Saddle Road name
A better approach
Now the county wants to rename Saddle Road. Well, it will always be the Saddle Road to the kamaaina, even if the county does rename it.
The county is talking about naming it after the late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye. The suggested name is the “Daniel K. Inouye Memorial Highway.”
Whoa, that would never work. If we care to name something after our famous senator, we are all for that, but we will never be able to handle it as the “‘Daniel K. Inouye Memorial Highway.”
We know that our roads are supposed to be Hawaiian names or words.
That is fine, but let’s have the Hawaiian community give us a name that we can handle.
Now they are complaining because we call the beautiful new road to Costco the Ane K. Highway. Don’t they know that “Keohokalole” is too much of a mouthful for the majority of folks?
Do they really believe we will ever call Saddle Road the Daniel K. Inouye Memorial Highway? It will never happen.
Let’s be realistic. Give us a name that we can handle as well as the age-old name Saddle Road.
A single race
There is only one race on this planet: the human one. Any perceived difference is cultural. That’s why travel is so enriching — it exposes us to different traditions, foods and cultures.
My wife and I attend every local cultural event: We enjoy the music, the hula, the stories of the past. We were not born here, but we love the Hawaiian culture, and we respect the land and the ocean.
Sadly, some people, regardless of background, have hate in their hearts and no respect for their surroundings.
Let’s hope that a higher power will grant them enlightenment; if not, let’s hope they leave this land of aloha — so that we can all live here in peace and harmony with joy in our hearts and constant awe for our incredible Hawaii Island.
Where and how to cut?
In response to Mr. Jacobs’ letter published March 19: Actually, there is overwhelming agreement between politicians and economists on both the left and the right that, although in the short run Social Security is in good shape, benefit payments will have to be cut by 25 percent in 2037 — if we don’t make some relatively minor adjustments now.
Where they differ is in what kind of adjustments to make.
Those who see the sky falling or would want us to believe that would like to use this false argument to gut a social program they don’t particularly like.
Meanwhile, others (Mr. Jacobs included) want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the demographic reality of the baby boom retirees we have been warned about for decades.
Our only way out of this dilemma is to elect representatives who think, reason and debate the issue and arrive at a logical solution and even (heaven forbid) a compromise.
Politicians who sign pledges not to tinker with Social Security, raise taxes, offend the NRA, eat broccoli, or, for that matter, pledge to learn the banjo and play Yankee Doodle while standing on their heads (in unison) can be replaced by a robot with a simple software system.
It would be rather amusing and quite satisfying to the simpleminded — but it wouldn’t preserve Social Security as we know it for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.
Isn’t that what we should be concerned about?