Hu Honua did not “fail” (“Hu Honua’s project wasn’t sustainable,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 23).

Even though the plant’s owners invested $125 million and secured funding to complete the plant, Hawaiian Electric Light (HELCO) killed the project by refusing to extend basic construction deadlines. The facility was already 50 percent complete.

With that decision, HELCO wiped out hundreds of local construction and permanent jobs for the plant and new forestry industry.

HELCO claims cost overruns would be shifted to its customers. Now the cost of oil has increased, resulting in higher utility bills, and HELCO is planning to run old, expensive fossil fuel plants longer instead of allowing Hu Honua to complete its plant, which would help move our state closer to renewable energy goals.

HELCO customers will be the losers in the long run. Instead of having a renewable energy producing plant like Hu Honua, we will continue to rely on imported fuels and pay the price. Whose interests is HELCO serving?

George Martin

ILWU Local 142

——-

Columnist mirrors Trump’s failings

In his trenchant critique of Donald Trump (“Trump’s honeymoon already over and for good reason,” Star-Advertiser, Jan. 13), Charles Krauthammer considers Trump little more than a schoolboy bully unable to satisfy his insatiable need for attention and praise. It is a withering critique already sustained by polls registering a drop in public approval. Surprisingly, however, Krauthammer concludes his article with a slap at President Barack Obama as a well-meaning but ineffectual leader. His farewell address, Krauthammer argues, only reveals the “emptiness” of his two terms.

Unable to resist taking one more shot at Obama before he leaves office, Krauthammer resembles Trump himself in that in his self-preening way, he must have the last word. Obama’s farewell address was an eloquent exposition of the democratic values that must serve to define and sustain our identity as a nation and a people.

It was also a sharp rebuke and warning to Trump, something that Krauthammer either missed or was unwilling to acknowledge.

Mark Helbling

Manoa

——-

Citizens have right to voice opinions

“Get over it.”

This phrase as used by conservative pundits and others after the November general election is getting old and, frankly, has a condescending tone about it.

It’s meant to tell those whose candidate did not win, that you lost the election so accept the results, stop whining, be a good loser and back our guy. And if you don’t, you are indeed a sore loser and bellyache too much.

That’s one way to frame “get over it.” There is another.

Consider that those who protested and marched in the streets on election night and continue to criticize this next administration are exercising their basic constitutional rights. This country has a long history of public demonstrations. Some would say it’s the way the little guy gets a chance to voice their opinion. It might even be seen as a civic duty.

To the pundits and politicians who only see protesting as whining and sour grapes, it’s not. Citizens have a right to express their views.

Get over it.

Mike Taleff

Moiliili

——-

Beach-hire items an eyesore for tourists

As a regular reader of your paper online and also reading the paper every day when I visit Hawaii, I feel compelled to comment on the concession stand issues at Waikiki Beach.

I am currently vacationing here, and have noticed more than ever the amount of room the stands plus their piles of hire items take up on the beach area.

I understand that tourists come and want to hire chairs, umbrellas, boards. etc. However, the storage areas for these items take up prime positions on the beach and make the iconic Waikiki Beach rather ugly. The chairs could be stored more toward the rear but they are smack bang in the middle.

Together with their roped-off areas and orange cones, the whole issue needs to be addressed. I have heard loads of tourists comment on the ugliness of it and how much room it takes up.

Susan Cohen

Sydney, Australia

——-

Terminally ill have a right to choose

Within the last several days you have had several articles concerning the controversial death-with-dignity legislation that is up for review in the next legislative session.

John Radcliffe, a terminally ill patient and proponent, joined forces with the national group Compassion & Choices to push for the law (“An ailing lobbyist wants a law to OK suicide via doctor,” Star-Advertiser, Jan. 13).

Compassion & Choices cites a survey it conducted here last November showing that 80 percent of 603 registered voters supported a medical “assisted in dying” option for others, and 88 percent support having the option available for them. I am a Stage 4 patient who strongly supports that choice as my personal right.

Eric Tessmer, a biomedical products manager, writes against the bill (“‘Death with dignity’ not best option,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Jan. 11). He said he witnessed a physician try to convince a family not to resuscitate their father. Also, he observed a distressed hemodialysis patient refuse treatment. What does this have to do with that law?

What is most frightening is a narcissist president and a non-supportive GOP Congress coming into power. I must trust the judgment of the citizens in Hawaii.

Jim Wolfe

Nuuanu