• Who will speak for Native Hawaiians? • Government is the problem • Smart meters: Fearful talk, no convincing evidence Who will speak for Native Hawaiians? Native Hawaiians should be allowed to apply under the Native American laws. They should
• Who will speak for Native Hawaiians? • Government is the
problem • Smart meters: Fearful talk, no convincing evidence
Who will speak for Native Hawaiians?
Native Hawaiians should be allowed to apply under the Native American laws. They should be able to declare themselves as indigenous people, but who will speak for them? They need to sit down and appoint a spokesperson for the Hawaiian Natives. Could another senator take over the Akaka Bill?
Native Americans had a tribal structure long before European settlers came to America, so they had a distinct advantage — hence the recognition of Arizona’s Hopi tribe in 1936.
Ms. Machado has the right idea to use the Navajo Indian Tribe as a model. There is strength in numbers. If there are over 500,000 Hawaiians here and on the continent, that should help the cause.
I was born in Ireland. We are now becoming fluent in Gaelic, a language that was not spoken for many years due to the fact that we were not always an independent country. No matter where one was born, we identify with our roots and our language. Those are very important components of who we are.
Native Hawaiians have a right to their own nationality. It is long overdue.
Cecelia Kennelly-Waeschle, Kilauea
Government is the problem
David Thorp assures us that “government is not the problem.” He rightly praises the one legitimate federal activity: national defense. But the other intrusions he cites are beyond the scope of what Washington is legally permitted to do.
Federal activity is enumerated, i.e. specified, in the Constitution. If it’s not there, the wise and compassionate D.C. solons don’t have the authority to do it. And their corruption of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses clearly does not provide any umbrella of legitimacy to federalism not specifically listed.
If citizens want the feds to do more, we have a process to make their activities legal. It’s called amending the constitution. The situation we are faced with now is a federal government that is out of control. It has saddled everyone of us, from newborn to retiree with $50,000 and counting in debt. And since the feds are not constrained by a limited money supply, i.e. reality, like the rest of us, we’re headed for a very unpleasant comeuppance.
The recent housing bubble and resultant collapse is a perfect example of big government’s all-thumbs involvement in an area where it is illegally sticking its nose. The Community Redevelopment Act passed by the Democrats under Jimmy Carter forced lenders to make loans to unqualified borrowers. This Ponzi scheme was sustained by other extra-legal, quasi-government entities, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
More than one constitutional scholar estimates that 75 percent of what Washington does is unconstitutional. And Walter Lewis’ recent contribution to The Garden Island laid out in simple and stark detail the absolute insanity of what the federal government has done. His admonition to all of us is to give careful consideration as to who we send to Washington.
Government absolutely is the problem.
John Burns, Princeville
Smart meters: Fearful talk, no convincing evidence
Mrs. Dente, while you may find it naive and uninformed for me to think that “all of us living on Kaua‘i own and use multi-electromagnetic, wave-generating devices,” the fact of the matter is that you can clearly see a large number of people on this island carrying around and using such devices on a daily basis. Look around you. Do you trust what you see with your eyes or not?
I typically get a look of surprise when I tell people I don’t own a cell phone. Now, why would that be if it weren’t commonplace to have one?
And let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the majority of the population is not carrying around such devices. It is an absolute fact that you are bombarded with all sorts of electromagnetic radiation all the time. I have seen no overwhelming evidence that points to any significant increase in risk from smart meters. I’ve seen a lot of fearful talk but no convincing scientific evidence.
If privacy is your issue, you already don’t have it. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago in that regard. Those who own cell phones can be tracked. Every time the phone connects to a cell phone tower, your rough location is known. Verizon even announced some time late last year that they were relaxing their privacy policies to allow for this data, and other information about users, to be sold to third parties.
Every time you use a debit or credit card, there is information being generated, which is not in your control. The proliferation of sites like YouTube, coupled with technology that allows anyone to easily capture audio, photographs or video, means that your likeness can be made available to pretty much anyone in the world at anytime without your knowledge or consent. Worrying about someone knowing that you turned your oven on at 6:22 p.m. on Thursday seems rather ridiculous at this point.
As I responded to Nataan Kauakahi (but which never got published), the only halfway reasonable argument being made here is the issue of choice, but I think it is a weak argument, and to argue all of this other stuff only weakens it further. I will agree that you should have the choice to opt out if you desire. If, however, the installation of smart meters will lead to efficiencies in power distribution, it should be considered and not thwarted by fear tactics of questionable merit. I would like to see valid, credible and peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating a clear danger.
Michael Mann, Lihu‘e
