Changing bad law is right thing to do
According to your Oct. 10 article "Ruling boxes in Superferry,"
Kauai Rep. Hermina Morita said the Legislature should not try to overturn a court ruling. "Are we going to turn into a banana republic and let the rule of men override the rule of law?"
She should know that man was not created for the law, the law was created by man. When laws are found to be unreasonable, defective or onerous, it stands to reason that our elected representatives should find a remedy through the legislative process for the good of all and not allow the tyranny of the minority to rule.
Maybe we can give whales more warning
There are a lot of arguments for and against the Superferry. On the plus side, it opens up the outer islands to increased tourism revenues. On the downside, the ferry threatens the monopolies currently enjoyed by the airlines and car rental companies, along with those interests who prefer tourism dollars remain in Waikiki. Those latter greedy agendas are concealed behind some other excuses, some of which border on the silly.
One such faux argument is that the Superferry is a "whale killer." This is an insult to the whales, who I understand have quite good hearing and intelligence equal to that of politicians, and thus should easily be able to swim to one side as the ferry whizzes by.
But for those who are still convinced that whales are at risk from the ferry, might I suggest adding a variation of the deer whistles concerned drivers attach to their cars in the woodland areas of the mainland. These whistles make a noise that the deer can hear, giving them ample warning to step off the road before the car or truck gets there. Yes, occasionally a less intelligent deer still gets removed from the gene pool, but nobody has seriously suggested banning driving because of it.
EIS demand should have come sooner
I understand and sympathize with the concern for the environment. What saddens me is the fact that there wasn't a harder press for the environmental impact statement when Gov. Linda Lingle first declared that one wasn't required.
If such a demand for an impact statement was made back then, it could have been finished when the ship was just leaving dock on the mainland. Also, the quiet peace of Maui would never have been disrupted the way it was recently.
Mayor didn't want luxury homes in valley
In your Oct. 3 editorial "Waimea Valley's future as cultural institution looks bright,"
you stated that because the mayor feared the property's costs would be set too high, he urged the City Council to consider dividing the valley and allowing luxury homes to be built. This notion is utterly false. The city had put up $5 million to purchase the property, but the then owner wanted more. The proposition that the valley be divided and luxury homes be built was a settlement offer made by the previous owner of the valley during litigation. As such, city attorneys were duty-bound to present the settlement offer to the Council for its consideration.
Ultimately, the Council rejected this settlement offer. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state then expressed interest in the property but, as the mediator indicated, it was ultimately with the assistance of Mayor Mufi Hannemann that a successful acquisition could be consummated. The mediator and the attorney for the owner both credited the mayor for bringing the parties together with the Trust for Public Land and the Army and for speaking directly with the previous owner to encourage him to accept the deal.
Trudi S. Saito
Deputy managing director
City and County of Honolulu
Marriage is more than just a piece of paper
Another high-profile figure has opted out of marriage. Pop singer Janet Jackson is the latest to come out and say she and her boyfriend don't need "that piece of paper" to validate their relationship. Add her to Brad and Angelina and a host of other public figures, and it is no wonder that our families are in dire straits today.
That "piece of paper" does more than validate a relationship; it makes the commitment to each other and the family unit much stronger. Oaths, vows, contracts and thus commitments mean little to many people these days. In our throwaway society of today, it is just as easy to walk away from a relationship and forget about the fruits of it (read: children) if there is no messy paper involved. Marriage says to your partner that you will stand by them no matter what the circumstances. To love someone is a conscious decision, not an emotion, thus marriage is an affirming decision as well.
If marriage is such an outdated and unnecessary institution, why are gay couples clamoring to get it legalized for themselves? Because they know that marriage and the commitment that it entails is the real validation of a relationship. For the sake of our society and the future generations, let's not turn our back on this most cherished of God-given institutions.