Letters for Saturday — November 12, 2005

• New bill punishes boys for not being girls

• Thinks movie was a disgrace

• Similarities

New bill punishes boys for not being girls

A bill, currently in the U.S. Congress, if allowed to pass would negatively affect boys. This bill extends Title IX to high schools athletics, but only boys will be targeted.

Colleges nationwide struggle to get women interested in collegiate sports in the same numbers as men, but in the thirty-plus years of Title IX, even with more women then men on campuses, no college has ever been able to raise that kind of interest from women, so instead, opportunities for men have been cut or restricted to the number of women participating.

Title IX has eliminated several college football programs, 350 wrestling programs, and out of the 250 gymnastic programs offered in 1970, only 19 remain.

The coordinator for the Health Careers Opportunities Program at the University of Hawai’i stated that out of the 50 kids in her program, 45 are female. This is a clear violation of Title IX’s “gender equity”, so why weren’t 40 girls eliminated from the program? Title IX is supposed to apply to both men and women, and to all academic programs.

To be equally unfair, the program should limit girls to the number of boys interested.

Ignoring “interest” and “inherent gender differences” to blindly enforce “gender equity” is unfair enough, but it’s compounded even more that only programs dominated by boys are targeted for gender equity. Girls dominate almost all other academic programs from student government to advanced placement programs, but girl-dominated programs are “over-looked” from Title IX gender equity enforcement; however, the new bill closes that loophole by specifically targeting only athletics (where boys show more interest); thus leaving all programs dominated by girls legally protected.

Enforcing gender equity only on programs where boys show more interest punishes boys for having different interests from that of girls. If girls were to be subjected to the same rules as boys under Title IX’s gender equity, then maybe common sense would prevail, and “interest”, not “gender,” would play a bigger role.

. Gerald Nakata


Thinks movie was a disgrace

My wife and I went to see the movie “Jarhead” a couple of nights ago. The popcorn was horrible!! But that sick show was sooooooooo much worse! It was a disgrace to our marines and a disgrace to our country.

I was also in boot camp at one time. Although it was Navy, it was still heavy training with weapons, fire-fights and lots of indoctrination, but this was ridiculous. The language, the masturbation references, the porno and the branding iron with USMC on it and the idea that all these marines are is killing machines with no mind of their own begging to kill was all beyond belief, but did you notice if you saw it that it was quite political also. The strafing of our own unit by our own jets destroying and killing our own marines by mistake? The killing and burning of a group of innocent Iraqis trying to leave the country and the faulty phones with dead batteries twice, poor equipment, fried bodies everywhere and one marine sitting next to one talking to him. If this is entertainment then these writers AND producers are living in the land of OZ! It’s a destructive force to our country in the eyes of the already skeptical world! Sounds like these Hollywood leftys are following in the footsteps of Michael Moore.

. Larry Dolan


Rebate is not a gift

While members of KIUC can be grateful to receive a modest reduction in their December electric bills, it is misleading for TGI to call it in its Nov. 10 story a holiday gift, when it is simply a return of what is really the member’s property.

Thoughtful electric consumers should read between the lines of comments from KIUC officials. They say that approval of their lender was sought last month. Why weren’t we told? Chairman Gardiner says that “when we do better than our budgets project, we return the money.” Why do we have to depend on their budget and how co-op officials think they are performing against the budget?

Co-op leaders puff that by March they will have returned $15.7 million to rate payers. Earlier they bragged that profits were nearly $30 million. So they will have returned to those rightfully entitled about one—third of their net results. Why shouldn’t they reduce their rates and return all of their projected profits since KIUC is a not for profit corporation.

Gardiner’s remark that the returns will amount to 4.331174024f the “basic” rate adjusted for hype means that the return amount will be about 1005201C0er year of bills since the KIUC acquisition of the utility. Certainly not a huge deal.

Rather than putting up with all this spin, wouldn’t it be better to get reasonable rates for electric service rather than having to guess how much the largesse of the KIUC Board will be?

. Walter Lewis


Journalistic and citizen integrity

The recent coverage of KIUC by The Garden Island news seems to me to reflect one of the reasons we have free press and freedom of speech, something that our current administration, and even more to the point, his followers, would like to change.

It does not matter if KIUC Directors say they only spend 1 cent out of every hundred dollars, if it means they are buying themselves million-dollar houses (for our mutual investment benefit,ha) or $600 BBQ grills in case they need to cook during one of our hurricanes, which come every decade or so.

It seems to me, as a person who is able to think for himself, and as a person who judges events not by what I can personally gain, but whether or not they are right and just, that it does not matter at all how much per dollar goes into their pockets, as opposed to what is actually going into their pockets.

May I suggest a follow up article, one that explores exactly what they have purchased for themselves, and whether or not the IRS has been contacted.

. Dennis Chaquette



Re: KUIC Board

e. K. n. I. r. U. o. C. n.

. Chris Webster



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.