons had not been so handy, the story may have been different and may not have occurred at all.

It seems that our country has a monumental problem involving both weapons ownership and mental illness.

It will require a herculean effort on the part of the entire country to attack the problem.

Bob Frye
Pupukea

Gun-control clamor spurs buying frenzy

What the heck — doesn't the president and the rest of the country get it?

All this clamor about gun regulations and stricterlaws has created a feeding frenzy with the gun shops.

Have you seen the line lately at the Beretania Street police station of people trying to register firearms? Out on the sidewalk.

We're getting a reverse effect with all the purchases.

We need a gun turn-in program to counter this frenzy.

It's like announcing an oncoming tsunami or hurricane, and everyoneis out buying ice, gas, rice, toilet paper, in a total panic.

We need tocorrectthe access to the mental health files, as this is the stickler across the country. This restriction should be lifted, if one is applying for firearms.

In the latest incident, in Connecticut, the guns used weren't locked up and, really, it was the fault of the victim/mother who coincidentally taught her challenged son how to shoot these firearms.

Maybe we need some form of mandated insurance or bond with the purchase of these weapons.

Lloyd Faulkner
Kailua

Mortgage deduction is two-edged sword

Last Sunday's Star-Advertiser mortgage interest deduction story, "Loss could imperil real estate, economy," raised a number of issues.

While limiting or eliminating this popular deduction would upset those currently benefiting from it, including commission-driven Realtors and homeowners, tax revenue projections to the government are probably inflated.

If we accept the analysis by Aloha Tax Service's Bob Thue that a typical homeowner might incur an additional $432 each month in federal tax liability, this would represent about $100,000 (present value) over the course of a 30-year loan.

In an efficient market, house values would immediately drop an equivalent amount in response.

Subsequently, new mortgages would also decline, slashing theoretical interest deductions (now tax receipts) by around 25 percent.

In short, the government would receive less than expected, and Realtors and current mortgagors would suffer.

On the plus side, plummeting prices would make housing more affordable.

Capping total deductions seems a better choice.

Bernard Wilson
Laie

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






 Print   Email   Comment | View 66 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(66)
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.
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
IRT Linda Estes ltr,"Pay package for Jay is way too generous," I wholeheartly agree with you. Compensation at UH is a runaway money train with outrageous amounts being spent by those who have no accountability. I firmly believe that our legislators should take a close look at how and on what these salaries, bonsuses and perks are formulated. Is it any wonder why students are saddled with continuing debt? Time to reel in the UH runaway money train.
on December 23,2012 | 03:35AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Yes, part of the package is too generous. However, with the overblown fiasco we had here, it was difficult to get someone with his qualifications.
on December 23,2012 | 11:16AM
wiliki wrote:
Perhaps when the sports program is more stable, a change can be made... we'll only need a caretaker for AD then.
on December 23,2012 | 11:50AM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
IRT Francis M. Nakamoto's ltr, "U.S. afflicted with too many firearms." While I support legal gun ownership, I don't and can't support the sale of both assault weaponry and high capacity magazines. Perhaps some of this could be solved by requiring that along with the purchase of a weapon, the buyer must also purchase a gun safe and trigger lock. No gun safe, no trigger lock, no sale. Any weapon sold must also include a trigger lock. Buying a second or third weapon, the buyer must have proof that they own a gun safe, i.e., receipt of purchase.You don't need an AK-47 and 30 round magazine to shoot a deer, pig, squirrel, elephant, etc.
on December 23,2012 | 03:43AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
More nonsense. What then, police raids gun owners home to make sure they are using the mandatory safe and lock? Let's be sensible about solutions.
on December 23,2012 | 06:14AM
Allenk wrote:
If only it were that simple. Mandating purchase of a safe and trigger locks are only useful if the owner uses it. Same with automobile insurance. While the state mandates it, many people still drive without it.
on December 23,2012 | 06:39AM
bender wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with the authorities verifying that I can safely store guns that I might own. Anyone who opposes such an idea should not be allowed to own a gun.
on December 23,2012 | 07:38AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
How do you verify? Oh yeah the criminals will tell the truth.
on December 23,2012 | 09:07AM
bender wrote:
If they want to go and shoot those kinds of guns I hear that Uncle Sam is looking for a few good men. They will have plenty of opportunities in the USMC or US Army.
on December 23,2012 | 07:43AM
Kalli wrote:
Francis Nakamoto, do you really believe gun control would prevent murder? Japan has only 11 gun muders each year but thousands in stabbings, strangulations, hangings, etc. Where there are people there will be murders. The only solution to the school massacres is with armed teachers who take on the responsibility to protect their school if required. Much like a sky marshall who know one knows except the pilot that they are onboard the plane.
on December 23,2012 | 05:04AM
Maui wrote:
Kalli. So why are there no school massacres in Japan? Why does it happen in the U.S.?
on December 23,2012 | 05:23AM
hawaiikone wrote:
So why is it that following the tsunami there was no looting and a remarkable sense of cooperation and helping one another that followed this devastating disaster? Therein lies your answer.
on December 23,2012 | 06:02AM
Maui wrote:
hawaiikone. What are the gun laws in Japan? Are citizens allowed to own military assault weapons?
on December 23,2012 | 07:22AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Are you implying the strict Japanese gun laws are the reason their people behave with civility and respect for each other?
on December 23,2012 | 09:19AM
Maui wrote:
hawaiikone. No.
on December 23,2012 | 01:16PM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Uh, wasn't there a multiple stabbing in a school in Japan a few years ago? I think it might have even been a pre school. Let me go research.
on December 23,2012 | 06:17AM
Maui wrote:
dontbeliveinmyths. How many people died?
on December 23,2012 | 06:45AM
ichiban wrote:
Do you remember the sarin gas used to massacre the citizens using the Tokyo subway during the busiest hour? It happened in 1995. Five individuals from a fanatic religious group were involved. Twelve people were killed. thousands got sick. Police raided the religious group and arrested many. Following later investigation, it was found that if these fanatics knew the proper application of sarin gas, the result would be devasting. Thousands would be killed. These five had the antidote themselves. You can google sarin gas for this item. Now what say you? Guns are not the only means used to kill people. Ban the use or selling of assault weapons, I'll go for that. But I still believe people kill people. Guns or any other objects are just conduits for the kill.
on December 23,2012 | 09:02AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
I think 8 kids died and 21 people were injured.
on December 23,2012 | 09:08AM
hawaiikone wrote:
13 dead, 50 severely injured, 1000 slightly injured.
on December 23,2012 | 09:22AM
Maui wrote:
hawaiikone. dontbelieveinmyths has the correct numbers.
on December 23,2012 | 01:11PM
hawaiikone wrote:
wikipedia lies? who knew..
on December 23,2012 | 05:06PM
DPK wrote:
Maui: Within the past couple of years, there was a mass murder of Japanese school children by a man with a knife or machete. Security will never be 100%.
on December 23,2012 | 07:46PM
Maui wrote:
Kalli. Japan has only 11 gun murders each year. There have been more than 100 that have died in the U. S. since Sandy Hook due to gun violence. Does Japan have gun control?
on December 23,2012 | 05:39AM
hawaiikone wrote:
So why does Switzerland, with a mandated law requiring "assailt" rifle ownership for it's military aged citizens, have virtually no gun violence?
on December 23,2012 | 05:53AM
Maui wrote:
hawaiikone. What are the laws for the rest of the citizens?
on December 23,2012 | 06:50AM
hawaiikone wrote:
You answer my question before I answer any more of yours.
on December 23,2012 | 08:32AM
Maui wrote:
hawaiikone. You are the one knowledgeable about Switzerland. That's why I'm asking you.
on December 23,2012 | 09:05AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Waiting/
on December 23,2012 | 09:16AM
wiliki wrote:
You can't really compare the two. No way should Switzerland be the same as Japan. And I really can't believe that any law requiring ownership of assault weapons for anyone male or female 18 to 40 years of age work at all. That'll be extremely high rate of ownership-- greater than the US.
on December 23,2012 | 11:56AM
hawaiikone wrote:
point is, neither country has much gun violence, one has strict control, one gives fully automatic assault rifles to their military age citizens.
on December 23,2012 | 05:08PM
Allenk wrote:
Actually Norway, not Switzerland had that terrible shooting. See this story: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13448753-norway-massacre-gunman-anders-breivik-declared-sane-gets-21-year-sentence?lite
on December 23,2012 | 07:00AM
Allenk wrote:
Yes. See this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
on December 23,2012 | 06:55AM
Allenk wrote:
This article in the Atlantic even mentions The Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club in Waikiki. Talk about national exposure!
on December 23,2012 | 08:00AM
false wrote:
England has 4 times the murder rate of the US... yet hardly any guns compared to us. Also, more people are killed and injured by baseball bats each year than by guns... FBI stats if you's like to look at the figures.
on December 23,2012 | 06:04PM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
The solution would be to stop coddling these obviously crazy people. All through life they are given excuses for their anti-social behavior and then they snap.
on December 23,2012 | 06:15AM
wiliki wrote:
Crazy people need therapy and not weapons which gives them an incentive for violence.
on December 23,2012 | 11:59AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Maui, here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80964&page=1#.UNc81By1u7s Also in the article it talks about the nerve gas attack on the subway. Even in a place where massacres are rare, you don't need guns to do it. Again, it's about how the very liberal left have decided to handle the people with very anti-social and dangerous behaviors. They coddle and make excuses for them. The insanity plea is just one example.
on December 23,2012 | 06:24AM
Maui wrote:
dontbelieveinmyths. Is there any place in the U.S. that does not have the insanity plea? Does the conservative right want to get rid of it? How does the conservative right handle people with very anti-social and dangerous behaviors?
on December 23,2012 | 07:04AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
I don't know the solution, but let's not pretend everyone can be cured and let them roam around us. To a smaller scale, the problem also exist in the public schools, where even the most severely disabled are mixed with everyone else.
on December 23,2012 | 09:10AM
wiliki wrote:
They can and do mix in safely and with love and respect from their fellow students. It gives me hope that our society can one day do that as well-- especially when I see that crazy homeless guy roaming around a public park in Waipahu.
on December 23,2012 | 12:01PM
DABLACK wrote:
Any comments from the ACLU yet ?? Would like to hear their take on all these ideas. People think for themselves, just like our law makers.....who will think FOR us.
on December 23,2012 | 06:35AM
kiragirl wrote:
Rob Kinslow, too bad our city council don't think we should know and they should state their reasons why.
on December 23,2012 | 07:16AM
Allenk wrote:
IRT Lloyd Faulkner. It is ironic that once the media brings the attention of the public to the particular assault rifle model used in the Connecticut shooting, demand for said weapon goes up as gun enthusiasts fear that a ban will be instituted. I find it hard to believe that a person needs to invest in an assault rifle for protection or range shooting practice. It's not like a whole army will be bearing down on you to rob your home.
on December 23,2012 | 08:10AM
hawaiikone wrote:
So you're saying the unthinkable never happens. OK.
on December 23,2012 | 08:37AM
wiliki wrote:
Bob Henninger is wrong.... our country's economy is not like your credit card. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Krugman says the economy is more like a baby sitting cooperative. Now if Bob started from there, I'd be more inclined to listen more.
on December 23,2012 | 08:37AM
DPK wrote:
wiliki: Krugman is a hack. His economic theories are based upon continuously bashing Republicans to fill out the NYT Obama mandate. He might have credibility if he thought outside this box. He's too one sided to have any real value.
on December 23,2012 | 07:53PM
Ronin006 wrote:
My eyes almost came to tears as I read the number 2 Top Story on the home page about the mom struggling to keep her family together as her life falls apart. There she is with her two boys, the oldest not yet five, struggling to keep her family together and there was not one word about a husband or the boys’ father. It makes one wonder how she got into her current situation, which appears to be self-inflicted.
on December 23,2012 | 08:41AM
peanutgallery wrote:
1 Long article, and not one word about the kids' father.
on December 23,2012 | 09:43AM
DPK wrote:
peanutgallery: people create their own limitations. I wonder how much taxpayer support she will get because of poor personal decisions.
on December 23,2012 | 07:55PM
leino wrote:
Rob Kinslow is right on. Anti-GMO crowd does have rights that should not be bought off by big business. The government manipulation bothers me almost as much as not having the option to choose. Other countries are much smarter than we are ... or have not been bought off yet!
on December 23,2012 | 08:52AM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 23,2012 | 08:54AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Contemplating the necessity for American citizens to rise up and overthrow our government seems ludicrous and almost laughable, considering the resources at hand to suppress such an effort. And despite extreme fringes on both sides of the fence, one arming itself for overthrow and the other ready to imprison those outside of their perceived political correctness, I doubt many of us are truly fearful of soldiers killing us in the streets. More than likely, deterioration that extreme would result in soldiers rising in revolt as well. The principle behind an armed citizenry still stands as it always has, and as long as we continue to call ourselves a truly free people that principle should be defended.
on December 23,2012 | 09:39AM
ichiban wrote:
hawaiikone==Did you forget what happened at Kent State? Students and citizens of this country were shot and killed S___ happens. We are slowly losing our freedom. After 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed, it gave the government the right to do unto its citizens what was once considered illegal like wire tap, arrest without cause, etc., all under the guise of national security. We are now more closer to socialism and further away from capitalism. If things continue like they are there will be an uprising against the government.
on December 23,2012 | 10:33AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Agree with you. I came home from Vietnam right before Kent State. The choice we have is kind of like the difference between birds in a cage and birds in the sky. One has a lot of benefits, protection, food, etc. yet the other is free, although at risk of predators, starvation, and other daily challenges. Which would we rather be?
on December 23,2012 | 05:23PM
peanutgallery wrote:
You are correct, but current hysteria helps the "professor" lean-into trying to modify those amendments. The side benefit is that the media isn't paying any attention to Benghazi, or Hillary Clinton's disappearing act. In another couple of weeks, the public won't even remember what happened. The "professor" is hoping the same strategy will hold when he moves to change the declaration. Wake-up America! You're soon to discover that "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".
on December 23,2012 | 09:39AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Mr. Kinslow: Buy organic and then you can be sure the food is not GMO.
on December 23,2012 | 08:55AM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Bob Henninger. Ignorance breeds contempt. Paul Krugman never advised anyone to overspend on their credit card, or any state to spend more than it takes in. The federal gov't is unique. You need to learn to read.
on December 23,2012 | 01:40PM
tiki886 wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html?_r=0

Wrong. Krugman is an i diot. He wants our nation's income tax to be 91%. His Ph D and his Nobel Prize are pieces of toilet paper. He should use it!


on December 23,2012 | 03:18PM
Nevadan wrote:
tiki=Henninger? Krugman never said the federal income tax should be 91%. That is fabrication with hate!
on December 23,2012 | 04:08PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Sorry, but I followed the link, and Krugman does imply we'd be better off with a return to those rates from the 50's and 60's.
on December 23,2012 | 05:28PM
Nevadan wrote:
Yes, the 91% tax rate referred only to the upper 2%. Never in history did the middle class pay 91%
on December 23,2012 | 06:17PM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha HK. I remember those days of 90% tax, albeit never paid anywhere near that rate.
on December 23,2012 | 06:36PM
Nevadan wrote:
tiki=Henninger? Krugman never proposed the federal tax to be 91%. That is fabrication loaded with hate !!!
on December 23,2012 | 04:09PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 23,2012 | 04:59PM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Tiki Henninger. You obviously did not read that one of the two toilet papers you referred to was worth $1.7 million. How did you miss that?
on December 23,2012 | 06:21PM
beachbum11 wrote:
Never mind the bully's at the sa removed my comment
on July 19,2013 | 09:40AM
bluebowl wrote:
what the heck is going on SA?
on August 31,2013 | 08:46AM
IN OTHER NEWS