FRESNO STATE

SPARSE ATTENDANCE AT GAME EMBARRASSING

I praise the 23,157 "true" fans who attended Saturday's game against visiting WAC rival Fresno State. However, this praise comes in stark contrast to the deep embarrassment that I feel in regard to the apparent abandonment of the Warriors by the people of O'ahu.

I'd go, but I attend college almost 4,000 miles away in Greeley, Colo. I try to watch games when they're available at a local bar or I listen to the radio Web-cast.

Seeing the mostly empty stands shocked me. It bewilders me that 50,000 people can sell out a game against USC (and BYU in 2001), a team that few of even our own fans thought we could keep up with. But for a game at the same time of day against our nationally ranked conference rivals, whom we were capable of defeating, not even half that number showed up. UH lacked its 12th man, the raucous cheers from a feverish sea of supporters.

It's disheartening that such a sparse crowd was seen by national audiences, on network television for the first time in 20 years, no less. For shame!

APOLOGY ERRED

UNITED STATES DIDN'T OVERTHROW MONARCHY

Rolf Nordahl in his Oct. 20 letter demonstrates a major problem in the Akaka bill debate: He apparently believes the apology law is an accurate record of Hawaiian history. Many others are in the same boat. But as Sen. Inouye, its sponsor, emphatically made clear during the brief debate on the measure (on which no congressional public hearings had been held so there was no way to correct the language of the resolution), the apology law is "a simple resolution of apology, nothing more."

Its first sentence, which Nordahl quotes, states that one of its purposes was "to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i," implying the U.S. conducted it. Any student of Hawaiian history knows the revolution was instigated and carried out by a group of subjects of the kingdom, not the United States.

President Cleveland made that clear in denouncing the revolution and ordering the revolutionists to return the kingdom to Queen Lili'uokalani. If it had been U.S. policy to take over Hawai'i, would he have done that? No way.

The U.S. Supreme Court further made that clear in its 7-2 ruling in favor of Rice over Cayetano, by finding the whereas clauses contained other errors of fact that the state could not rely on in its arguments.

Thirty years of revisionist history under the supervision of the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies have clouded the situation for young students in Hawai'i, but they ought at least to be clear on one thing: As Bob Gould correctly said in his Oct. 14 letter, "The U.S. did not overthrow the monarchy."

AIRFARE

DON'T WAIT TO WOO FLIERS

If Aloha and Hawaiian will offer competitive fares in response to Mesa Airlines' plans to operate in the Hawai'i market, why wait? If they can afford to try to oust potential competition, why not try and win back the loyalty of longtime local fliers with some lower-fare incentives?

FUNDRAISER

KOKUA FOR KATRINA A ROUSING SUCCESS

On behalf of Kapono's and the Kokua for Katrina nonprofit effort, I would like to thank those of you who donated the selfless gifts of time, contribution and aloha in support of "Kokua for Katrina — A Benefit for our Gulf Coast Friends."

The Kokua for Katrina fundraiser at Kapono's on Sept. 18 was a nine-hour musical concert, with a two-hour statewide live broadcast and donation call center on all of Hawai'i's television broadcast stations. The concert featured "the best of the best" of Hawai'i's musicians, entertainers and celebrities who joined together with over 400 Hawai'i businesses and individuals to make Kokua for Katrina happen in an effort to give our love and aloha to our friends in the Gulf Coast. A list of these generous companies and individuals can be viewed at kokuaforkatrina.org.

I am proud to report that the fundraiser enabled us to donate more than $100,000 to the American Red Cross Hawai'i Chapter for the direct benefit of victims of Katrina. Donations continue to pour in through the Web site.

It is at times like this that I am most proud of Hawai'i and our people and feel fortunate to have such good friends.

SHOPPING

RAIL MEANS GIVING UP CAR'S CONVENIENCE

Responding to the Oct. 27 letter from Rep. Marilyn Lee: Yes, a rail system, if used, would ease traffic on the freeway. The key words here are "if used."

But, to use the rail system would mean people would have to give up daily use of their car. How would a person get his Christmas shopping done if he had to get to a rail station to go to the shopping center, then haul all those packages from the mall to the station, possibly stand in the train all the way home, then get from the station to his home?

And what about the traffic from home to these rail stations? Will there be parking lots big enough to accommodate the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cars that rail users would have to park somewhere? And, has anyone considered that traffic in town may become worse due to an increase in use of taxis when people don't have their cars to run errands?

Is Ms. Lee going to be one of those citizens using the public mass-transit system, or is that going to be just for the common folks?

SUNSHINE LAW

SUCCESSFUL CITIES ARE BORN OF OPENNESS

When I was growing up in California in the 1960s and 1970s, my father was very active in local politics. He served on the city Architectural and Site Control Committee, the Planning Commission, two elected terms on the City Council and two terms as mayor. He also served on major regional transportation commissions. The only times that meetings were held in private were in matters related to personnel or legal issues.

That city maintains this policy today and has changed in four decades from a small farming community to one of the economic engines of Silicon Valley, the home of Intel and Apple. All of that change has occurred in openness and with full awareness and input of the community.

Sure, some of the meetings were very long, and some very contentious, but the city developed fantastically. It should be added that my father and all of the other elected officials also had "real jobs"; they served our city out of a sense of civic responsibility, not political ambition. As a result, that city is in a much sounder financial, physical, transportation and social state than Honolulu is or ever will be when run from virtual "smoke-filled back rooms."

As a professional planner, I suggest the same openness should hold for Honolulu if we are ever going to make anything out of our fine city.

IMPORTED FOOD

MORE LOCAL PRODUCE DOESN'T PENCIL OUT

In the Oct. 23 Focus section, Mike Fitzgerald and Robert Kihune say Hawai'i's food supply is vulnerable because we depend on imports, and argued that Hawai'i should increase its self-reliance and reduce its vulnerability by producing more of its own food.

Actually, Hawai'i could become much more vulnerable if it produced its own food. Safety comes from having a variety of different sources. Now, what we cannot import from one place, we can import from another. We can also play off one supplier against the other to get favorable prices.

If we were wholly dependent on local suppliers, we would face higher prices, partly because we have much higher costs for agricultural production than most other places, and partly because the producers might take advantage of their position as sole suppliers.

If Hawai'i produced most of its own food, the variety would be much less diverse, and it would be more costly.

It would be good for our health if we simplified our lifestyles and ate much less processed food. These Islands could once again become self-sufficient in food supply, but only if we were ready for radical changes in lifestyle.

There are good reasons to increase local food production, but decreasing Hawai'i's vulnerability is not among them.

MILITARY

CARTOON DESPICABLE

Dick Adair's political cartoon from your Oct. 26 issue is despicable. If your intent was to dishonor every man and woman who has ever served in this great country's armed services, congratulations. You've reached an editorial all-time low. How long ago did your editorial staff cast off the last vestige of decency?

LEARN FROM MISTAKE

LINGLE MUST NOW DO RIGHT THING IN FOX REPLACEMENT

With the resignation of former state House Minority Leader Galen Fox, R-23rd (Waikiki, Ala Moana, Kaka'ako), Democrats offer their sympathy to all affected by this unbelievable and unfortunate circumstance.

This conviction goes above that of an individual; it is a conviction of public service and reinforces the perception that public servants are not honorable. It is important that this event not act like a catalyst to drive people away from the political process but a call for good people to come forward.

Recently, the process was done a disservice by Gov. Lingle's choice to fill the state House District 28 vacancy. The governor knowingly put politics above the democratic process, and all of Hawai'i's residents lost. Now again is the time to look at the process, not the person, to ensure that it is conducted fairly. Democrats are encouraged that the governor has pledged to be more fair in her next appointment.

It is alarming that the Lingle administration stated it knew about Fox's arrest "from nearly the beginning" (which was December) and that it has been inconsistent on whether it has or has not asked him to resign (Lee Cataluna, "Quitting was only good move," Nov. 1). If it weren't for responsible journalism, the public would not know the truth. Once again, the administration shows that it is more concerned about perception.

The governor should now appoint a qualified candidate who will not seek re-election to serve the remainder of Fox's term in order to allow area residents to fairly choose a new representative.

The process of fair representation can only be achieved by leaders who can be objective and fair-minded. Members of all of Hawai'i's political parties have regrets, mistakes and lapses of judgment. The bigger problem is when they don't learn from their mistakes. The Democratic Party continues to work on elevating the political process and is encouraged that the governor will not make the same mistake twice.

FAMILY SEARCH

NEW FOSTER CARE POLICY SHOCKING

My husband and I attended the Hawai'i Foster Parent Association annual conference Oct. 14-15 and were shocked to learn of a new policy directive that has been initiated by Lillian Koller, director of the Department of Human Services.

This new policy states that even after the termination of parental rights has occurred, the social workers are to continue seeking out family members and family friends of a child until an adoption is made final.

This new policy defines kin as "both maternal and paternal relatives, adult siblings, or individuals not biologically or legally related to the family, including, but not limited to, family friends, hanai caregivers or family pastor or minister, but who are, nevertheless, perceived as 'family' by the children and/or their family members" (see www.state.hi.us

/dhs). It appears foster parents have no status regardless of how long the child is in their home or that there has been limited or no contact with their birth families.

We became foster parents specifically with the intention of adopting a child. We have been told all along that we were "on the adoption track," parental rights have been terminated and that no other "family" options were available to our child.

Our foster child at first had been passed around to several family friends, then came into the foster care system at only 9 months of age. His first foster placement did not work out and he has now been with our family for eight months. In 13 short months, he had bounced around to five families before coming to us. He has been with our family longer than any birth family member or family friend. He is just now beginning to feel safe and settled, and the thought of losing him to someone who has had little or no contact or previous interest in him is a terrifying thought.

It would simply be criminal to move him yet again to satisfy this new directive.

If family members or their close family friends have interest, they need to step up in the beginning to establish a strong, loving connection early on. The senseless moving of children is harmful to these young victims.

It also seems that the Department of Human Services will lose potential foster/adoptive parents with this new directive. Regardless of whether we are finally able to adopt our child as planned, we will choose to not foster any more children who would possibly be adoptable. Another foster home is now lost.

If this new directive is enforced, these at-risk children can and will be moved out of homes that have provided loving stability when no one else would, and another part of their hearts will be broken.

As stated in an Oct. 15 editorial ("Foster kids need help as they near adulthood"), bonding and attachment issues are ongoing challenges that foster children experience throughout their lives. These additional unnecessary moves at an early age will only increase the likelihood that foster children will have a more difficult road in their lives ahead.

Something needs to be done to change this directive, as many foster parents, the HFPA and even DHS social workers do not agree that this new directive is in the best interest of the child. Someone must protect these at-risk children, who often have no voice.