Obama can still earn peace prize

The article "Drone use is grossly misstated" should be a wake-up call for those whostill think President Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize awarded him early in his firstterm (Star-Advertiser, April 10).

Hundreds oftargeted killings thatthe president personally authorized in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere — cloaked in questionable constitutional and congressional powers — speak of a man whose eyes are nolonger on the prize of peace, but ona campaign of unending war.

How shocking it is to learn that many of these terror tactics are orchestratedinconcert with the Central Intelligence Agency from the Oval Office, wherea civilian commander-in-chiefnow appears toassume the role of "assassin-in-chief."

Perhaps our president’s role model should be an earlierNobelist, Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1967 sawus as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" and warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

There is still time for Obama to earn his prize.

Wally Inglis
Palolo Valley

State’s IT push shows promise

It’s late, but the push to upgrade our technology under our state’s visionary technology czar is very promising. Most of us want to get that done yesterday to save time and the state money.

Our Legislature understands we are behind other states, but with the new cooperative spirit of young leaders, we are moving forward in a responsible, careful way. With more general excise tax income, we are well-positioned to tackle the relatively small cost of upgrading our IT systems with anticipated huge savings.

The governor deserves a pat on the back for pushing this as well.

Chu Lan Shubert-Kwock
Honolulu

Fundraiser ban beyond overdue

I would like to thank the Star-Advertiser for its editorial, "Ban fundraisers during session" (Our View, April 10).

Legislators have been keenly aware of this issue for at least a decade. Legislative action on such a ban is beyond the concept of "long overdue."

Any of the legislators’ reasons for holding such fundraisers during the legislative session hardly amount to a molehill, in light of the nearly inescap-able appearance that such fundraisers amount to little more than an intent by legislators to extort campaign contributions from people with an interest in legislation now pending before the Legislature. These people are exercising their constitutional right to petition government.

Does this right have to cost money, payable to the campaign coffers of legislators? Much praise goes to the legislators who have set an example and taken the high road by foregoing such campaign fundraisers during the session.

One looks forward to the day when the phrase "honest graft" is something we no longer have to talk about when the Legislature is in session.

Daniel J. Mollway
Former executive director of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission

Solar tax credits good for Hawaii

John-David Nako’s commentary denies the fact that this is a true private/ public partnership that results in a huge benefit to the state ("Solar tax credits a form of corporate welfare," Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, April 7).

Residents are fleeing to solar power due to the exorbitant price of electricity — 300 percent more than the mainland. The resident pays 35 percent of the cost, the federal government credits30 percent and the state credits 35 per-cent.So between the resident and the feds, 65 percent of the cost is being spent in the statethat otherwise would not.

Also, the state passed the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative that mandates the state have 70 percent clean energy, with 40 percent by locally generated renewable sources, by 2030. There is no way the state can meet this goal without the private/public relationship with solar power installations.

Garry P. Smith
Ewa Beach

Doctors deserve compensation

Christopher Brigham’s esteem of the medical profession and his viewpoint of physicians dispensing medications is troubling ("Profits can weaken doctors’ decisions," Star-Advertiser, Letters, April 9).

Is he insinuating that doctors should be working without compensation?

To suggest that "evidence-based medicine" (whatever that means) would not support most doctors’ decisions is an insult to the profession.

Chris Steuri
Kalaheo, Kauai