Could Hawaii become a haven for homeless?

The mayor has a great idea about building a multimillion-dollar complex for the homeless. Perhaps he could give out the job as a no-bid contract. Then maybe, after hiring a chef or two and a few housekeepers and groundskeepers, turn it all over to a hotel owner to operate.

Can't you just see the air shuttles flying here from the mainland filled to the brim with homeless?

Arnold Van Fossen

Where is the 'change' Hawaii voted for?

Governor Lingle is approaching her first 100 days in office. Looking for the "New Beginning," it's hard to find the big changes we were assured only her team could deliver and that we could expect to see after the election.

Lingle has delivered smoke, mirrors and headlines for the media, but little else. We've heard about the high approval ratings and the heightened optimism, but where are the big accomplishments? A search finds a poorly thought out prescription drug plan, a goofy double-deck freeway proposal and a sound-bite education plan.

The drive to restore trust in government has resulted in a couple of cancelled airport contracts, but no uncovering of systemic corruption. We've seen that favoritism is alive and well with appointed positions going to the brothers, wives and friends of close advisers.

What about the economy? Name one major business initiative to come out of the governor's team. Does the possibility that the White House might consider using Hawaii coffee constitute a major breakthrough? Does the continuation of tech tax credits started under Ben Cayetano rate as an accomplishment? Where is the cabinet-level tourism czar?

Sure, it takes time to see change, but have Lingle and her team even started to deliver on their promises? Do they have what it takes to deliver?

Please let me know when the "New Beginning" has begun.

Emi Chiharu

Striking first blow might backfire

Aggression is normally defined as the initiation of hostilities. In World War II, Japan felt justified in striking Pearl Harbor. In the Falklands war, Argentina struck first and invaded. In Vietnam, both sides were accusing the other of being aggressive; America withdrew and North Vietnam took over South Vietnam.

In the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait and struck first, to international condemnation.

Shall the United States strike first and feel justified in invading a sovereign state? Is Saddam Hussein baiting us into striking first, so he can condemn us as we condemned him when he invaded Kuwait?

Striking first is not a good precedent. I agree that Hussein is no Mother Teresa, but shall we stoop to his level? Shall we have "pre-crime," like in the movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise, and go around arresting people based on some assumption that they are going to commit crimes?

Give the weapons inspectors a chance to do their job.

Phil Robertson

U.S. might fall into the Vietnam trap

What bothers me almost as much as the idea that the United States is going to war for reasons other than removing Saddam Hussein, is the cavalier attitude that the president and even reporters reflect when they give the impression that this is going to be a "drive-thru" or "fly-by" war. It's similar to the attitude the United States had early in the Vietnam War -- U.S.: powerful; enemy: weak!

Our troops were told they were fighting communism and didn't consider they were attacking someone's home, which created solidarity as we saw the Viet Cong emerge from the jungle to help lead the North Vietnamese to victory.

If 250,000 U.S. troops invade Iraq, situated below Syria and Turkey and between Saudi Arabia and Iran, they will find from these countries millions and millions of fearless, fighting-age, U.S.-hating, Muslim civilians. They could be the Viet Cong of the desert. We need to keep in mind that China and Russia don't support a U.S. war on Iraq, like they didn't support the U.S. war in Vietnam and could help support Iraq from the shadows of the war as they did in Vietnam.

Ron Rhetrik
Mililani

Menor needs lesson in energy efficiency

I applaud state Rep. Hermina Morita (D-14th District; Kapaa-Hanalei) for her efforts to get Hawaii on track toward clean and renewable energy. Morita has shown consistent support for net energy metering (where small, renewable energy producers can "sell" their surplus electricity by allowing their electricity meters to run backward), solar and wind tax credits, and a renewable portfolio standard.

I find this a disappointing contrast with State Sen. Ron Menor (D-District 17, Waipahu, Mililani, Mililani Mauka). In the Commerce, Consumer Protection and Housing committee he heads, several clean-energy bills were killed this session. Measures to expand the amount of renewable energy individuals can sell to the utility, regulate greenhouse gases, develop standard contracts for clean power and develop an innovative carbon-trading scheme to deal with global warming all died when Menor failed to schedule hearings on them.

Hawaii's dependence on foreign oil for electricity is among the highest in the nation at 87 percent. Menor has consistently voted against clean energy and the efforts of other legislators to advance alternative energy technologies.Would he rather continue to build oil-powered energy plants and import oil from unstable regimes?

Karen S. Shishido
Waipio-Gentry

---

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