Monday, Sept. 25, 2023 |
Share this story
• An open memo to ‘values voters’ • On Libya • On presidents who lie • RIP Lena • Dumbfounded by election materials • JoAnn is right for Kaua‘i
An open memo to ‘values voters’
On July 13, 1787, our Founding Fathers ordained and declared in Section 14 Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged … .” In governing our nation, these principles “shall forever remain unalterable by common consent to wit … .”
Ask yourself, which presidential candidate demonstrates allegiance to these principles?
Candidate 1 in a 2009 speech characterized that the United States was grounded on secular principle of equality and “that we do not consider ourselves just a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens bound by ideals and a set of values” and promoted that our nation is grounded on secular principles and not Judeo-Christian religious principles.
Candidate 1 in August 2008 explained his abortion position this way: “I want to teach my daughters morals and values, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Candidate 1 believes the Constitution should promote what the government must do for its citizens. He believes in “taking all the money (the government) thinks is unnecessarily being spent from the haves and give it to the have nots,” leading to a society dependent on government.
Candidate 2 in a 2012 speech to Liberty University graduates expressed religious principles that “the American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, … devotion to a purpose greater than self, and at the foundation, the preeminence of the family.”
Candidate 2 at a debate in October 2012 with Candidate 1 opined “that resolving our budget deficits and public debt is a ‘moral issue’ and it is immoral for our generation to pass on the nation’s $16 trillion debt to our children and grandchildren.”
Candidate 2 defends the original Constitution that the constitutionality of laws is based on the principle whether legislation violates an individual’s right, responsibility, and consequence of choice.
Candidate 2 believes that “we are endowed with unalienable rights by our creator, that among these are life and liberty” that leads to a society of self-reliance.
Candidate No. 1 is Barack Obama. Candidate No. 2 is Mitt Romney.
On Sunday, Oct. 28, Mr. Burns graced us with another in a series of dishonest essays — this one on Lybia.
Security requests were denied, but they were for extending tours of security guards at the Embassy in Tripoli — not the Consulate in Benghazi, 400 miles away.
It is dishonest not to distinguish the difference.
At American diplomatic facilities overseas, the host nation is responsible for security outside the walls. Inside the walls, the State Department relies on a mix of diplomatic security officers, local contract guards and Marines. The Marines are responsible for guarding classified documents and their destruction if there is a breach.
Senior diplomats are protected by diplomatic security officers, not Marines, as Burns implies.
This implication is dishonest.
The denied security extensions (for a third time) were for financial reasons. House Republicans this year voted to cut back the president’s request for embassy security and construction.
Leaving this out is dishonest.
The CIA had conflicting reports and it was the CIA that chose to report only the “film protest as cause” version given the choice of two.
This is the only event right-wingers have to work with right now. They’re trying real hard to light a fire with wet matches and their inherent dishonesty.
On presidents who lie
Mike Lyman makes up a bunch of stuff about what Obama knew and when he knew it about the Benghazi, Libya, attack; but then asks a very important question.
“So, the question is this when voting: Do you want a president who lies to you for political reasons?”
I’m wondering if he means like Nixon who said, “I am not a crook,” or like Ronald Reagan who sold us the Laffer Curve, which started the destruction of the middle class, or Bush I who promised, “Read my lips: No new taxes,” but raised them on the middle class anyway, or Bush II who took a huge budget surplus and converted it into a tremendous deficit throwing the U.S. into the “Great Recession,” or like Mitt Romney who can’t make up his mind about what the truth is, or maybe like Paul Ryan who refuses to tell the truth about anything?
Lena Puni Mendonca. Oh how sad to see this name listed in the obituaries.
I met here several times, pre- and post-‘Iniki. She was a fabulous wealth of incredible knowledge of shells used in lei, seed lei and so on. Her collection was world class — and unfortunately many of the seed lei kept under refrigeration were lost after ‘Iniki.
In the 90s, a friend asked me to take to Kaua‘i with me a shell lei her mother had given her many years previously on O‘ahu for an appraisal specifically by Lena Mendonca. My friend had seen an article about Mrs. Mendonca in an airline magazine. I took the lei first to Liz Cope in Kalaheo to inquire about contacting Mrs. Mendonca. Liz directed me to the Hyatt, where Mrs. Mendonca exhibited some of her fabulous collection on weekends.
This was one of my most treasured meetings of kupuna on Kaua‘i. I asked for an appraisal. Mrs. Mendonca said she could not give one as these shells were pre-1960 — the limit of her expertise. Only the Bishop Museum might provide an opinion. She told me that many of the old shells were no longer produced due to runoffs, etc., on Ni‘ihau. This lei had them.
I saw her a few more times in the ensuing years. Each time I knew I was in the presence of a very special person. She treated each meeting with aloha and remembered me because of that lei. She preserved the culture, not only with her collection, but also with her encyclopedic knowledge of the tiny and specific shells over all those years.
I am very fortunate to have met Lena Mendonca in my lifetime. He inoa no Lena Mendonca.
Dumbfounded by election materials
I recently received the 2012 Proposed Explanation of Kaua‘i County Charter Amendments. I am absolutely dumbfounded by how poorly this information is presented. It not only appears to be inadequate in its explanation but with some its language bordering on propaganda. Official election information should be impartial so an informed decision can be made based on facts.
Carefully read each item and you will note that the Charter Commission, who appears to have actually prepared the data, have failed the public significantly. We are not being educated so we can make an objective decision. Instead, the Amendments are presented in such a way that it is difficult to understand the reasoning and intent, and how to properly evaluate what a Yes or No vote will mean.
Going online simply gives you the exact same material mailed, in addition to the Charter provision and its proposed amendments. How are we to understand such necessary details like: 1) Why is the amendment being proposed? (e.g. is it clarify some confusion, or to streamline a process, or perhaps provide for a consolidation or separation of powers), 2) How did the Charter Commission vote on each proposal (e.g. number of Ayes and Nays which would help understand if there was consensus), 3) If the proposed amendment is enacted, how will it change the way the government operates, 4) What a YES vote means and what a NO vote means — in plain English, 5) What is the financial impact on the cost of government if the amendment is passed (e.g. how will your vote affect County spending), 6) Pros and Cons on EVERY measure being proposed (why is this done on only but one such amendment?).
Read carefully, and make sure you are not swayed simply by someone’s letter to the editor or a public figure’s “suggestions.” While we all deserve an equal and balanced discussion and fair election materials, I truly believe that the 2012 disclosures are far off of the mark. I have no idea how this pamphlet was allowed to become official voter information. Kaua‘i voters deserve much better than this.
JoAnn is right for Kaua‘i
A dedicated leader committed to life-long learning, JoAnn has grown and adapted at pace with Kaua‘i’s needs.
A true measure of a leader is one who continually seeks truth and uses it for the betterment of all. With her unwavering commitment to Kaua‘i, JoAnn uses this skill to make a positive difference in the future of our island. As the world around us changes rapidly, her vision and clarity are matched equally with sound solutions that address the core issues of our island society.
JoAnn’s experience, wisdom and competence are balanced with aloha, making her a clear choice for the success of our county council.
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.