BUZZ'S

WAIKIKI RESTAURANT IS NOT PART OF FAMILY

In 1957, Buzz Schneider opened Buzz's Steak and Lobster on Beachwalk in Waikiki. By 1961, Jerry McDonald was the owner of Buzz's Steak and Lobster, and Buzz Schneider was no longer associated with the restaurant.

Buzz's Steak and Lobster was relocated to Saratoga and has had about five different owners, but they continue to use the name "Buzz's."

Buzz Schneider opened Buzz's Original Steak House in 1962 in Lanikai, where it remains today, owned and run by the Schneider family. We also own Buzz's Original Steak House in Pearl City.

We want you to know that the Schneider family has never been associated with Buzz's Steak and Lobster on Saratoga.

EDITORIAL

MANY ARE OPPOSED TO BEING TOUGH ON DRUGS

Your Jan. 11 editorial about bringing drug-sniffing dogs into schools was marred by the throw-off line: "No one doubts the need to be tough on drugs."

Opposition to the tough-on-drugs philosophy is widespread. It covers a broad political spectrum and has lots of public support. It is not only the ACLU, George Soros and liberal organizations, but the National Review, Milton Freidman, Bill Buckley, George Schultz and many other conservatives who favor reform. The Libertarian Party isn't alone in calling for the end of federal meddling in state powers to legalize drugs, particularly marijuana.

We test people's opinions at events we attend and find that no clear majority exists for retaining the current hard-core prohibitionist approach to dealing with the sociological problems incident to illicit drugs.

Despite all of these facts, the media have consistently acted as if the statement made in your editorial was unquestionable truth. Hawai'i's television stations have given free air time to documentaries promoting the law enforcement point of view. Only one of the four stations responded to requests to meet with reformers subsequent to these airings.

Your paper should be aware of this opposition from your letters to the editor. Please don't pretend it doesn't exist.

H-1 PROJECT

LANDSCAPING SHOULD INCLUDE NATIVE PLANTS

I notice that the state Transportation Highways Division is now in the landscaping phase of the widening project of the H-1 in Pearl City, one that I estimate must cost between $500,000 and $750,000.

Some years ago, a directive (or law) from the state Legislature insisted that all new state projects (highways, schools, airports, buildings, etc.) be landscaped with native plants to conserve them, show the public what they look like and demonstrate what can be done with native plants in landscaping.

I am wondering why one of the state's own divisions has once again not taken the opportunity to use native materials instead of all the foreign ones. This also holds true of the state's airports and schools. It seems that there is no oversight of the state's projects.

This H-1 project would be an ideal, outstanding showcase, or at least one that could be evaluated for practicality in compliance with the law.

TAX RELIEF

STATE OVERCHARGED, SO IT MUST REFUND

I for one do not choose to forgo tax relief. The state has grossly overcharged for the services rendered, and the ethical and moral result is to give refunds to the customer.

How to give back the money to the customer is not a decision that requires any hesitation; the U.S. Postal Service does a fine job delivering checks in the mail.

Let's get to it.

IN-DEPTH OP-ED

GIVE LESLIE WILCOX HER OWN PROGRAM

With the uncertainty of the direction new ownership at KHON will pursue, it would be refreshing to see Leslie Wilcox move on to a venue affording her the opportunity to use her vast knowledge, understanding of all the Islands and her delightfully uncommon common sense.

A daily, independent 30-minute op-ed program focusing on one issue with in-depth commentary would be a breath of fresh air in the electronic media.

Occasionally the program "At Home with Leslie" could include interviews. Rather than suffer restraints imposed by news broadcast management, let's see her talents displayed unfettered.

BAD SCIENCE

INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXPOSES EVOLUTION

It is quite false to say, as your Jan. 8 editorial does, that the intelligent design argument is a clever repackaging of creationism.

Intelligent design presents empirical reasons for concluding that the universe isn't the product of chance plus time plus nothing. There was a cause.

To argue that the complexities of this universe had no cause requires considerably more faith than does the acceptance of the intelligent design argument.

Anyone familiar with the intelligent design argument knows that attempts to identify the cause, or to speculate about the cause, are far outside the domain of this argument.

Therefore, the construct you imposed on this discussion (of religion versus science, and faith versus fact) is very misleading. The real issue is the way intelligent design factually exposes evolution, at several critical points, to be bad science.

Of course, this exposure is something that the evolutionist elite will not tolerate. Blind faith and rigorous dogma simply forbid it.

However,the chest-expanding, chin-elevating arrogance that seeks to keep all contrary facts out of the science classroom is not something intelligent people should support.