Apr 16, 2008

Letters

Stanford practices

Dear Editor: Don't be fooled by the decision of the Labor Department concerning racial and sex discrimination among Stanford professors. Faced with career suicide or acquiescing to the 600-pound gorilla and feeding your family, naturally many people would settle. I surmise the investigation was thoroughly and conscientiously handled by great brains on both sides, but the star witness died of pancreatic cancer a year ago - former law professor Linda Mabry. She told me how Condeleezza Rice, a former Stanford official, systematically blocked the tenure and promotion of women and professors of color during her reign. Stanford offered Linda a settlement, she said, "but I told them my integrity was not for sale."

Jennifer Coile,

Hollister



The use of torture

Dear Editor: I would like to urge Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier to do what they can to appoint a special investigator into President Bush's use of torture. It is distinctly anti-American in its practice. It's against the Constitution and against the history of our republic.

George Washington had this to say about it:

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his person or property, I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause."

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why? What changed?

We once executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. Has our country fallen so far away from its roots as to jettison the rhetoric and actions of George Washington in the beginning of our country?

The question is, will the citizens of this country at least support an investigation into the use of torture?

Mark Peterson,

Redwood City



Crime in the city

Dear Editor: When I read the article "Crime Emergency in East Palo Alto," Sunday, I got really upset with the system. In two weeks, the city will be sent six California Highway Patrol officers to back up the city of East Palo Alto because of the rise of crime in the neighborhoods. This will not solve the problem; it is just a temporary solution, the city officials must look at what the factors causing crime are.

East Palo Alto has not much to offer its residents but a place to live. There is not even one single grocery store in the city. No job opportunities, no clinics, no entertainment, nothing. What is the city government or the county doing to improve the quality of life? I do not see much happening.

Children are failing in school. In the Ravenswood district, the dropout percentage is 65 percent and less than 10 percent of high school graduates enroll in a four-year college (East Palo Alto Charter School, 2007). Children are not motivated and have no means to go to college and get a career, so they stay in the city and become involved in the cycle of violence and crime.

Enforce the safety in the city, but also enforce the education system; offer decent jobs; offer support to leave gangs and stop using and/or selling drugs. We need to be proactive and work in bringing employment and resources to the city. Offer options other than vandalism and violence.

Angelica Leon,

Gilroy



Architect controversy

Dear Editor: The Friday and Saturday Daily News had articles about an architect who missed 175 items on a school project. I would like to note that the one example given is not an architect's job, the connection of walls to roof. This is engineering. It involves vertical (gravity) load and lateral (earthquake-wind) load analysis. Engineers connect roof/diaphragm to wall diaphragm to transfer shear loads. The architect attends to the roof/attic ventilation at that connection as well as to exterior/interior materials for waterproofing, trim, etc. For the one cited example, the responsibility belongs to the engineer, state plan checker, supervisor and building inspector.

Viole McMahon,

Mountain View



A neat solution?

Dear Editor: Sens. Barack Obama, Richard Lugar et al. hold out for a neat "end" to our war in Iraq. That, as Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker maintained, is counterintuitive, especially in war.

What was the assured end on D-Day? The guys fought and prevailed anyway, carried on by faith-based guts. When things got really rough for my combat engineer battalion, a whole squad quit. Most of us didn't. We weren't thinking of the economy or of ourselves.

It's a mistake to fixate on ideal outcomes now. We didn't in World War II. Defeating a vast, ruthless foe and fostering a reasonable coexistence among the warring parties is promise enough for the trying present.

Robert Greer Cohn,

Menlo Park