Letters to the Editor
UH TUITION
PACIFIC ISLANDERS WILL STILL GET DEAL
I want to address the misunderstandings in the June 18 letter from Kathy Jetnil regarding the UH tuition rate for Pacific Islanders.
First, the change in the tuition rate for Pacific Islanders is not a matter of national origin; it is a matter of residency in the state of Hawai'i.
Many Pacific Islanders become residents of the state and, as such, pay the resident rate. This will not change. The rate of 150 percent of resident tuition is a special rate afforded to those nonresidents from eligible Pacific Island nations to recognize Hawai'i's longstanding relationship with her Pacific neighbors. This rate is significantly less than the nonresident rate, which is set at the cost of education.
The Board of Regents has also approved the Pacific Islander Scholarship and the UH Opportunity Grant, which will provide additional financial aid.
Second, all Pacific Island students currently enrolled at UH campuses will be "grandfathered in" at their current tuition rate.
Karen C. LeeAssociate vice president for student affairs, University of Hawai'i
NO 'JUST LIKE YOU'
DIVERSITY RAMPANT AT KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS
I have concerns with this question posed by one of the judges (in the Kamehameha Schools case): "I'm just wondering what's so great about having a school where everybody you deal with is just like you?"
As a 2005 graduate of Kamehameha and of 25 percent Hawaiian blood and 75 percent Caucasian blood, I assert the claim that while I was in school, no one was "just like me." Not even close.
When I walked through the corridors as a student, I saw classmates who were of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Native American, Caucasian, African, Swedish, Polish, Irish and Portuguese extract (just to name a few). There was no one who looked "just like me."
Therefore, how could there be anyone who acted just like me? The only thing that strung all of us together was that "drop" of Hawaiian blood in us, which for most students consists of less than 10 percent of their ethnic makeup. Not everyone at the school looks, talks, practices and acts "Hawaiian."
If the judges could take a tour of the campuses while school was in session, they would immediately see the justification for an all-Hawaiian school. They would see that the faculty, staff, administration and governance of the schools do not consist of people of only Hawaiian ancestry. They would see how it helps to improve the Native Hawaiian as a person and the Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people (and it doesn't take an act of Congress to assert that claim).
Makoa JacobsenEast O'ahu
'REJUVENATION'
FORGET HIGHRISE, GIVE US THE TAHITIAN LANAI
In the June 16 business section, "Hilton launches time-share project," Joseph Toy, president of hotel consultancy Hospitality Advisors LLC, is quoted as saying, "If you look at what was there before — the Tahitian Lanai and the Waikikian — this really rejuvenates the area ... "
Well, Mr. Toy, with all due respect, a lot of us would rather have the Tahitian Lanai than your 38-story tower. Many of us would prefer to wander through the lobby of the Waikikian, pass by the thatched-hut open-air dining, sit by the lovely pool with the map of Hawai'i painted at the bottom, and enjoy another Tahitian Lanai breakfast with those incredible home-made popovers.
But instead, we'll have overcrowding and insufficient parking.
No, Mr. Toy, I believe a number of us don't appreciate your kind of "rejuvenation."
Martha Jane UrannWaikiki
OATH-BREAKER
WATADA DESERVES OUR CONDEMNATION
As I read Ehren Watada's glib, self-serving column in the June 18 Advertiser, I wanted to vomit. What a perfect poster boy for the "It's all about me" segment of our society.
Never mind what the president orders or Congress decides. Forget superior officers, peers or junior enlisted personnel. And most especially, never mind that he took an oath and gave his word.
To summarize Watada's column: "It's all about me; if I want to change my mind, I can." Opportunistic morality at its finest.
People throw around the words "coward" and "courage" as if they are relevant. They aren't. Watada deserves our scorn and condemnation — not because he is a coward, but because he is an oath-breaker. His word is meaningless to him, and so must be meaningless to all of us, now and forever.
Russell RobinsonU.S. Navy (retired), Mililani
END TO WAR
WATADA'S REFUSAL IS PRAISEWORTHY
I am writing to voice support for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada and his refusal to fight an unjust war. Watada is an American hero.
Stephen Shioi recently wrote a letter calling people against the Iraq war "bleeding hearts," as if it's bad to feel the pain of war. My heart does bleed for the senseless loss of life resulting in our invasion and occupation of Iraq because all the justifications given for invading Iraq have been disproven. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction threatening American security.
History shows that wars end when governments run out of soldiers to fight with or when soldiers refuse to fight. I commend Lt. Watada for refusing to fight an unjust war. Hopefully his courage will inspire others to stand up against the unjust war and occupation of Iraq.
Krista DonaldsonKona, Big Island
STOP SUING
OHA FORCED TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST LAWSUITS
Thurston Twigg-Smith, who is a leader among those who are suing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on grounds of racial discrimination, accuses OHA of wasting its assets on defending itself in court and in Congress against his lawsuits. It is precisely because of him and others like him who attack OHA and DHHL that the OHA trustees must spend our money to provide the best in court and in Congress to preserve the continued legal identity of Hawaiians.
If they would stop suing, we could stop spending.
In the meantime, rather than lose all of our trust assets designated for Hawaiians, we will spend whatever it takes to win the war and protect what little Hawaiians have left. Thanks to Mr. Twigg-Smith, the Grassroot Institute and their likes, we must direct OHA assets toward paying lawyers and lobbyists to defend Hawaiians instead of helping Hawaiians.
The recent setback for Hawaiians in Congress will not deter OHA's further efforts to seek what's fair for everyone here in Hawai'i. We are the first people, as are the Native Americans and Alaskan Natives who were identified by their blood and their political status as aboriginal peoples, and Congress has every right to recognize us all.
Boyd P. MossmanOHA trustee (retired), Maui
KAKA'AKO
ENHANCE WATERFRONT
The last thing we need are more residences. The focus should be on what enhances Hawai'i, what gets used, by locals and visitors.
Bikeways and walkways are a must. Waterfront cafes would be nice. There's no need for more shops or other commercial things. Historic stuff is good in concept, but does it get used?
Rick RalstonHonolulu
PRICES, DRUNKS
TOO MANY NEGATIVES MAKE GOING TO UH GAMES A PAIN
UH football marketing has a new ad campaign: "There's Nothing Like Being There." You are so right. "There's nothing like being there" when:
On the other hand, there's nothing like staying at home and being outside playing with your own family.
The only good thing about going to a UH football game is getting to support the fine young, hard-working men who do their best on the field.
But the negatives of attending games at Aloha Stadium completely outweigh supporting these athletes in person. How sad that the stadium authorities just don't understand this.
Helen EschenbacherKaimuki
POORLY DRAFTED
CIGARETTE TAX-INCREASE BILL SMELLS
Here we go again. Let's have the governor sign a poorly drafted piece of legislation just because it is a good idea. Haven't we learned from the general excise tax surcharge fiasco, which the governor allowed to become law, that poorly drafted legislation creates even more problems and usually at the taxpayer's expense?
Now there is another piece of legislation awaiting the governor's pen. This legislation would increase the tax on cigarettes over the next six years, raising the rate from the current 7 cents per cigarette to 13 cents by 2011. Health advocates praise this move, citing that it would drive the cost of the product substantially higher and therefore deter youth from picking up the habit and discouraging those who currently smoke.
The increased revenues are intended to be earmarked for a variety of purposes ranging from, ironically, funding the Cancer Research Center to underwriting statewide trauma centers as well as community health centers. So, on one hand, the tax increase is designed to discourage smoking, while on the other hand, lawmakers are depending on the tax increase to fund these various health-related activities.
So what will it be? Is the message "stop smoking," or is the message "please smoke more because we need the money to fund cancer research and trauma centers"?
What is ironic is that the drafting of the bill is so poor and vague that one can interpret that instead of millions of dollars going into these activities and funds, that in fact, as drafted, each of these funds will get a penny or a penny and a half each year. Not only that, but the bill fails to recognize the last three phases of the tax increase as part of the funding mechanism for the variety of activities and causes.
The other issue that the bill fails to address is the magnitude of the increase and the impact it will have on smokers who will attempt to buy untaxed product. Be it by mail or by Internet, those addicted smokers who want to bypass the more costly product will, no doubt, seek ways to acquire it at a cheaper price. Thus, while health advocates may argue that the high cost will get people to quit smoking, they are also the ones who are counting on the increase to generate revenues for their worthy causes. In the end, the higher cost may drive more smokers to buy their products from out-of-state sources.
The Honolulu Advertiser urged the governor to sign the legislation because it would fund the Cancer Research Center. But would The Advertiser run an article that it knew was full of errors? Or perhaps would it run that same article and say, oh well, we can come back tomorrow and make those corrections?
So the ball is now in the governor's court. She can sign the bill to please the health advocates, or she can do her job and veto it and send it back to lawmakers so they can fix their mistakes and do the job right.
Worthy as the cause may be, taxpayers deserve laws that actually work and are based on good common sense. Hopefully the governor will not condone poorly drafted legislation, and neither should The Advertiser.
Lowell L. KalapaPresident, Tax Foundation of Hawai'i
