Publication Date: Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Letters
Letters
(September 01, 2004)
'Sensible' column?
Editor,
The usually sensible Don Kazak's recent column on the State Assembly race (Weekly, Aug. 25) strikes me as a bit curious. Ira Ruskin is described as a "savvy and accomplished politician" (whatever happened to the phrase "public servant?") while being simultaneously denigrated as being "not very charismatic."
Is sheer competence insufficient for political office? Do we need local Arnold? Evidently Republican Bern Beecham didn't think so when he endorsed Ira Ruskin. Ruskin will never be an Arnold in the charisma department, but he is an old-school guy, a straight arrow with a 25-year track record of public service.
Steve Poizner may well be a nice fellow. He also looks to be a wealthy fellow trying to buy himself a seat in the State Assembly while embracing improvement in education and the business climate, issues that Ruskin has successfully advocated for many years, together with some tired rhetoric about "cleaning up the mess in Sacramento" that probably sounds better with an Austrian accent.
As for his faux-moderate statement about not endorsing those big-time immoderates President Bush and Vice President Cheney, a quick Google search reveals that Poizner put his money where his mouth isn't and contributed $2,000 to the Bush campaign.
The contrast between Ira Ruskin, a modest person who started at the bottom of the local government food chain and proved himself to be a dedicated and far-sighted public servant, and an inexperienced closeted Republican running on the strength of his bank account, is striking.
Why the contrast didn't strike the usually observant Don Kazak is a mystery.
Henry Breitrose
Tolman Drive
Stanford
Street scene
Editor,
Sue Dremann's excellent article in "The big dig" (Aug. 25) brings home an interesting observation how Palo Alto Utilities is missing a big opportunity in its capital-improvement program.
The city is tearing up miles of streets to replace water, gas, sewer and electrical lines, piecemeal. Since probably 90 percent of the cost of such projects is invested in holes (digging them, filling them up and replacing pavement) it makes little sense to be doing this work one service line at a time, only to repeat the digging experience on the same street a few years later when another service line is upgraded.
Would it not make more sense, cost considerably less money and save the local residents the aggravation of multiple construction projects if the job was done once? That means that when a street needs to be torn up, all the services should be replaced at the same time, even if some of the service upgrades are a little premature.
In the long run that saves a lot of money, and, as importantly, preserves the tranquility of the neighborhood. Once a hole in the street has to be created at considerable cost, let's take advantage of it and finish related infrastructure work.
That will reduce our "investment" in creating holes and provide real service improvement. A little coordination would go a long way.
Frank Rahn
Santa Rita
Palo Alto
Mentioning Najaf
Editor,
On Aug. 27 I read an article in the San Jose Mercury News describing how "the core of the city (Najaf), a destination of longing for millions of Shiite Muslims, is so mauled that American commanders debate which famously ruined wartime cityscape (she) now resembles most."
The article went on to say that "The damage ... is the consequence of ... a U.S. military doctrine that unites terrifying firepower with almost zero tolerance for casualties in its own ranks." Lt. Col. Myles Miyamasu was quoted as saying, "If we take fire from it, we destroy the whole building.''
As a fellow U.S. citizen who cringed every time another American soldier was killed or injured in the war, I can't blame our military for doing its best to protect our own people. On the other hand, this article answers the question of why we are so unwelcome in Iraq and why so many insurgents are still fiercely defiant against our occupation.
Many of them are more than willing to give up their lives if only they can take out one or two Americans with them. We may be there to liberate them from a terrible dictator, but their civilians are still the ones to bear the brunt of our overwhelming firepower.
They are still the ones made to pay the ultimate price, in terms of some 13,000 innocent lives lost, several times more wounded, millions of dollars worth of dwellings and livelihoods destroyed, and the ultimate indignity of being treated as if their lives are worthless when compared to an American's.
Laura Chiu
Talisman Court
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
