Editorials
Wednesday, October 13, 1999Hawaii Convention
Center passes testTHE Hawaii Convention Center, depicted by critics as a white elephant because it hadn't hosted many conventions in its first year of operation, has now proved its value. The American Dental Association brought about 30,000 people to the islands for its convention last weekend and gave the center its first major test.The issue: The Hawaii Convention Center hosted its first major convention, the American Dental Association's, with 30,000 people.
The center passed that test with flying colors.
Advance planning paid off particularly in the area of traffic, with congestionkept to a minimum. A small army of police officers, security guards and volunteer guides was deployed to keep operations running smoothly.
S. Timothy Rose, president of the dental association, said he was pleased with the convention center. He called it light and airy and said it met his group's needs.
Other comments were equally enthusiastic. Dick Walsh, the center's general manager, participated in a critique session and said there wasn't a single negative comment. He quoted one association leader as saying, "This wasn't a critique; this was a love fest."
Success with the dentists' convention is likely to lead to more big conventions. Representatives of other large organizations were on hand to see how well the convention was handled.
The convention center can have an impact far beyond filling the building and paying its own expenses. The real purpose is to help the visitor industry beyond its walls -- the hotels, restaurants, shops, nightclubs, tour companies, museums and other points of interest. This is particularly important because the industry has been in a slump for several years.
The dentists accounted for 75,000 room nights at 54 Oahu hotels and 10,000 room nights at 23 neighbor island hotels, not to mention thousands of restaurant meals and other expenditures.
After this success, persuading other organizations to hold their conventions here should be that much easier.
What happened to that talk about a white elephant?
Church and state
MIXED signals from the U.S. Supreme Court could produce a hodgepodge of state approaches on whether to subsidize parents who send their children to religious schools. By refusing to accept for review appeals from opposite sides of the issue, the high court has spurned its responsibility to clarify the law. Its inaction on this important matter is a disappointment and is likely to result in a flurry of wasteful legislation.
Last week, the court refused to accept an appeal challenging Arizona's program granting tax credits for donations for scholarships at private and religious schools, sending a clear signal to other states that such programs are acceptable. The court previously had left a Wisconsin voucher program intact, refusing to consider an appeal.
However, the same court now has rejected for review the appeal of a challenge to Maine's policy of subsidizing children who attend some private schools while denying such vouchers for those who go to religious schools. Many of Maine's public school districts in sparsely populated areas where there are no public schools give financial help to parents sending their children to private schools, but religious-school parents are denied similar assistance.
In other cases involving church-state separation, the Supreme Court rejected Pennsylvania's appeal of a successful challenge to its policy of exempting religious publications from a sales tax and New York's effort to revive a public school district in a community of Hasidic Jews.
The justices' refusal to hear the appeals carries no legal precedent so cannot be cited in defending -- or challenging -- voucher programs.
The Supreme Court does have an opportunity to provide some clarification in its current session. It has agreed to decide, probably next June, whether computers and other instructional materials paid for with taxes can be used in religious schools. A narrow decision that failed to provide guidance on the general issue of church-state separation would be inadequate.
O.J. Simpson calls 911
RECORDED calls to the 911 emergency number by O.J. Simpson's former wife, in which she asked for protection from him, played a prominent role in the prosecution's case in the 1995 murder trial of the former football star.
Now Simpson, who was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman, despite the 911 tapes, has called 911 himself in Miami.
Simpson said he was trying to get help for a woman who he said had been on a cocaine binge with former Los Angeles Dodgers star Pedro Guerrero. The woman was identified as a friend of Simpson's girlfriend, Christie Prody.
Simpson said he didn't identify himself when he called 911, which is probably just as well. After the enormous publicity that the Simpson trial attracted, the operator might have thought the caller was an imposter playing a bad joke.
What a role reversal -- Simpson as the Good Samaritan. But whatever people think of Simpson, the 911 emergency service is there for him as well as for everyone else.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert 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
