SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT

OHA'S NATIONHOOD IDEA AN OXYMORON

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice "words mean only what I say they mean neither more nor less." You state that a municipal corporation is a "sovereign government" — what! The whole idea put forward of an independent "nation within a nation" is an oxymoron — there is not, nor could there be, such a thing.

Your editorial encouraging certain state officials to transfer public land, money and other assets to a separate and independent national government for Hawaiians serves to implicate The Honolulu Advertiser in their treasonous conspiracy.

The actions of the OHA officials in the establishment of such a sovereign government is clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code which provide criminal and other penalties for treason. Neither the federal nor any state government can create a sovereign government.

Beside the fact that Native Hawaiians are not American Indians, they have been completely assimilated in multi-ethnic communities for the better part of 200 years and thus are clearly not tribal.

Above all is the apparent refusal of The Advertiser to accept, six years later, the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano that any public election in which only Native Hawaiians can vote, such as that proposed by the OHA trustees in order to establish the native Hawaiian Nation, is unconstitutional.

HAWAIIAN NATIONHOOD A SHIFT TO RACIAL POLITICS

OHA's effort to form a Hawaiian nation is a dangerous adventure in racial politics, and The Advertiser's support for it ("OHA nationhood bid merits more support," July 24) is shameful.

The Advertiser's arguments in support of OHA's effort are foolish and naive. This is not like setting up a municipality. Municipalities are not sovereign and cannot be racially exclusionary. Racist politicians in the South learned that years ago. Nor is this a matter of Hawaiians managing Hawaiian resources or assets. Everything that Hawaiians say is "theirs" comes from state and federal taxpayers and what's left still belongs to those taxpayers, and the Constitution applies to its management.

The Supreme Court will strike down an OHA-sponsored Hawaiian nation just like it struck down the OHA voting restriction.

So OHA's proposal will surely fail, but that does not make The Advertiser's support less wrong. When respected media voices support such racial causes, they raise expectations that can never be met, and in time, this doomed enthusiasm turns to frustration and even to hate.

We have seen that recently. We have wasted some of the best talent of a generation of our citizens on a sad, ugly, hopeless campaign for racial preferences. We have been killing aloha. We must not do that any more.

HUMPBACK WHALES

EIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR PLANNED SUPERFERRY

I find it unbelievable that Mike Leidemann's article on the Superferry (July23) did not mention the huge issue of the impact it will have on humpback whales. Hawai'i is the only state in the nation that is home to the birthing and mating sites of the endangered northern Pacific humpback whale. That is why Hawai'i has the designation as a Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. There are 20 other protected marine species that spend time at or near the surface in Hawaiian waters. All of these species are at risk of being struck by the Superferry. This reason alone should be impetus enough to require an environmental impact statement.

The ferry will not be able to detect baby whales at the surface unless the waters are very calm. The ferry will be traveling 42 mph in deeper waters. Twenty-five percent of adult humpback whales spend their time in deeper waters. These adult whales are engaged in surface traveling and courting and mating behavior.

In addition, most, if not all ,marine mammal strikes will not even be detected because the animals will quickly drift off behind the ferry.

I find it unconscionable that the ferry is being allowed at all, let alone that it's been approved without an environmental impact statement.

DOE

REPORT CARDS WON'T ENCOURAGE EXCELLENCE

The new, standards-based report cards being used by the DOE starting this academic year will only hamper our keiki's ability to succeed. Success in business and academia is based on the ability to compete against others and win. If a child with high aspirations wants to go to medical or law school, they have to be the "best of the best."

To implement grading standards based on the lowest common denominator with this new "everybody wins" system discourages the pursuit of excellence and is akin to taking all of your college courses with the "pass/fail" grading option. Upon review of that kind of performance, one can only assume that the student who "passed" got a C instead of an A or a B.

ENVIRONMENT

GLOBAL WARMING HAS OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES

Naomi Oreskes' commentary on climate change (July 26) makes a common overstatement. After claiming "there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the world is warming" she continues to claim that "human activities are the principal cause."

She then partially corrects this by saying the IPCC concluded "global warming is occurring (and) humans have a major role in it." She then claims this is all true because it is a consensus opinion of professional societies.

As one of the "stubborn" earth scientists she discounts, I would point out that global warming has occurred several times we know of in the history of the Earth. Some of these very significant changes occurred long before man was having an effect on the atmosphere.

Instead of assuming that human activities are the principal cause, we should be expending our efforts to evaluate other possible natural causes of climate change. We should determine if there is something that can be done to stop or slow these changes or plan to adapt to changes that we can not stop.

GILL NETS

DLNR FISHING RESTRICTIONS HAVE PROVIDED NO BENEFITS

I attended the Department of Land and Natural Resources public hearing on proposed rule changes to restrict lay gill netting and heard people say we may need some restrictions to give our fish a chance to recover.

It seems we've been through this same old exercise time and time again. The DLNR closes public fishing in an area to make it a sanctuary so the fish will repopulate and spill over outside the sanctuary. They temporarily close public fishing in an area to test the effectiveness of a modern-day kapu system and then keep it closed since Waikiki residents enjoy having a "private" beach; they close public fishing in an area to allow only the residents of the ahupua'a to use it for subsistence; they close public fishing in an area to prevent scuba divers from being hooked or hit by lead from shore casters; they close fishing in an area to prevent people from accessing and trampling the forest and wildlife resources in a remote location. They close public fishing in a remote area so enforcement officers don't have to walk to check violations and can conduct drive-by enforcement instead. And now, they want to close off additional areas to the gill-net style of fishing. All of these public fishing closures have been presented as "closed with the possibility of reopening in the future if warranted."

Aside from the unsettling fact that these closed areas have not provided any future benefit for fishing, DLNR has never reopened any area closed to public fishing.

With all the closures, pressure will only continue to mount on the resources left in the areas open to fishing. This is just wrong.

READERS SPEAK OUT ON 2006 RACES

MORE ISSUES COVERAGE WOULD PROMOTE VOTING

As a kama'aina expat trying to keep up with Hawai'i politics, I found the July 26 article "Deadline over: It's time to campaign" contradictory. The piece, in style and by choice of quotes, laments the uncontested races in the state Senate, House and City Council.

At the same time, the writers seem to dismiss the other gubernatorial candidates in favor of the incumbent, who has "lots of money from campaign contributions, and lots of name recognition," re-applying Jean Aoki's quote.

Running for office is a high-stakes investment of family, time, finances and reputation. No matter how formidable the opponent, challengers such as Randy Iwase should be commended for offering voters a choice and raising questions about an incumbent's record in office.

The media bears some responsibility for whether a race is a "snoozer" or not. With coverage more focused on the issues and candidates' positions, and less on guessing the spread, more people might feel that their ballots are worth casting.

DAN AKAKA HAS RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

Michael Rohrer's letter (July 25) was way off base when he implied that Sen. Akaka has not effectively represented the people of Hawai'i.

Akaka has received financial support because he has a proven record of leadership and accomplishments. In ratings posted by www.congress.org on legislative effectiveness, for example, Sen. Akaka was ranked 30th out of 100 senators.

Rep. Case placed 418th out of 437 House representatives. My dad Alvin Shim, another great leader, recently passed away. Many people didn't know how much he did for Hawai'i until he was gone (bragging was not a part of his culture). Sen. Akaka's true ratings are a wonderful testament of serving with a clear conscience and being supported because of his leadership.

ASK WHICH SCHOOL CANDIDATES ATTENDED

If you are highly concerned about public education, the first question any voter should ask their prospective or current government representative is where they attended school and where their children attend school.

Very few, if any, have attended public school nor have their children. If your child could get an Iolani or Punahou education right in your community, would you fork out the $14,000 a year to send them to private school? I really doubt that our representatives would support any action that would put our private school industry in jeopardy. Especially since these alma maters have produced them and the highly influential puppeteers who control them.