January 30, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

ReaderWire

As concrete and steel satisfy the greed of corporate and civic elites, rich and fertile land is turned into dreary cityscape. Cemented earth repels the rain, suffocating heat demands more and more air conditioning, and dirty air fails to sustain us.

Of course developers should be required to modulate their projects and surround them with something that cools and encourages us. But challenging and controversial public art -- apparently "ours to love, hate, ruminate over, curse or ignore" -- is pointless (Guest Opinion, Nov. 4, 2003).

Why replace living trees with concrete trees? Why not simply replace trees with trees? Or allow grass to grow freely? We need more relaxed, local open spaces with lots of trees and grass. Places where kids can kick a soccer ball around, or people can pass a lazy afternoon picnicking in the shade.

Oh, and by the way, my first choice for removal of hideous public art is that ghastly stomach-faced skipping doll on California Avenue. Go Away Mama! Margaret Allen Cornell Street, Palo Alto
A caring community

I am writing to tell Francie Allen, recently moved to the Palo Alto area (ReaderWire, Jan. 23), and to remind those of us who have been here longer that Palo Alto IS a community that cares.

Four or five years ago many residents became concerned about homelessness in Palo Alto. They worked together through Peninsula Interfaith Action to call attention of community leaders and the City Council to work toward meeting this need.

The result is the Community Working Group's plan for the establishment of the Opportunity Center. The group is currently working on a capital campaign to fund the Center. Contributions are gratefully appreciated and should be sent to Community Working Group, 555 Bryant Street, PMB #321, Palo Alto, CA 94301. (More information is available at their Web site: www.opportunitycenter.org.)

The unfortunate thing in my friend Willie Branch's case is that the Opportunity Center is still on the drawing boards and not yet a reality. Willie's need is exactly what the Opportunity Center is designed to fill. Norma Grench South Court, Palo Alto
A view on 'Light'

I have a few comments on Board of Contributor Jeff Blum's opinion piece entitled "Shining the light on Christian conservatives" (Jan. 14).

First of all, Terri Schiavo is not in a "vegetative state." She is brain-damaged; there is a difference. Florida law defines "persistent vegetative state" as "a permanent and irreversible state of unconsciousness in which there is an absence of voluntary or cognitive behavior of any kind and an inability to interact purposefully with one's environment."

In a now-famous video (that the Florida legislature viewed before enacting "Terri's Law") she is seen responding when her mother enters her room. Her eyes light up, she attempts to sit up in bed and she tries to say "Mom."

In any case, Mr. Blum is disturbed by the fact that, in this instance, "Christian conservatives" succeeded in convincing a state executive and legislature to overrule the judiciary and reverse a court order to, in effect, starve Terri to death.

Blum is concerned that if this catches on, elected representatives, not un-elected judges, may actually be the ones making law on social issues. Mr. Blum thinks it's good that judges decide social issues "because judges often nudge a reluctant society in the right direction."

Well, what the "right direction" is depends on your point of view. As long as liberal judges dominate the bench, I would expect this to be Mr. Blum's opinion. I wonder if he would continue to hold this opinion if and when socially conservative judges come to be in the majority. Anthony E. Wynne McKendry Drive, Menlo Park
Colin Powell's admission

Now that more than 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands more have been wounded in Iraq, Colin Powell admits the obvious: The U.S. invaded Iraq with little if any idea what Saddam Hussein had in the way of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Powell now tells reporters that Hussein's possession of WMDs is an "open question."

This certainly is a stark contrast to his grim presentation of "facts" in front of the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. After claiming that, by "a conservative estimate," Hussein had a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agents, Powell said the following: "These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Stating something as an indisputable "fact" when you really have no idea is not far from outright lying as far as I am concerned.

But now since no WMDs have been uncovered, the war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people, right? Not according to Powell, who told Tim Russert the following on "Meet the Press" on Oct. 20, 2002: "All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime, but the principal offense here are weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this resolution is working on."

Sure it is good that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but the Bush administration sold the war on the basis that Iraq was a direct threat to the American people. Going to war is the most serious course of action a president can take, and an administration that twists the "facts" to suit its own agenda does not deserve the trust of the American people. Bill Burman Byron Street, Palo Alto

E-mail a friend a link to this story.