Respect and noted excellence

Aloha no my ohana,

Nui mahalo for keeping me and our ohana up dated regarding what's happening here at home via Hawai’i Free Press!  We read your articles with great anticipation and appreciation of much needed information! 

Please keep up the good work and the day will come when Hawai’i Free Press will be awarded the respect and noted excellence you folks deserve!  E ia la, someday soon!!!

I'o lako aloha and mahalo pihanakalani my ohana, e ala e Kaulana Na Pua,

Alika Poe Silva, Kahu Kulaiwi, Koa Mana,

Kupukaaina O Wai‘anae Wahipana, Oahu, Hawaiian National

  *   *   *   *   * 

Abercrombie’s capitalist: Printing Mufi’s capitalists’ letter is a “dis-service” to the community

From: Bill Spencer
Subject: Your article about Hannemann's Dirty Trick Venture Capital Endorsement

Dear Andrew,                        9-13-10

I wish you had spoken to me or Jay Fidell before writing this up.  Larry Harmon's classless letter does not deserve a response, nor does the hogwash VCAH has posted about HVCA on their web site, which is patently false and misleading.  This group has no merit, was established by Trisha Watson a Mufi operative and others to counter our legitimate endorsement of Abercrombie.  Only one person, previously listed among their 10 members was ever an HVCA member.  They have since taken down their membership page.

If you are interested in facts as opposed to their lies and innuendo, please contact me or Jay Fidell….  We released a detailed press release last Thursday which was the basis for Harmon's absurd letter. 

I sincerely hope that if you will work harder to improve the quality of your reporting so that Hawaii doesn't continue to be a one paper town, but if you do not do more research and take the time to talk to the principals involved to at least get both sides of the story and maybe get your facts straight, you are doing the community a great dis-service.

Kind regards,
Bill Spencer

RELATED: Mufi’s venture capitalist to Neil’s: “F*** you”

Bill Spencer didn’t complain when we printed this: With federal law at stake, Paid activists attack Hawaii fish farmers

Trisha Watson also comes up here:  Partisans fight over “Progressive Democrats” label  (Is she in charge of Mufi front groups?)

(Editor’s note:  Mufi’s capitalist’s letter only had two words.  Which one was the lie?  And which was the innuendo?  Enquiring minds want to know.)

  *   *   *   *   *

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."  

Dear Editor,                    9-17-10

I trust the above Subject line got your attention.  It certainly got my attention when I noticed it in our local newspaper.

Here is the entire quote which appeared in bold red letters, on the front page of the Sept. 11th, Sunday issue of West Hawaii Today.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -- John Stuart Mill

Incidentally, this quote was part of the front page lead in to encourage readers to view the enclosed Election Guide.  

Do you think there was a "hidden" message for voters?

I do consider myself a conservative.  And while I do not view myself as "stupid," I am willing to admit that I am "slow."

"Slow"  because  I am one of the few people I know that still has a subscription to West Hawaii Today. 

Today, when I finally read Sunday's paper, that changed. 

I explained to the editor, Reed Flickinger (who was good enough to call me back) that the quote, was not the only reason I was cancelling my subscription, but that was the last straw.

Apparently there have been many subscription cancellations since Sunday.  Note that West Hawaii Today and the Tribune Herald (East Hawaii) newspapers are both owned by Stephens Media, LLC, that operates newspapers in nine states. 

Sincerely,

Rita Grove

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

  *   *   *   *   *

19 Presidents and no church in sight?

To The Editor           9-19-10

The first 19 Presidents of the US did not attend church.

The Constitution says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

A person’s religion or lack thereof should not be a political issue. What was good enough from Washington, to Lincoln should be sufficient.

Let’s not turn America into the kind of theocracy my grandparents risked their lives to escape.

Ken Obenski Honaunau, Hawaii

REALITY: The first sentence in this letter is absolutely false.

Resurrecting the Black Regiment

AP: Here is the church that every President has attended since Madison

  *   *   *   *   *

Hawaii newspapers favor Democrats over 20-9 

Dear Editor,                 9-20-10

There exists a dangerous trend by the mainstream media in the U.S. to attempt to dominate and control the political debate instead of doing their job of fair reporting.  Unfortunately this is evident in the liberal bias toward entrenched liberal Democrats here in Hawaii.  

This is seen in the number of major articles prior to the primary election, totaling over twenty times, in blogs and letters to the editor reporting on Democrat gubernatorial candidates, Mufi Hannemann and Neil Abercrombie, as opposed to reporting only nine times, with six only in passing, on Republican Duke Aiona.  One article even implied Abercrombie is the only candidate supporting women's rights, in the Maui News.  Another example of bias can be seen in this month's issue of the Moon Over Haleakala front page article maliciously falsely characterizing Aiona as a part of the  far "Religious Right", just because he is a moderately conservative Republican. 

We also see bias in the outright elimination of all of the Conservative talk radio programming by Pacific Radio Group.  This media bias amounts to censorship because it unfairly limits opposition to entrenched liberal Democrats, as seen by the unequal and unfair reporting favoring liberal Democrats over Republicans and conservatives, and it jeopardizes the liberty of all citizens by limiting democratic free speech rights of all candidates and their right to be fairly heard.

Rosemary Garciduenas

Kihei, Maui

  *   *   *   *   * 

Primaries disenfranchise General?

Dear Editor:

Here's an election rule that makes no sense:  If a candidate in a non-partisan race wins 50% plus 1 vote in the primary, he or she wins the seat, and the election is over.  In some cases, the primary winner wins overwhelmingly and is very unlikely to be defeated in the general election.  In other cases, however, the election is much closer.  The rule only makes sense if you assume two things:  The same people vote in both elections (or the folks who vote in the primary are representative of those who vote in the general), and no one would change his mind between September and November.  Neither assumption is valid.

I suggest that the top two vote-getters in the non-partisan primary races should move up to the general election, regardless of the vote in the primary.  (In the case of an "at large" election, such as the Board of Education, where more than one candidate will be elected, the number on the ballot in November should be double the number of positions being filled.)  Here are a few good reasons:

First, roughly fifty percent more voters participate in the general election than in the primary.  If only two candidates are running for a position, the race will always be decided in the election with fewer voters.

Second, the most intense campaigning -- and voter interest -- often occurs in the last few weeks before the November election.  Therefore, many opportunities to meet and learn about the candidates are lost when the election is decided in the primary.  Also, new Issues may arise or new information come to light that could change the minds of those who voted in the primary election or spark increased interest in the race.

Third, the whole purpose of a primary election is to narrow the field of candidates for the general election.  This is obvious in the partisan races, but no less important in the non-partisan races.

Fourth, there is no good reason to have the election decided in the primary election.  Of course, those who win in the primary are happy that they don't have to campaign any longer, but there is no benefit to the public.  The incumbents are usually the beneficiaries of these shortened campaigns, as they start with greater voter recognition, and they make the rules.

In short, we would be better served if the rule were changed and all races were finally decided in the general election when the larger number of voters participate and we have had a full campaign cycle to become informed and make our best decisions.

Bill Hastings

Kamuela, HI

  *   *   *   *   *

Vet Center of Hawaii Outreach