Editorials
Wednesday, January 28, 1998PRESIDENT Clinton should have been beaming as he stood before Congress to proclaim the nation's condition to be strong -- the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, the lowest inflation in 30, on the verge of a balanced budget worthy of national celebration. But strong as the country's economy definitely is, the state of the presidency is not. The tremors from a scandal of earthquake proportions could be felt, if not mentioned or reflected by Clinton's demeanor, throughout his State of the Union address by those who saw or heard it. State of the Union
better than presidencyClinton is too masterful a speaker and many of his proposed initiatives too appealing to be ignored, and members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle were attentive, perhaps even beyond what is required by tradition and etiquette. His call for Congress to give the Social Security system the top priority in deciding how to spend any budget surplus must be taken seriously, not because of Clinton's persuasive ability but because of its importance. The baby boomers soon to be facing retirement demand it and the American Association of Retired Persons will lobby hard for it.
Clinton's lengthy array of social spending initiatives and targeted tax breaks are less likely to receive much consideration by a Republican Congress that has paid little heed to such proposals in Clinton's best of days. The GOP has favored general tax cuts, and a stalemate could result over how any budget surplus could be utilized.
Saddam Hussein was given forewarning that he will not be allowed to take advantage of the scandal plaguing the White House. Clinton threatened military action if Baghdad refuses to come into compliance with the U.N. inspections programs, and Senate Majority Trent Lott said Congress will vigorously support such action.
Clinton's speech was a sad spectacle on such a special occasion for a sitting president, especially at a time that the nation enjoys peace and prosperity for which both the chief executive and Congress can claim some credit. Once the address was over, the nation's attention returned to the latest revelations about whether the president had sex with a White House intern in her early 20s. At some point, if the scandal subsides and Clinton is still president, Congress may want to take its videotape of the speech off the rack and play it again.
A federal judge's rebuke of the Navy for its attempt to dismiss a Pearl Harbor sailor after investigating his sexual preference is a victory for the privacy rights of all members of the armed forces. It also should be a strong reminder to both Internet service providers to protect their clients' privacy and to Internet users about how information intended to be private can be made public. No privacy on the web
The court battle stems from an e-mail message sent in September by Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVeigh -- no relation to the Oklahoma City bomber of the same name -- to the wife of a fellow crewman aboard McVeigh's submarine about a Christmas toy drive for the crew's children. McVeigh's return address was "Boysrch." The woman interpeted it as "boy search" and consulted the customer profile listed under that address with McVeigh's Internet service provider, America Online. That profile identified the user as Tim of Honolulu, whose hobbies included "collecting pictures of other young studs."
The woman passed the information on to a Navy investigator, who asked America Online for Tim's full name. One of America Online's service representatives confirmed to the Navy that Tim was McVeigh. America Online has acknowledged that providing the information to the Navy violated the company's in-house rules.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin of Washington, D.C., has ordered the Navy to halt its efforts to dismiss McVeigh, a highly decorated 17-year Navy man, and scolded it for conducting a "search and 'outing' mission" against McVeigh in violation of the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The Navy's aggressive probe into McVeigh's sexual preference, which he still declines to divulge, and America Online's willingness to breach the assumption of privacy warrant Sporkin's castigation. However, McVeigh was naive in adopting an eyebrow-raising moniker for use in all avenues of cyberspace and thinking the Navy would not find out. That is why it is called the Web.
THE punishment prescribed for Sen. James Aki strikes a reasonable balance between ignoring his no-contest plea to gambling charges and expulsion from the Senate. Aki's punishment
The decision of Senate President Norman Mizuguchi -- who ousted Aki from the leadership four years ago -- entails Aki's relinquishing membership on two committees -- Commerce, Consumer Protection and Information Technology, and Transportation and Intergovernmental Affairs. However, Aki retains the co-chairmanship of the Education Committee.
In addition, Mizuguchi recommended that Aki be disqualified from traveling at the state's expense during the session. He is required to submit a formal letter of explanation to the Senate and the people of Hawaii.
These measures seem sufficient, because it appeared that Aki was not aware that the law was being violated by a church group that he permitted to conduct bingo games on his property in Nanakuli. Aki exercised poor judgment but without evident criminal intent and was granted a deferred acceptance of his plea. This means he can clear his record after five years if he commits no crimes.
Mizuguchi correctly decided that Aki's offense did not justify expulsion or suspension from office. But his constituents in Waianae ought to think twice about re-electing a representative who was foolish enough to get himself into such a fix.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
