Publication Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Letters
Letters
(October 20, 2004)
Kazak's comments
Editor,
We were delighted to read Don Kazak's recent comments ("Our Town," Sept. 22) on our Aug. 25 column in the Weekly: "It's broken -- so let's fix the Palo Alto Process."
Our hope in writing the column was to stimulate a vigorous conversation about the widespread belief that something is wrong with the way politics and decision-making work -- or don't work -- in Palo Alto.
It strikes us, though, that Don saw a few trees but lost sight of the forest. He focused mainly on our inclusion of Rickey's Hyatt in a list of Palo Alto process failures. To Don this was a failure of the developer and not the process.
Perhaps; perhaps not.
We have intentionally stayed away from blaming individuals and organizations for the simple reason that this is usually not productive. However, we think the developer is part of the process and when an issue has been before the public for five years and the result is one that virtually everybody is unhappy with -- well, that's a failure of the process.
Don quotes, seemingly with approval, some who think Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness (PAGE) is opposed to vigorous debate. Having attended our meetings and read our materials, Don should know that we believe that the existence of conflicting interests is essential in a democracy and that we should take pride in these public debates.
But PAGE's point is that our Palo Alto community must also provide mechanisms for resolving these debates in a reasonable timeframe and in a civil, respectful manner.
Don quotes Councilmember Morton as giving us "full marks" for being a "counterbalance (to) the power created by the neighborhood groups." While we appreciate the praise it is not warranted here.
PAGE was not created to be a counterbalance to any organization or anybody. Our goal is for Palo Alto to have vigorous debate as part of a thoughtful process leading to good decisions. We'll know it's working when we're equally proud of our decisions and the way we reached them.
Bob Rosenzweig, Larry Klein and John Tarlton
Dana Avenue, Seale Avenue and Emerson Avenue
Palo Alto
Fair and objective
Editor,
I knew Don Kazak had been around for a while, but I didn't realize he was one of the Palo Alto Weekly's original reporters.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Don. While I don't always agree with him, I always trust him to be fair and objective.
Our community is lucky to have his historical perspective.
Peter Drekmeier
Stelling Drive
Palo Alto
A matter of ethics
Editor,
In an Oct. 13 Guest Opinion ("Could National Service be an alternative if (when) Draft returns?") Pete McCloskey talks of two opposing needs. He argues that we need a combat-ready and trained force that has been educated to kill people efficiently.
Because it is hard to get young people to enlist in such employment, he would offer deferments to those who would rather be educated in community service (the second need).
The premise is that since we need soldiers in the army and enlisting for such training is stressful to a large number of young people, an alternative could be made available -- a second patriotic choice, so to speak.
When I was forced to enlist in the army (all doctors had to serve), I was given a stethoscope instead of a missile launcher. It felt good to be taught to save lives and I was paid for doing it. I did not have to be reeducated to kill.
Pete McCloskey puts the first priority on a well-trained, adequate army. He proposes national service as a means to make a draft successful.
I would reverse the priorities. Let us strengthen the moral and ethical idealism of young people. Community service is great and we should pay for it. We don't need a draft. What we definitely need is a national debate and discussion on the draft well before it is requested by our next administration.
Thomas Forrest, M.D.
Bay Laurel Drive
Menlo Park
Chaos in Iraq
Editor,
After three presidential debates it's clear that President Bush and Senator Kerry sharply disagree on Iraq, but it's too bad that neither is willing to recognize that our continued presence in Iraq is making the situation worse, not better.
The truth is that a guerrilla war is raging in that country and it is a war we cannot win. The most immediate need for the Iraqis is to establish a government that will be seen by most of the population as legitimate. But the upcoming elections can hardly appear to be anything but rigged as long as they are run by officials appointed by the United States and the country is occupied by 140,000 foreign troops.
As long as our troops are there, any Iraqi official, whether elected or not, who cooperates with the U.S. army or our embassy will be seen as a collaborator.
Most Iraqis now want us out of their country and it's easy to see why. The U.S. invasion in 2003 got rid of a hateful dictator, but left chaos in his place and has provoked an increasingly stubborn resistance. American forces respond with humiliating house searches, mass arrests and airstrikes that invariably kill civilians and create more support for the insurgents.
So far, at least 1,070 U.S. soldiers and 14,000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war. The bottom line is the longer our troops remain in Iraq the less safe we -- and the rest of the world -- will be.
We should announce a definite date now on which we will leave and shut down our bases. And the date should be before the Jan. 31 elections. This will deprive extremist factions of their chief source of appeal and spur the Iraqis to get together to put their country back together.
There is no shortage of technically skilled people in Iraq. They rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure in the 1990s after the Gulf War, and there is no reason why they can't do it again with our financial help.
But democracy is something the Iraqi people will have to work for themselves. As George Bush has yet to learn, freedom can't be imposed at the point of a gun.
Rachelle Marshall
Alvarado Row
Stanford
Remembering Reeve
Editor,
The sudden and shocking death of Christopher Reeve (Oct. 10) illustrates the importance of timely funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Christopher Reeve, who originally played Superman, became quadriplegic following a horseback riding accident in 1995.
He rose above this tragedy to become a tireless advocate for spinal-cord research, specifically stem-cell research. One cannot help but wonder whether adequate federal funding for stem-cell research might have enabled Mr. Reeve to walk by now, enabling him to avoid the pressure wound that caused his fatal infection.
Many people think that those with chronic illness and injury can wait patiently for treatments and cures, but as Reeve's death sadly demonstrates, people who suffer from serious injuries and diseases can't wait. Their bodies are fragile. The many medical procedures they undergo make them extremely susceptible to infection and immune deficiency.
The federal government's failure to fully embrace stem-cell research in 2001 proved to be a death sentence for the severely ill and disabled that even Superman could not overcome. We can commute this sentence by voting Yes on Proposition 71, "The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" on the November ballot.
Susan L. Kaplan
Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto
Elitist attitude?
Editor,
Annette Isaacson (ReaderWire, Oct. 15) finds George Browning's attitude offensive because he asks, "Why is it necessary for teachers to live in Palo Alto?"
Isaacson is "stunned" at his suggestion that teachers should be "satisfied to live" elsewhere.
Let's substitute one of the following occupations in Mr. Browning's original question: storekeeper, plumber, writer, custodian, accountant, waiter, electrician, cook, technician or nurse.
Should people in those professions who work in Palo Alto be satisfied to live anywhere else?
The average teacher's salary in Palo Alto is $71,000, which is more than many people earn for a full year. Average teacher benefits -- including medical, dental and vision care -- were recently increased to more than $8,000 per year. Most workers in private industry pay for some, or all, of these benefits out of their own pockets.
Few people live in the city where they work. Some live far from Silicon Valley to get more house for their money. Some live in nearby Redwood City or East Palo Alto, which are more affordable. Some share housing with roommates.
Why should teachers be any different?
I find Ms. Isaacson's attitude offensive -- and elitist.
Pat Marriott
Dennis Drive
Palo Alto
Classy response
Editor,
Alex Rocha's recent article about the Palo Alto Unified School District classified staff and what took place during recent negotiations (Weekly, Oct. 1), was welcomed by the classified staff.
When people think of the district, the first people they think of are teachers and administrators. However, there are also 570 classified employees: secretaries, clerks, instructional aides, maintenance and landscape workers, food-service workers, library assistants, custodians, computer-support technicians, student attendants, college and career specialists, health technicians, special-education personnel, accounting technicians, data-processing technicians, budget clerks/secretaries, registrars, guidance assistants and so on (and this is only a partial list).
This group is the support system for everything that takes place in this district. Our job is to assist and help the excellent teachers in this district and ensure that the learning environment for the children is the very best possible.
The article states that the classified staff felt shortchanged by the board's action. That is a fair assessment. The article goes on to say the board was overwhelmingly apologetic to the classified employees. I agree. A mistake was made, an apology was given, and hopefully a lesson was learned by all involved.
So where does the classified staff go from here? Do we dwell on this particular mistake? Do we let resentment and bitterness guide us? As president of this union, my message to the classified staff is we continue to do the excellent job we have always done. We are a resilient, proud group. There are children, parents and teachers who depend on us.
I have had various opportunities to work with the board in my capacity as President of the Chapter 301 (PAUSD) union. I can say to board members that except for this one isolated situation, you have been fair-minded and open to dialogue about the concerns and opinions of classified staff.
You have involved our group as an integral part of this organization and I look forward to continuing to work together with you in an open and honest manner.
Chuck McDonnell
Bryant Street
Palo Alto
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
