I was very distressed by Elizabeth Crean's vicious review of Judy Collins' Friday night performance at the Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall. Since I did not attend that performance, I cannot comment on the accuracy of her perceptions. But I did attend Saturday night's show and came away knowing that I had just heard one of the most unusual talents to come out of America's folk music era of the 1960s and '70s.
Musical review of concert
was unnecessarily brutal
Collins gave the audience a truly magnificent performance. I don't know whether she ever had voice training (who in the folk music field has?), but she uses her voice to wonderful effect. It has warm and clear flute and clarinet tones, and the songs she composed moved me tremendously. Her standing ovation was well deserved.
As to Friday night, Judy Collins may have had a bad day. What performer doesn't? But the fact that Crean was unable to find anything good about the performance makes me think she had other "fish to fry" with her review.
Norma W. Gorst
Our governor, who is a lawyer, seems to feel that government employees can do whatever it is they do in 35 hours per week, instead of 40 hours per week. That's a great perk for the employees, but where are the savings?
Governor's 'great' idea
doesn't save any money
Now if the work can be done in 0.125 percent fewer hours per week, the way to save money is to remove that percentage of pay from the employees' paychecks. Now that saves money, not time.
Just what is it about lawyers? They spend years getting an education, which proves they should not be stupid. But when it comes to running the government, calling them anything other than stupid would be wrong.
They should stick to the business of screwing and suing people, and leave the running of government to business-oriented people, who also have more common sense.
It was very depressing Wednesday night to have to sit and hear legislators pat themselves on the back for being "fair" in a "historic" moment. How is it fair to deny rights and benefits to a segment of our population, who they admit cannot legally marry?
Lawmakers should be
ashamed of themselves
Somehow Sen. Mike McCartney's words sounded so unbelievable when he spoke about learning during the session that "we are all the same." How can we all be the same if some citizens have rights and benefits that other citizens don't?
The worst statement of the night belonged to Paul Whalen, who said he was concerned about the affairs of the state with disabled citizens having their benefits cut at a time when it will "cost the state to extend benefits to people who can afford to take care themselves." Too bad Whalen doesn't forgo the benefits he and his wife enjoy to help balance the budget and provide for the disadvantaged.
All this was said right after Rep. Cynthia Thielen stated she prayed the actions of the committee would not be divisive. So much for that!
Carolyn Martinez Golojuch
Parents, Families and Friends
of Lesbians and Gays
Your April 14 editorial leaves us confused as to the editorial position of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on same-sex marriage. You apparently reversed what has been your historical position regarding the granting of substantial equality to non-traditional couples.
Support of civil rights
cannot be done gradually
Until Monday, we were heartened by the courage demonstrated by your editorial posture of treating this issue "as a civil rights matter," and that if the Hawaii Supreme Court opinion must be overturned by a constitutional amendment, "rights of domestic partnerships should be statutorily recognized in separate legislation in lieu of same-sex marriage."
We in the Senate admired the guts that it took to take a legal and conscience-based position that ran contrary to popular opinion. From our perspective, this progressive stance reaffirmed the wisdom of granting our press special status under the first amendment of the Constitution.
We were therefore surprised when your Monday editorial concluded that "some benefits should be granted to domestic partners in lieu of marriage benefits. This can be a gradual process." To move from full marriage and full domestic partnership to "some" rights on a "gradual" basis is a turn that leaves us confused.
While the Senate has never been prepared to sanction the issuance of marriage licenses to non-traditional couples, we have always shared your announced view that this is a "civil rights" issue, the addressing of which would include the immediate provision of meaningful rights and benefits.
We know of no civil rights which are best granted in a "gradual process." Like pregnancy, a commitment to rights is not something that lends itself to gradualism. You are either committed or you are not.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Want to write a letter to the editor? Let all Star-Bulletin readers know what you think. Please keep your letter to about 200 words. You can send it by e-mail to email@example.com or you can fill in the online form for a faster response. Or print it and mail it to: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802. Or fax it to: 523-8509. Always be sure to include your daytime phone number.