Publication Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Letters
Letters
(September 15, 2004)
Cut the innuendo
Editor,
I strongly object to Don Kazak's article (Weekly, Sept. 1) titled "Conspiracy theorists." Kazak's article is a perfect example of the kind of journalism that's in vogue in this country -- all innuendo, no substance.
It's clear that Kazak believes the government's "official story" about 9-11, that Muslim fundamentalists, orchestrated by bin Laden, hijacked four planes with box-cutters, avoided the air defenses and flew the planes into the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon.
While Kazak has a right to believe whatever far-fetched conspiracy theory he wants, as a journalist he has an obligation to be balanced in reporting the news.
Is it news that a growing number of people don't believe the government's "official story" about 9-11? You bet it is.
Is it news that the government's "official story" requires you to believe -- as it did with the "magic bullet" in the Kennedy assassination -- that the laws of physics were suspended? You bet it is.
Is it news that there's photographic evidence that the Pentagon was struck by a missile or Predator drone on 9-11, not flight 77? You bet it is.
Is it news that the 9-11 report was such a whitewash that it failed to mention: The FBI agents who were told to stop investigating the Saudis in flight schools; Building 7, the other skyscraper that fell that day; and Marvin Bush, the brother of George, who ran a company that managed security for the WTC, United and Dulles -- all of which were involved in 9-11? You bet it is.
Instead of writing a substantive piece about the unanswered questions surrounding 9-11, Kazak was content to write a fluff piece about Carol Brouillet and her "posse" of "conspiracy theorists." I challenge Mr. Kazak to a 9-11 debate. It's time to cut the innuendo and get down to the facts of the matter.
Dennis "Galen" Mitrzyk
Maclane Street
Palo Alto
Critical thinking
Editor,
Once again Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DTNNA) president Dan Lorimer has demonstrated his myopic view of community and his disrespect for anyone with differing views. In the Around Town column of Sept. 8, Dan's misinformation and ill-will is all too evident.
The Downtown North traffic roundtable meetings were established by Joe Kott (Palo Alto's Chief Transportation Office) to gather input for phase II assessment metrics. Dan complains that the roundtable meetings did not have fair representation.
He is wrong.
Invitations to participate in these advisory-only sessions were made to all impacted groups. Many saw this as an important exercise in community building and civil discussion and made the commitment to participate. However, several invited representatives of DTNNA did not attend or send replacements to the meetings.
It is important to remember that the roundtable was designed to bring people together to voice opinions and work through issues. The roundtable had no authority to make binding decisions. Its goal was to encourage understanding and trust among residents.
Unlike Dan, others found it a successful beginning. DTNNA member Mike Liveright has been recently quoted as describing the roundtables as a "sterling attempt" by the city to get buy-in from various groups.
Dan labels those with differing views who participated in the roundtable as "self-appointed malcontents." This flagrant disrespect for fellow citizens who invested their time to work toward a consensus-based solution is an embarrassment to all Palo Altans.
Dan goes on to say that the current trial is a failure before the measures are fully in place. The only solution he sees is the replacement of the entire City Council.
I propose an alternate solution: Replace the leadership of DTNNA with someone who can demonstrate respect and constructive engagement with neighbors and city officials.
John Guislin
Middlefield Road
Palo Alto
Cheney's threat
Editor,
Playing at lying about your opponents is one thing, but to tell the American public that if we don't vote for the Bush ticket, we might die, is way out of line.
Or is Vice President Cheney admitting that the Bush folks really had something to do with hiring the Saudis on the 9-11 attack? Was this the "Pearl Harbor" that the Bush administration needed to start the attack against American freedoms and go after the Iraq oil fields?
Mr. Cheney -- the American public is not going to buy that if we vote you and Bush out, a Kerry presidency is going to bring on another attack.
Or do you have another surprise for us?
Donnasue Jacobi
Haight Street
Menlo Park
Hope and fear
Editor,
I am very frightened of President Bush, and frightened for our country.
Now we have passed the 1,000 mark of deaths of our fighting men and women. For what? Iraq is a disaster and we have no business being there. How long ago was it that Bush stood on a carrier deck under a sign saying "Mission Accomplished"?
Bush never went to Dover Air Force Base to pay honor to those who died for their country and were brought home in coffins.
I am nearly 85 years old and have known many presidents. I thought Nixon was the worst that could happen to this country until Bush came along. He lies. He and Cheney dodged military service.
John Kerry served his country honorably and then got bushwhacked by a group of phonies funded by the Republicans.
Who can forget that scene in a Florida kindergarten when Bush got the word of 9-11, and for seven very long minutes just sat there, his face like a deer caught in the headlights.
Someone help me, he was saying. Finally, his handlers took him out of there, but he didn't come back to Washington until the next day.
We have few friends in the world and the people who trust us are few indeed.
John Kerry is the only hope we have. Bush is destroying the United States, internally and externally. Your vote never has been more important.
Harry Press
Escobita Avenue
Palo Alto
Understanding Prop. 71
Editor,
The whole nation is watching how Californians will weigh in at the polls come November on Prop. 71. The rhetoric is strong and the various arguments, while compelling at times, can be difficult to wade through.
What does Prop. 71 ask California voters for?
Prop. 71 asks the voters to amend the state constitution so that funds are authorized "without regard to fiscal year," which means in times of budget crisis, California would have to borrow money to pay for Prop. 71.
Prop. 71 will fund therapeutic cloning, the manufacturing of cloned embryos for the purpose of extracting their stem cells leading to the commercialization and patenting of human body parts.
Prop. 71 asks California voters for $6 billion of new debt at a time the state closes schools and cuts vital programs.
Prop. 71 gives high priority to funding embryonic stem-cell research over adult stem-cell research or stem-cell research from umbilical cord blood. Treatments developed from adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells are numerous. Patients benefiting from stem cells from their own bodies are real. Cures to date developed from embryonic stem cells are zero.
Prop. 71 asks California to place undue burden on women to undergo risky procedures to donate their eggs for science.
Prop. 71 asks California voters to take on huge debt without any promise of outcome. Unlike bond debt that builds roads, schools or hospitals, we are asked to amend our constitution to allow $6 billion of guaranteed funds.
The Legislative Analyst's summary states there are "unknown potential state and local revenue gains and cost savings to the extent that research projects funded by this measure result in additional economic activity and reduced public health care costs."
Forget what he said or she said and see what Prop. 71 says.
Jennifer Lahl
National Director, The Center for Bioethics and Culture
Oakland
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
