Quantcast
StarBulletin.com

Letters to the Editor


By

POSTED: Saturday, February 06, 2010

Ruling is victory for free speech

There seems to be widespread disdain for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to remove restrictions on corporations spending money to influence elections. There are, in the anti-corporation fervor, important aspects that are being overlooked.

The campaign law also prevented groups from mentioning an incumbent 30 or 60 days before an election, the time when the public is paying attention. The restricted groups included what some consider bad and others consider good corporations and organizations, such as Right to Life, the Environmental Defense Fund, National Rifle Association, Exxon-Mobile, etc.

Not restricted were news organizations that could show the public favor or disdain for certain candidates.

Government has no right to restrict speech of some groups over others. The court ruling affirms free speech for all.

John Mack

Mililani

 

               

     

 

How to write us

        The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~175 words). 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 Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published.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 and include a daytime telephone number.
       

Letter form: Online form, click here
        E-mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
        Fax: (808) 529-4750
        Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210,  Honolulu, HI 96813

       

Lingle should endorse rail now

Gov. Linda Lingle should consider how thoroughly rail has been examined over the past four years. Elevated rail has been approved by the City Council. The environmental impact statement is being reviewed by the federal agencies. And most important, the people of Oahu voted for rail. Even the antirail politicians have said that they will follow the will of the people and push to implement rail.

Gov. Lingle should not delay in accepting the EIS and endorsing it.

L.C. Morris

Kaneohe

 

Where is money to pay for review?

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff said that funding for the Honolulu rail project is included in the administration's 2011 budget, and that he finds “;the process of involving the governor to be somewhat perplexing.”; Indeed. Gov. Linda Lingle's acknowledgment of his statement—“;We are pleased that Administrator Rogoff recognizes my role in the approval process and understands why I will move forward on an independent review to ensure the financial viability of the project”;—is bizarre.

Funding an independent review as an additional expense when the state deficit has already led to Furlough Fridays, the slashing of social services and cuts for the university system at a time when enrollments are soaring?

What magical pocket is that coming out of? For what purpose other than more of the usual political games?

Yi Ching

Hawaii Kai

 

Vote should have been on record

Speaker Calvin Say showed an immense lack of leadership and a gross negligence of the democratic process through his handling of the civil unions bill.

His body, which once passed House Bill 444 with a large majority, decided to play politics—and in doing so forever diminished the power of the people.

The voice vote that Say motioned for did not capture the stance of each lawmaker. There were almost as many ayes as nays, but the Hawaii state Capitol Web site indicates that there was only one vote cast in favor of a vote.

If the legislators can manipulate the numbers and vote anonymously, how do we hold them accountable? We the people lost our voices. We have no say; perhaps that's what we need, “;No Calvin Say.”;

Call your representatives and ask them to make public how they voted on the motion to indefinitely postpone HB 444.

Van Law

Pride Alliance Hawaii vice president, Palolo

 

Thank goodness HB 444 is dead

Article 1, Sec. 23 of our state Constitution provides, “;The Legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”; Plain and simple, this means marriage is between a man and a woman. HB 444 is a blatant violation of our Constitution. It also violates the basic principle of our democratic form of government because it is not for the greatest good to the greatest majority of the people of Hawaii; it is just for a small minority and for a special-interest group.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a custom and tradition all over the universe since the beginning of the world. It is the bedrock of a decent society and this must not be wrecked by a small minority and special-interest group. The issue of marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, has caused the division of the people of Hawaii for more than a decade. This must be stopped.

The members of the state House of Representatives must be admired for their courage and bravery for listening to the will of the silent majority by not voting on HB 444. The bill is now dead and must never be resurrected at all.

Gene A. Albano

Salt Lake