Thursday, July 19, 2001
Mirikitani should exit City Council quicklyDo the words professional ethics, standards, accountablility mean anything to people in Hawaii? I guess they don't, since there are still people supporting Andy Mirikitani and Rene Mansho.
Most private companies have a policy against stealing from the company. Immediate termination is usual action taken. If people in Hawaii cannot see what our policy makers are really doing or what they stand for, then I feel very sorry for the future generations in Hawaii.
Are these the values that we are trying to teach our children? If money and power are the only reasons that our lawmakers are in office, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Jon Yoshimura and the rest of the city should immediately terminate Andy Mirikitani. If people in Hawaii don't have any morals or personal values then, we might as well start handing out job applications at OCCC.
Paramedics' morale should prompt inquiryKaipo Kilinahe's June 26 letter says "(city) Emergency Medical Services has a bad morale problem...and it looks like it'll only get worse." My response, "Right on!"
Let's hope that Kilinahe's letter will stimulate some investigative reporting or admin- istrative inquiry. Your front page news story of May 28, "Experienced paramedics leaving city for new jobs," provides a good starting point.
Robert B. Buchele
"He should have been on the stamp when it was only a dime." Bernie Baker,
Writer and photographer for Surfing Magazine, on the overdue issuance of a stamp honoring Hawaii swimming and surfing legend Duke Kahanamoku.
"I will be impossible to seat a jury in this case in this district which has not already heard of Lindsey and decided that she is untrustworthy and not credible." William Harrison,
Defense attorney, from a motion in the bankruptcy fraud and money laundering case against Lokelani Lindsey, one of the five Bishop Estate trustees ousted in 1999.
Military need support when moving petsI am a senior enlisted member of the U.S. Navy in Hawaii. I'm in a position within a command that is personally involved in attracting many folks to accept orders to Hawaii. I am extremely unhappy and strongly disappointed that our governor vetoed the pet quarantine bill SB204.
This will result in additional financial burden of our sailors for their pets and their shots, shipping, blood tests, etc. They already have other burdens of lodging, family separation, vehicle registration, shipping, etc. We were grateful for the elimination of quarantine fees provided by the state and federal government last year, but are highly distressed now over the governor's veto of this support continuing for this coming year and on.
Members of the military of all services sacrifice greatly serving our country, much unknown to our civilian patriots, and go willingly to high-cost areas while giving much more back to the community they serve within.
I don't understand the rationale for the governor's veto and the message of poor support he is portraying. I ask the governor to reconsider his decision and provide the military a well-deserved subsidy.
J. D. Frehlich
Pet Quarantine Archives
Bay fee discriminates against visitorsCalifornia resident Carol Daly along with her attorney Jim Bickerton should be given medals for pursuing their lawsuit against the city over the fee charged at Hanauma Bay.
Charging nonresidents $3 to enter the bay while residents are admitted free is definitely a discriminatory act and is unconstitutional, saying one group is better than the other. Problems occur when everyone who uses Hanauma Bay must present ID, which usually means the person must bring their wallet to the beach, something most people do not do because it might be stolen. There are two types of thieves at Hanauma Bay: the city collecting the fees and the predators strolling the beach for wallets.
Last year the state started charging $1 to hike Diamond Head. I hope Mr. Bickerton will also pursue a class-action lawsuit against the state for charging a fee to hike on land that is already ours. If we do not support Carol Daly and her class- action suit it will only be a matter of time before we are charged a fee at Ala Moana Park, Magic Island, Waikiki Beach, Makapuu tidal pools and possibly just to look at the sky.
If the state continues to charge our guests fees and taxes that are not charged to others, before long our guests will be the guests of other states and other countries with true Aloha.
Cookie wars dispute is a shameI was sad to read the recent story about the "copycat" lawsuit filed by Big Island Candies against the Honolulu-based Cookie Corner.
The notion that Big Island Candies owns the idea of rectangular-shaped, chocolate-dipped shortbread cookies is ludicrous. I guess it goes to show that anyone can file a lawsuit to try to gain an edge.
What's next? Perhaps the plaintiff will claim it owns the idea of rectangular chocolate brownies or chocolate-dipped macadamia nuts.
The real shame of this lawsuit is the attempt to besmirch the good name and reputation of the Cookie Corner and owner-bakers Angus McKibbin and Jim McArthur. I have been a big fan of Cookie Corner since they built and opened their first shop in Pioneer Plaza about 20 years ago. My favorite since they introduced it years ago: Cookie Corner's shortbread cookies. No question about it, Angus and Jim are wonderful bakers.
McKibbin and McArthur are reputable businessmen. Life-long residents of Honolulu, they contribute to good causes, are committed family men and run a successful business that employs a lot of people. Angus and Jim are fine role models for young people who have dreams of success in their own small business.
We have been customers of both Big Island Candies and the Cookie Corner. When we visit the Big Island, no question that Big Island Candies is one place to go for omiyage. Here in Honolulu, when we do not want to show up empty handed, we go to the Cookie Corner for omiyage. There is no confusion between the two.
Ashcroft rejects history of Second AmendmentU.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is leading the Justice Department to reverse itself on its gun control stand, held since the 1970s.
In a letter to the National Rifle Association, Ashcroft contends that the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an individual right -- not a group or collective right, as the department has held in the past (Star-Bulletin editorial, July 2).
Ashcroft's logic fails a basic litmus test. If the Second Amendment says, as he contends, that an individual's right to bear arms can not be infringed, then we are violating prisoners' constitutional rights when we take guns away from them.
I'm not being sarcastic. Either the text means that an individual's rights cannot be infringed, or it does not. If that's what it means, then there are no circumstances under which the government can deny an individual the right to bear arms.
However, America's founders made their intentions clear by their actions. Even at the time the Bill of Rights was written, laws and municipal ordinances controlled individuals' possession of weapons. It is clear from the precedent set by the nation's founders that their intent was to provide for "a well regulated Militia," exactly as the Bill of Rights says.
The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point on issues of public interest. The Star-Bulletin reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed, must include a mailing address and daytime telephone number.