Waddle deserves to be forgiven

Scott Waddle, former commander of the ill-fated USS Greenville, is contritely remorseful about the tragic accident that occurred Feb. 9, 2001, that took the lives of nine people when his submarine collided with a Japanese trawler.

That he went to Japan to personally apologize to the bereaved families shows the sincerity of his remorse and regret (Star-Bulletin, Dec. 15).

Waddle might have been remiss in some aspects of the disastrous accident, but there was nothing about him being intentionally malicious.

While empathizing with the grieving families of the victims, Waddle should be forgiven. He is a good-hearted human being.

Tetsuji Ono
Hilo, Hawaii

Sometimes Hawaii is too laid back

I'm fed up with "Polynesian paralysis," or the laziness of the islands. Take, for example, the highways in Hawaii. People can't figure out why the traffic is so bad every morning and afternoon. "H1-Middle Street merge" and "H1-H2 merge" have to be the most common phrases in the traffic report. Maybe this is because drivers in Hawaii don't know how to merge correctly. Drivers pick whichever lane suits them, and if that lane is forced to merge, they race ahead and try to nose into the new lane. This means that traffic in both lanes slows to a crawl or stops.

If drivers would merge when they found an opening in traffic, instead of when they either had to merge or run off the road, then these frozen lines of cars would turn into slowly streaming lanes of traffic.

Why don't people work to fix such problems? Why can't Hawaii's residents find solutions and then act on them? The only answer I've found is laziness. The idea of "no worries" and "whatevers" has fused into the culture and when a change needs to be made everyone simultaneously loses their steam.

Maybe it's lizard instincts calling them to the beach. If people would get serious once in awhile, maybe things would get done around here.

Will Bradley
Wahiawa

Nurses' strike hurts other health workers

The newspaper coverage of the nurse's strike and letters to the editor written by nurses in support of their position have brought forth several interesting points of view.

First, striking nurses at Queen's hospital have stated that the scab nurses are in it for the money and are giving lesser care. How do we differentiate this kind of care from the care given by traveling nurses, out-of-state nurses relocating here or newly graduated nurses? What about the quality of care given by a nurse with an associate degree (two years) vs. a bachelor's degree (four years)?

Second, a Kaiser nurse stated that she can't survive on her current retirement benefits. Nurses are among the highest- paid employees with generous benefits when compared to other health-care workers in the same hospital. So how are these other groups who make less going to survive on their smaller retirement benefits?

Third, nurses say that they are overworked and, as a consequence, their ability to give quality care diminished. The nursing shortage has created a mecca for those seeking extra income. I know there are nurses in Hawaii holding two jobs. So instead of resting, they are working for additional income.

Lastly, nurses are overcompensating their professionalism by asking for higher pay and fringe benefits far exceeding what other health-care professionals are receiving. Whatever is left after the nurses' contract is settled may trickle down to the other health-care groups.

There was a recent article on the hardship faced by striking nurses during the Christmas season. Striking was a choice they made, and the jobs are waiting for them. When they come back to work, it will be at a higher pay scale and with more benefits. The people laid off at St. Francis Hospital during the strike have it harder. They have lost their wages, will be rehired back gradually and come back at the same pay.

Nurses are only one part of the health-care team responsible for the care and well-being of patients. The other health- care groups (radiology, laboratory, respiratory therapy, physical therapy) that are not as strong or vocal as the nurses, also care about their patients.

Arthur T. Choy
Medical technician

New federal rules on runoff are inadequate

The regulations issued by the Bush administration last Monday to limit the dumping of animal waste from factory farms into American lakes and streams are too little, too late. They are a sweet deal for polluting cattle barons, but they literally stink for the rest of us.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that agricultural runoff dumps more pollution into our waterways than all other human activities combined. The runoff contains soil particles, animal manure, assorted debris, salts, pesticides, drugs and heavy metals that produce vast "dead zones" around U.S. estuaries.

Yet the rule covers only 6 percent of the 238,000 factory farms, and none of the croplands growing animal feed. The polluters have four years to come up with a waste-management plan, and then they can shop around for a money-hungry state to approve it.

Fortunately, everyone of us has the power to stop subsidizing this environmental outrage just by saying "no" to polluting meat and dairy products. It shows the power of the individual in a democratic society.

Aliaska Brozen
Kihei, Maui

Don't allow divisive comments to mar congressional race

Joan Manke, former chief of staff for the late Rep. Patsy Mink, recently sent out a letter endorsing Matt Matsunaga for Congress (Star-Bulletin, Dec. 18). I also worked for Mrs. Mink (though not as long as Manke did), and remain close with many of Mink's staff members, including those who accepted Rep. Ed Case's offer to stay on with him through the next election.

I am writing now to attempt to refocus the voters' attention on what is really important in this campaign, and to counter the divisiveness that I fear was created by that letter.

Manke wrote that Matsunaga supports children, schools, the elderly and Hawaiians, among others. This is true for every candidate. One would be hard-pressed to find a serious contender in this race that is anti-child, anti-elderly, anti-schools, or anti-Hawaiian.

Manke also wrote that Matsunaga is "keiki o ka aina, just like his dad, Spark," and that he has the temperament of a "local boy." It is this set of remarks that I find the most distressing. A strong case can certainly be made that nobody should be referred to as keiki o ka aina who is not Hawaiian. Once you apply the term more broadly, things get tricky. Matsunaga was raised in Maryland because his dad was serving Hawaii in Washington. Case was born and raised on the Big Island, and later went to Washington to work for Spark in serving Hawaii.

Does this make either of them more or less keiki o ka aina than the other? Of course not. They both care for Hawaii and its people. Matsunaga is a nice guy, and sure, he has a "local boy" temperament. The same is true of Case. Ed is also a fighter for what he believes in, and an independent thinker who is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right. Those qualities do not make him less of a local boy, they simply make him more of a strong leader.

Mink broke every barrier conceivable in politics, and was a forward-thinker before it was trendy. She was a legend in her own time, and there will never be anyone again quite like her. Likewise, Spark Matsunaga was his own man, and helped Hawaii in his own way.

Case recognizes that the best way to serve Hawaii is to continue that forward-thinking tradition by focusing on issues, not labels, by talking about what he will do, not what others have done.

The wrong way to approach this campaign is to say "I'm more local than you," or "I care more about Hawaii than you do." To best serve Hawaii, we should all shift our attention away from such divisiveness and turn back to the issues. No candidate wants to hurt Hawaii. They all want to help; they all want to serve; they all have different ideas about the best way to do that. It lacks aloha to suggest otherwise.

The question to ask is not who is more keiki o ka aina, but rather who has the best ideas and the strongest drive to represent all the people of Hawaii successfully in Congress. To me the clear answer to that question is Case. To Manke, the answer is Matsunaga.

But if we don't discuss these issues in a civil fashion and cast aside ugly inferences and generalizations, then no matter who wins the special election on Jan. 4, we all lose.

Joshua Wisch

Editor's note: Joshua Wisch is an attorney. The opinions expressed here are his own.

---

How to write us The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (150 to 200 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: letters@starbulletin.com Fax: (808) 529-4750 Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813