Los Gatos Weekly-Times

Letters

Town employee misused official stationery in ad

Harley Crock infers in his letter, which was published in a full-page advertisement in the Los Gatos Weekly-Times on July 31, that the Berry School was closed to the community after purchase of the site by the Jewish Community Center. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Jewish Community Center is a non-sectarian facility that receives funding from United Way and is open to the entire Los Gatos population. Many organizations use the campus for their individual programs--Little League, USTA Tennis League, ESL classes, Princeton Review and Jazzercize, to name just a few.

The Peppertree School uses the swimming pool for its students and Kidspace, an after-school program, is open to all children in the school district. Youngsters from all over the Santa Clara Valley participate in the highly successful Performing Arts Camp, a year-round program that not only presents plays for the public, but during the year also provides entertainment for nursing homes in our area.

The Berry School was for sale to the public and could have been purchased by someone who really would have closed the site to the community. Instead, the JCC has been totally refurbished into a place that can be utilized by our entire community. Any legitimate organization can rent rooms or the recreational facilities for their event. This includes the Los Gatos Department of Community Education and Recreation and the school district.

Mr. Crock, as recreation supervisor, knew this when he wrote a letter promoting his personal views on behalf of the Los Gatos Christian Church on the business stationery of a public agency. This is a flagrant disregard of our basic constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state. It is a serious breach of ethical conduct and is totally unacceptable conduct for a public employee. Furthermore, it represented a false view of another organization.

Marlene Burak
Los Gatos

Is winning the presidential race that important?

As I understand it, no matter how much the Republican hairsplitters anguish over the final wording on the subject, the basic stand of the party vis-à-vis abortion is that the GOP is unalterably opposed to the procedure but welcomes those who are unalterably in favor of it.

I realize that politics is the art of compromise, but isn't this stretching the love tent a shade too much?

Sure, pro-life and pro-choice conservatives have a lot in common exclusive of the abortion question, principally gaining control of the White House. But abortion is supposed to be a gut-wrenching and divisive issue, rivaling in intensity and passion the mood of the country prevailing immediately before the Civil War, or the War Between the States, if you so prefer.

I can't imagine the abolitionists proclaiming their steadfast antipathy towards slavery while inviting a contingent of traveling Southerners to join them for a drink in a New York ale house. Nor can I envision slave holders hosting a pork ribs barbecue at Tara for a rabid group of abolitionists intent on establishing a new pickup point for the underground railroad to Canada.

The two sides hated each other. Each believed in the righteousness of its cause. Each had the courage of its convictions.

If the pro-life Republicans are so convinced they are morally correct in opposing abortion, which they characterize as the murder of innocent human beings, why would they want to associate with pro-choice proponents, i.e., the "murderers"?

Is winning a presidential election that important?

And if pro-choice Republicans are so convinced they are morally correct in their position, why would they want to associate with those who consider them murderers?

Same question.

Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows. It also exposes hypocrites, the spineless, and those who speak with forked tongues.

Frank Stagnaro
Los Gatos

Success of society depends on people rolling up sleeves

I was a member of the employed population until recently. While employed, I spent more than 50 hours a week at my job. I also had a family and spent my remaining time with them rather than at political meetings.

A big problem with political meetings, such as Town Council meetings, is the lack of a definite agenda. It is necessary to be there at the beginning and wait for the topic of interest to come up (if it does). Person(s) having opposing views have proclaimed that only "old" people were there, and where were the young people (who would presumably be on their side)? This is frustrating since I know where I was, and know where many of the "young" people are. I also now know why "young" people have such negative feelings toward politicians--this includes me!

The minorities and extremists are aware of these feelings and lack of participation of the working population. Consequently, they participate in many of the political and other meetings at which votes are taken. The votes taken at these meetings are publicized as representing the will and desires of the population.

There are many people who read and listen to commentators to obtain the "facts" about various subjects. Years ago (and "older" news people will verify this), the facts were given in the various media. Most, if not all, of the news people today are "commentators" who give their views and interpretations of the facts.

Since I have taken more interest in political and social problems, I have realized that many people want someone else to handle the problems. They do not want the "hassle," and will not join many, if any, groups that do not meet their immediate needs. They essentially abdicate, and do not participate in our (general) society. Is this the growth and new order of Nixon's "silent majority"?

What can be done? Does it take a Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of our society (like the Roman Empire), or the rise of barbarians to create a new society? Can we save our society, which has been considered by most of the rest of the world to be "the best"?

What can be done?

Robert D. Wales
Los Gatos