Remove the eyesore
State Sens. Kurt Fevella, Laura Acasio and state Rep. Jeanne Kapela sent Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chairman William Aila letter urging him not to remove the Maunakea Access Road Thirty Meter Telescope protest site.
The legislators are advocating granting the remaining protesters a right of entry, and signing a memorandum of agreement. This would allow them to lawfully stay there.
I believe this a mistake on several levels. Firstly, the TMT project likely won’t resume construction anytime soon.
They’re seeking additional funding due to project cost overruns. The TMT is banking on receiving funding from the National Science Foundation.
This funding will require additional environmental review on federal level. There is no guarantee the TMT project would survive another round of public comment. As a result, I believe it would be mistake to allow these protesters to remain at Maunakea Access Road indefinitely.
The ongoing environmental damage to the sensitive environment of Maunakea is another concern with legalizing this encampment. In short, this area will never be the same if and when the encampment is removed.
There will be long-lasting environmental damage, which is pretty ironic.
The TMT protesters have done the same damage to the environment they allege the existing Maunakea telescopes have done to the summit area.
I strongly urge the three of you to retract your letter to Chairman Aila and allow DHHL to remove the last remnants this eyesore.
Aaron Stene
Kailua-Kona
Hello, Texas!
(The Sept. 2) editorial from the Dallas Morning News, criticizing China’s failed policies on family planning, reeks of hypocrisy. Texas just passed the most restrictive law on abortion, and allows vigilante busybodies to enforce it.
To quote the column: “To state the obvious: Having children should be a decision for parents, not governments.” Hello, Texas! Say that again, louder for those in the back row.
China’s one-child policy is an abysmal failure because females are not valued in that society. Consequently, their one child was overwhelmingly male due to abortion, infanticide and female children put up for adoption. A generation later, they have a shortage of females.
The author is correct — 30 million men are left without partners. He fails to mention this has led to an uptick in violence in the population, and I wonder if Chinese society now sees more value in women beyond wives and mothers.
China has since legalized having three children, but the birth rate hasn’t risen. The author blames women being distrustful of the government, but maybe they don’t want to have a busload of children. Maybe if given a choice, they’d prefer to have one or two.
Educated women wait longer to bear children and typically bear fewer children. Their children are likely to have a better standard of living. This is true not only in China but around the world, including the U.S.
We are no longer an agrarian society that needs fieldhands. Babies born are likely to grow to be adults, and not die as infants.
Children are expensive to raise. Housing, well-paying jobs, child care and health care are not a given, especially in this country. We live in a world that is groaning under the weight of over 7 billion people, with lifestyles that are not sustainable.
Climate change is fueling huge fires, drought, floods, the planet is polluted, and we may very well see a shortage of clean water and food within the next generation.
Sociologists at one time may “have connected birth rates to optimism.” Now, it’s a barometer of reality.
Criticizing China’s role in family planning is just gaslighting for Texas and its early state of Gilead. Women are more than producers of heirs and soldiers, fillers of pews.
Andrea Minor
Papaikou