• Superferry impact studies needed
• Why are fireworks allowed to be used?
• On Independence Day
• What about the judges?
• Political chicanery?
Superferry impact studies needed
How disillusioned our Kaua‘i population must feel at learning that our state government has once again let us down by failing to require the Superferry to get environmental and cultural impact studies before proceeding with their development plans.
How can we start on a project of such magnitude without assurance that our fragile ecosystem and crowded roads will not be burdened beyond their capacity?
It seems now that our best hope for Kaua‘i is to respond in such overwhelming numbers to the petition that is circulating that the effect on the ballot box in November will be undeniable.
Why are fireworks allowed to be used?
I am amazed that fireworks are sold to the public when there are so many dangers, disturbances, and polluting factors involved.
Do we really have to have fireworks going off in neighborhoods where you don’t have any choice but to put up with the disturbances, not to mention all the animals and birds, (domesticated and wild) who are terrified by the noise? Is there no concern for the pollution it is causing on the beaches and the brushfires generated?
I suggest if you really cannot do without your fireworks, go to the controlled public display and ponder on the thought that you could be doing something positive for the environment.
On Independence Day
In civil life the new tradition of renewing the marriage vows became a new business. It is not for everyone, it is for the forgetful ones. For those who forgot that very memorable moment they had said, “till death us part.” So, businesses and churches capitalized on it.
There is, however, an area where we should make this practice mandatory and do it on a yearly basis: in our government. This is where the most forgetful ones seem to have assembled. I would make it mandatory for every elected official to read the full text of the unanimous Declaration of the 13 united states of America publicly in every year with special emphasis on its last sentence with adding one word “principles:” And for the support the principles of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Perhaps this procedure would slow down the erosion of the Bill of Rights and would serve as a reminder to our elected officials that they are to serve the people and not the people to serve an oligarchy. And maybe we would return to a true America again.
What about the judges?
I am responding to Lloyd Silliman’s letter “Enough, I say”, dated 06/29/06 concerning Byron Say. In his letter, Mr. Silliman asks “our esteemed judges to please do their job by protecting our community from this known drug offender……”
In my opinion these two judges in question, Senda and Watanabe, should not have to be asked or reminded to do something they took a sworn oath to do, but rather perhaps we, as concerned residents of Kaua’i should petition for their removal from the bench.
As long as judges like Senda and Watanabe put our community at risk by allowing low-life like Byron Say, and other drug offenders like him, to remain free to drive on our roads and to pose a risk to everyone they come in contact with, then it is they, the judges, whom we should take to task. If the drug problem here on Kaua’i is this County’s number one priority, how is it then, that we can expect change, if our judges simply ask a defendant to “not do any illegal drugs” and then set them free? I, too, am outraged.
Political chicanery?
Though Ed Coll’s letter of June 29 clarifies some issues, I am still convinced that a document concerning K.C. Lum’s contract cancellation — modified from its original form — and circulated on the Internet was a deliberate act of political chicanery.
Though it is technically illegal to mess with government documents, I doubt it merits anything more than the scolding that the council meted out at its June 15 session — the highlights of which were covered quite informatively by Mr. Coll in his letter of June 29.
Despite Ed’s clarifying several issues through a detailed timeline, I believe there is irrefutable proof that the letter was manipulated not by a fax malfunction, a computer software glitch or any other electronic means, but rather by human intervention.
Ed fails to mention how the disemboweled letter was actually transformed from three pages to two — because if he did, he might have to deal with the inconvenient problem of the font size in the tampered letter. In the original letter the font size is the same for all three pages, standard procedure in letter writing since the invention of the typewriter, but in the altered document, the second page has a smaller font.
The reason the font size is smaller on the second page is to make room for the signature line that was plucked off page three and plopped down on page two. Voila! — A two page document referencing Lum’s contract cancellation minus the county’s offer to give Lum back his lieutenant’s badge with no loss of pay or benefits. (Making the county look bad is good politics for Lum who is running for a seat on the council and hopes to parlay a highly publicized scandal into a political career.)
I suspect political ambition, poor judgment and stupidity influenced the curious decision to tamper with a government document, which was then distributed by K.C. to an unknown number of recipients including the county. It was posted on the Internet by one of Lum’s loyal fans — with the obvious intent of corroborating Lum’s false claim that he was not offered his old job back. What irked the council was the fact that the offending document was not pulled off the Internet when Lum was notified by the county that the letter was missing its third page.
If there was a conspiracy, it was a boneheaded conspiracy and everyone involved played a hand.
