Publication Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Letters
Letters
(May 12, 2004)
'Magnificent' boost
Editor,
Thanks to Mary Blume for her Guest Opinion in the Palo Alto Weekly (May 5). It was the best news I have read in ages. After all these years! To finally get the Opportunity Center is a blessing.
Having attended All Saints from 1950-60 and living in Barron Park then, prior to building our home in Portola Valley, where I have lived and volunteered in almost everything (1960-present) in our town and county, I would not miss reading the paper.
"The Magnificient Seven" was another booster of my morale and the human race, which I needed after these past weeks of horrid news and lack of leadership. Being a member of PEO, the education-promoting sisterhood organization, it was good to read of Barbara Roberts' work, as well of all the other wonderful volunteers. God Bless them all.
Phyllis Blum-Quilter
Sioux Way
Portola Valley
Eucalyptus confusion
Editor,
I must confess I am terribly confused as to what all the fuss about this particular (eucalyptus) tree is about (Weekly, April 28). Yes, it was beautiful. Yes, it was magnificent. And so?
Many beautiful things, many magnificent things are being destroyed all the time -- why are there so few heated letters protesting the death of equally beautiful native species at the hands of non-native ones, eh?
I am simply amazed that the Weekly said that it was "just there," considering the sort of chemicals a eucalyptus can make in its quest to survive. One of a eucalyptus tree's properties is the ability to make chemicals that prevent the growth of possible competitors.
It's almost like abortion if you think about it. A eucalyptus tree is not "just there." Its being there prevented other trees from being there. Hardly benign.
A letter last week asked if Acterra thought it was God. No, Acterra is not playing God; no more than the humans who first introduced eucalyptus here as a source of timber did.
Jane Huang
Middlefield Road
Palo Alto
Acterra's 'protection'?
Editor,
The killing of mature trees in Palo Alto's Arastradero Preserve by Acterra, an organization supposedly protecting the park under authorization by the City of Palo Alto, is an incredible act.
Never mind the convoluted logic of "non-native" species. How many trees and plants we enjoy every day in Palo Alto are non-native? In a broad sense, as one goes back in time, most plants were brought here by modern or ancient peoples.
The City of Palo Alto should immediately remove any authority Acterra has to "manage" our park lands.
Kent M. Price
San Antonio Road
Palo Alto
Thoughts on Telework
Editor,
A letter from a Fulton Street resident (Weekly, May 5) promoting a highly risky city-owned fiber project makes curious claims about how fiber-to-the-home will reduce traffic in Palo Alto. Using an HP Web site claiming that "Telework" had saved 2 million roundtrip commutes in 2002, the letter suggests fiber will deliver "cleaner air to all community citizens and employers."
Telecommuting is not a synonym for fiber, but all data-communications schemes that are available -- from modems to wireless to fiber to not-yet-invented methods. Verizon is spending $1 billion to launch a wireless service bringing 500 kbs to 700 kbs (15 to 20 times faster than dialup) to communities nationwide.
Intel is backing a technology called Wi-MAX (802.16/20), which should deliver three mbps to both fixed and mobile stations. Palo Alto-based Airgo is designing antennas for Wi-Fi called MIMO (Multiple Input-Multiple Output), promising to deliver 100 mbps, raising more than $77 million from local venture investors.
Palo Altans have many options for "Telework" today.
HP is not so moved by proposal that they have offered $10 million to ensure all of Palo Alto HP employees would never have to drive to the office again -- because of their city-owned fiber data connections.
Others promoting FTTH suggest that "new business" will move to Palo Alto (in spite of high rental rates) because of the availability of fiber-optic telecommunications (which already is available via the city's existing fiber-optic ring).
This "new business" should certainly generate a lot of traffic -- yet to be accounted for by the city.
Wayne Martin
Bryant Street
Palo Alto
Open entertainment
Editor,
I recently learned of the decision by the Walt Disney Company to block its own film company, Miramax, from distributing the new documentary by Michael Moore, "Fahrenheit 911." Disney executives reportedly made their decision because they felt the film was too partisan. The documentary traces the links between the Bush family and prominent Saudi Arabian families.
Not everyone agrees with Michael Moore's politics. And this documentary certainly is controversial. But no corporation should have the right to tell me what films I can see. Disney has this power because it owns ABC, film studios, TV and radio stations and cable channels.
I am concerned that this is yet another example of the dangers of media consolidation, as corporations decide what people should and shouldn't see.
There are other examples. Last week, Sinclair Broadcasting decided that "Nightline's" tribute to the dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq was too partisan and pulled the program from its ABC affiliates.
What will be the next issue too controversial for us to see?
Congress must act to stop the growth of giant media corporations that can control our access to information and entertainment. Call your member of Congress and ask him or her to prevent the growing concentration of the media.
Alice Frost
El Cerrito Road
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
