Editorials
Friday, January 30, 1998WHATEVER the truth turns out to be regarding the White House sex scandal, it isn't simply the product of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," as Mrs. Clinton has charged. This is a blatant smokescreen that does not deserve to be dignified as a reasonable theory, much less fact. Right-wing conspiracy
theory is hogwashThe sordid story of Monica Lewinsky was broken by the Washington Post, ABC News and the Los Angeles Times. The Post, of course, was responsible more than any other news organization for breaking the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon. Neither it nor ABC nor the Los Angeles Times by any stretch of the imagination fits the description of "right-wing conspiracy."
Moreover, young people who get hired at a Democratic White House are hardly likely to be part of such a conspiracy. These are political jobs and they go to Democrats. No one has claimed that Lewinsky was a secret agent of right-wing elements out to destroy Clinton, which presumably would be necessary if there really was a conspiracy. If she was, why did Clinton have his friend, the power broker Vernon Jordan, use his connections to find a job for her? It looks more like a conspiracy to keep her quiet.
And if this scandal is nothing more than the spurious product of a right-wing conspiracy, why did Attorney General Janet Reno give her approval for independent counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the charges? Is Reno part of the conspiracy?
Yes, there are Clinton-haters and some of them have come up with wild accusations, such as the claim that the suicide of White House counsel Vincent Foster was really murder, that he was silenced to keep him from talking about Whitewater. But to dismiss all the criticisms in this manner is absurd.
Every president has his enemies. Among the most bitterly reviled were Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. As was the case with previous presidents, some of Clinton's enemies are unscrupulous.
But Hillary Clinton would have us believe that nothing said against her husband has any merit because it is all manufactured by this alleged conspiracy. That is as hard to accept as the wildest of the charges against Bill Clinton.
SOCIAL Security cards used to announce on their face, "For Social Security and tax purposes -- not for identification." In fact, Social Security numbers in Hawaii are the principal means of identification. A major factor is their use on driver's licenses. The result is that numbers that once were considered confidential have made Hawaii consumers easy prey to invasions of privacy and fraud. Hawaii should join most other states in finding other ways for citizens to confirm their identities and remove the numbers from driver's licenses. Social Security IDs
As Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono pointed out in arguing for the change, banks and credit card companies report an increase in Social Security number fraud. Advertising the number on the driver's license is an invitation to obtain information such as credit histories and medical records illegally.
The reason a Social Security card or number is an unreliable tool for confirming a person's identity is obvious: It carries no photograph of the holder. A person who steals a Social Security number can obtain a state identification card under the victim's name and ID number. The state will snap the thief's photo and provide him with an ID card that will allow him to parade as the victim. It happens.
Social Security card numbers have become so public in Hawaii that many consumers include them with their addresses on their checks, saving store clerks the trouble of copying the number from the driver's license onto the check. The availability of the number to total strangers takes on huge dimensions.
Hawaii is one of only three states still using Social Security numbers on driver's licenses. The state House Transportation Committee has passed a bill to end that practice and forwarded it to the Judiciary Committee. The city opposes the measure because of the $450,000 cost of the changeover in its computer system, but the change is well worth the price in protecting people from fraud.
THE Waiahole Ditch was build in 1916 by the sugar companies and was operated by them to transport water from Windward to Leeward and Central Oahu to irrigate sugar cane. But with sugar dead the ditch's current owner, Amfac/ JMB, has considered shutting down the facility or reducing service. For this reason, Governor Cayetano wants to buy the ditch for $8.5 million, with an additional $1.7 million to be spent on improvements and operating costs. Waiahole Ditch
The Legislature must approve the governor's request for an emergency appropriation of $10.2 million to cover this acquisition. It is essential that the ditch continue to operate, and if the private sector is no longer interested in keeping it going, the state must do it. The plan is to raise the money through general obligation bonds, which could be repaid through user fees. Despite the state's fiscal problems, this project should not be pushed aside.
The demise of sugar in Leeward Oahu has not eliminated the need for irrigation. Sugar is being replaced by a host of other crops grown by small farmers. These farmers cannot survive without the cheap water provided by the Waiahole Ditch. The recent decision by the state Water Commission allotted a large share of the 27 million gallons formerly carried by the system to Leeward Oahu, but that share would be lost if the ditch was shut down.
The cause of diversified agriculture, a potentially important factor in strengthening the state economy, would be advanced by this purchase. It must be made.
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
