Letters for Wednesday, May 11, 2007

• On Hawaiian resurgence

• All have life, love and spirit

• What’s acceptable drug use?

• Drugs deliver trouble

On Hawaiian resurgence

If there is an ugly theme to this land that the haoles like to call paradise, it was brought here by the blue-eyed, white skinned malihini. At one point our Hawaiian voice became so diminished that it was only a whisper and not loud enough to be heard. Our land was stolen, we were made into a U.S. state, and we lost most of our culture.

Now that we have been thoroughly colonized, these same people are telling us that we should forget the past, that it was so long ago, that we should just live happily. However, now we are demanding the reclamation of our culture and the very same racist faction that displaced my ancestors are feeling the resurgence and getting defensive. Like typical colonialists they do this by calling us racist. These same occupiers are calling us the oppressors because we are no longer ashamed to be Hawaiian, and we will no longer stand idle and silent while the last bits of what remains of our culture is quashed.

We must recognize this as typical colonialist actions and not allow them to make us out to be the bad element. We are merely reacting to what is put before us. Don’t get confused on how we got to this present time, by the views of the descendants of the blue-eyed, white-skinned Europeans who continue to spread their propaganda. These occupiers will not give up what they stole, and we Hawaiians must not give up our claim to what has been stolen.

• Kimo Kimokeo


All have life, love and spirit

“Haole,” as I was taught by a famous Hawaiian kumu, means without the breath of life and spirit.

The “ha” in “haole” is the same “ha” as in aloha, meaning the breath of life and spirit; aloha is the breath of life and love; “haole” is without the breath of life, love and spirit.

Calling a Caucasian person a haole is the equivalent of calling a black person the “N”-word.

Most times “haole” is used in a derogatory way, as in traffic, saying things as that “frickin haole” or in long lines at the supermarket or when a white skinned person asks any dumb question they are “haole.” In essence anyone could be a “haole” since “haole” does not mean white-skinned-person-from-the-Mainland, it means “without the breath of life, love and spirit.” Any person white, black, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Portuguese or even Hawaiian could be “haole” (without spirit).

Imus the radio talk show host was recently fired from his syndicated radio talk show for making racist remarks about blacks. Michael Richards who played “Kramer” on “Seinfeld” made racist remarks about blacks with the use of the N-word. Richards was reprimanded, punished and formally apologized to the black community. Mel Gibson made racist remarks about the Jews and was made to apologize to the Jewish community.

Referring to somebody as a “haole” (without spirit), is the same as referring to them as a dumb frickin idiot. Any person who uses the word “haole” is a “haole.”

“Haole” is one word that should be deleted from the Hawaiian language.

• James “Kimo” Rosen


What’s acceptable drug use?

Ms. Katy Rose has it backwards in “Drug tests too high a price for loss of freedom,” Letters, May10.

Those being tested are not “paying” a price, they are “earning” trust.

She also mentioned that the U.S. Constitution is a “stumbling block” in our quest to curb crime. The Constitution sets the limits and standards for laws enacted by our government, thus it protects the citizens. If anything, it’s a “stumbling block” to the formation of a government of sheer tyranny in which drug offenders are offered a bullet to the head (as in China) not offered repeated rehabilitation.

As for the “actions of a small handful of Hawai‘i teachers,” what is an unacceptable number of teachers using illegal drugs? A sensible parent would think one is unacceptable.

Ms. Rose wrote, “Random drug testing does not prove that a teacher is a danger to students during school hours.” and further wqrote, “It does not prove that the teacher is a drug addict who needs help.”

It sure does. A positive drug test proves the person tested is a danger to students during school hours and a danger to the public. Remember Mr. Keith Keone Kiilau, Mr. Chris Dichoso Santos and Mr. Byron Say who destroyed the life of Lisa J. Wilson and her entire family?

It proves the person tested is a drug addict and does need help. If a person must slither into the gutter with illegal drug producers, smugglers and pushers, we should not entrust our children to their care.

Now for the most contemptible statement, “with the likelihood of false positives, it appears that random drug testing does not prove anything at all, except that we are willing to sacrifice our most precious liberties at the drop of a hat.” Please, reread that statement and think about it. She uses that deplorable defense term, circa OJ Simpson murder trial, “false positive.” If a sample is reported a positive result, that sample is retested. If a test is positive, it does prove the person tested is an illegal drug user and should not be in any position of authority over your children.

What liberty is being sacrificed? And if a hat is being dropped, why all of the debate? The “dropped hat” statement generates the vision of an immediate and instant action. If that is the case, why has it taken months, if not years, of litigation and debate with still no final decision in sight?

That hat has been falling for a long time.

• Joseph Vrataric


Drugs deliver trouble

In regards to the letter “Drug test too high a price for loss of freedom,” on May 10.

Any segment of our society these days should be drug tested, especially the higher paying jobs. They are the leading example for our children and society. Why would anyone be afraid of drug testing in their profession? Unless they are using them.

Katy Rose, would you trust a drug user near you or your children? If you have that much trust in a drug user, why don’t you move elsewhere where there are a lot of druggies and crimes? Where children are hurt by these drug users.

It might be true this handful of teachers has not harmed anyone. But yet, they harmed themselves and their profession. This is why drug testing became a must for them and all innocent teachers (who don’t use drugs).

So, in reality, they did harm someone. Remember the old ‘70s TV commercial pot (marijuana) does nothing to anyone. Well, sooner or later, it will do nothing for them but bring trouble.

• Howard Tolbe



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.