INOUYE'S CONTINUING POSITION DISHEARTENING

Sen. Inouye's commentary March 15 on earmarks or pork barrel does not answer the so many fears and questions about the current overspending of the Obama administration. Instead, it has put our present state of economy at a standstill as he continues to defend the need for earmarks at a time when we are having a post-World War II depression unparalleled even as compared to the New Deal.

As one of the most powerful leaders in the Senate for so many years, Sen. Inouye's continuing position is disheartening. It just shows his insensibility to the current needs of common people, unstable job market, income, housing, retirement and the inability to manage family stress out of a bad economy. Does Congress and the Senate not prioritize anymore? Or are they just plain and simple politicians afraid to lose their positions come election day?

AIDS CRISIS

POPE WRONG; CONDOM USE HELPS REDUCE RISKS

I find the pope's recent comments about condom use to be shockingly irresponsible. Last week he was in Africa and addressed the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis that is ravaging too many parts of the continent. The pope rightly stated that condom use alone can't stop the spread of HIV.

One assumes that he meant to acknowledge that HIV isn't spread only by sexual activity and that the only surefire way to be safe from spreading the virus sexually is abstinence. This first part of his message was completely appropriate.

He then went on to say that the use of condoms actually "increases the problem." That's where the pope went wrong and seems to be putting church dogma before the public health interests of millions of people. Condom use absolutely helps to reduce the risks associated with sexual behavior and to argue otherwise reflects either a shocking level of ignorance or a blatant disregard for scientific facts.

MENTAL HEALTH CUTS

HOMELESS SERVICES ARE COST EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT

In a recent article about mental health cuts, providers erroneously indicated that funding community-based mental health services are less expensive than "funding homeless services." As a homeless service provider, I take exception to the comment.

IHS provides a spectrum of homeless services including employment, housing and case management for families and individuals with mental illness, substance abuse and those who have been incarcerated. I challenge any mental health provider to demonstrate a more cost-effective/cost-efficient program for the state than what we offer our mentally ill guests. Homeless providers have leveraged millions in federal funding to effectively provide homes for mentally ill homeless at very little cost to the state.

Furthermore, most are nonprofit organizations that work on shoestring budgets, patching together grants to provide services. To suggest that homeless services are a throwaway in terms of budget dollars is misleading at best and derogatory at worst. Shelters remain a safe haven for many challenging members of our community.

To "lump" the costs of homeless services in with costs of institutional care is both erroneous and a gross exaggeration of the costs. Homeless services possibly represent some of the most "economical" mental health care delivery systems in the entire state.

SUPERFERRY

'SUPERFOLLY' PROJECT IS FINANCIALLY DOOMED

The state Supreme Court decision announced on March 16 spotlights, yet again, the huge amount of legal and legislative resources being consumed at public expense due to the Hawaii Superferry. Hidden from public view is an indubitable financial fiasco of at least equal proportions.

Although the expense of $40 million in state harbor improvements is known (and yet to be paid by Superferry), even more substantial expenses have undoubtedly been incurred by Superferry investors (and at-risk lenders) to purchase two large ferries and all of the many other expenses associated with establishing and staffing a new company. In return, investors have received comparatively short-term increments of passenger and cargo revenues between collectively longer periods of rough channel seas, required ferry and dock repairs, and legal typhoons.

Clearly the Superferry project is the proverbial boat, "a hole in the water into which one pours money," and should probably be renamed the "Hawaii Superfolly."

ISLES HAVE LOST VALUABLE ASSET IN TIME OF NEED

The recent ruling by the Hawai'i Supreme Court has me asking this question: What is wrong with allowing the Superferry to operate while an environmental impact statement is being done? If the Superferry is damaging the environment then the company will be shut down immediately. If not, what's the problem?

I understand their unanimous ruling in that Act 2 is unconstitutional because it was designed to benefit a specific company. However, in the "spirit" of Act 2, the Superferry was brought in to benefit many in giving people another option to the Neighbor Islands, allowing businesses a cheaper alternative of getting produce to market, and a place of employment.

Unfortunately the courts do not deal in "options," "alternatives" or "spirit." They deal with interpretations. This is the same court that ruled if you see a sobriety checkpoint and you make a U-turn to avoid it, the police cannot pursue you because they do not have "just cause," as they ruled on a case in Maui with a Mainland visitor. Why did he avoid the checkpoint? Because he was drunk. It does not make sense.

When the next natural disaster strikes our Islands, and the Superferry is gone, Hawai'i has lost a valuable asset in our time of need. When this catastrophe happens, I wonder if our Supreme Court justices can sleep at night.

OBSERVATORY FUNDING

AGREEMENT WILL KEEP TELESCOPES OPERATING

I want to clarify information that was reported in a recent Advertiser story regarding the W.M. Keck Observatory and a new agreement between Caltech and Yale University ("Yale Pays $12M to Use Mauna Kea Telescopes," March 14).

This collaboration, in addition to enabling more researchers to use the powerful resources of the Keck Observatory, is designed to provide funding to permit the Keck Observatory to be financially sustainable and to continue its operations.

Currently, the operating costs for the W. M. Keck Observatory are borne by the University of California (83 percent) and NASA (17 percent). Caltech was responsible for the original costs of building the telescopes and does not pay for operations cost because it secured large grants from the Keck Foundation and NASA to fund the construction of the observatory.

This arrangement comes to an end in 2018. At that point, Caltech will need to share in funding to operate the facility (42 percent, to retain its current share). For this reason, Caltech sought new partners to raise funds for Keck operations beginning in 2018. The funds from this agreement will be used solely to operate the Keck Observatory.

With the financial future of the Keck Observatory secured, the observatory and astronomers in California, Hawai'i, Australia and at Yale will, thanks to the exceptional skies above Mauna Kea, continue to make great discoveries.