My enjoyment and usually thoughtful consideration of Carl Heintze's column "Memories of Sgt. Poohaw" in the Oct. 30 issue of The Cupertino Courier was marred and diminished by Carl's considered but ill-chosen use of "perhaps" on two occasions.

It is inappropriate for Carl to diminish and undermine in any way the legitimacy of George H. W. Bush as president of the United States. His use of "perhaps" was patently intended to do just that. While Carl or anyone may disagree (I do) with the way President Bush is going about the nation's business with Iraq, and publicly critique that performance, Carl does a disservice to the nation by making sly aspersions on the president's legitimacyt.

Carl went past justifiable critique and used "perhaps" for one reason and one reason only. That usage was not germane to the issue he was raising, and in that regard was poor writing on Carl's part. Regardless of your politics or how you voted in the last election, such aspersions contribute to an air of distrust and disunity. While I normally admire and appreciate what Carl has to say, in this instance I was disappointed. My opinion of his future writings is (perhaps) permanently damaged.

—Carrell Killebrew, Saratoga


Heintze column was great

Thanks for running Carl Heintze's column of Oct. 30 of The Cupertino Courier regarding Sgt. Poohaw—probably, in my opinion, the best article to date. Carl need not worry about being alone in his skepticism regarding our leader's call to arms. The scent of Iraqi oil permeates the whole affair.

—Alex Bernyk, Saratoga


Reader can relate to words in column

To Carl Heintze—great column in the Oct. 30 issue! I have a president and had a first sergeant just like that.

—Vic Ulmer, Saratoga


Silent majority speaks

I did not agree with the letter titled "Observations on district were very long overdue," in Oct. 30 of The Cupertino Courier. In a democratic society, the majority only counts in the voting booth; there is never any excuse for the majority to abuse or prosecute the minority.

I live in the Regnart area and belong to what the letter vaguely referred to as the "silent majority." Personally, I don't care about this rezoning issue since it has no direct effect on me. One day, my neighbors told me, when I have children I will care. But in my heart, I really feel sorry for kids who will be forced to cross dangerous streets.

Morally, I can't accept my personal gain for other people's suffering. So I contacted my friends who are affected the most in that area. To my surprise, 200 students in the Faria and Jollyman area, who are being forced out of their school, are without one representative voice on the task force. When I visited the district's website to read what the task force had proposed, I couldn't believe that some people would try to use the process to take advantage of this rezoning by shuffling around this group of kids who are helpless, without a voice to speak for them, and shut out of the process totally. After my research, I fully understand the pain of the people in these neighborhoods. If you were in the same situation, what would you do? I would fight to protect my own inalienable rights to have a fair and due process in this democratic society.

So, as a silent majority, I've decided that I must speak out. The people who are in power in this situation have a solemn duty to look out for every kid in the district. People should constrain their self-interest. It is plainly wrong to take advantage of other people. You should make an example for your kid that your personal happiness can't be built on other people's suffering. In this regard, I fully appreciate the one member of the task force who openly staked out her position in a public forum and said, "I am willing to be flexible as long as it does not affect my bottom line." It seems to me, at least, she doesn't want to take advantage of other people.

—Y. Chen, Orange Blossom Drive


More speak in favor of the alternative program

In the article "Some residents support alternative school program" in the Oct. 16 issue of The Cupertino Courier, Superintendent William Bragg quoted middle school survey results stating that 45 percent of participants prefer a neighborhood school and about 40 percent want a school with a program of choice.

Where did the remaining 15 percent of votes go?

Let's look at the complete facts. A survey of parents in the district indicated that a majority, 56 percent, favor an alternate middle school program, and a minority, 44 percent, favor a neighborhood middle school. There were two choices of alternate programs in the survey—a science and technology based program, which got 41 percent of the vote, and an international baccalaureate program, which got 15 percent. The district seems to have included the choice of the international program just to split the votes between the two alternate programs, knowing full well that the Cupertino Union School District does not qualify for the program, as it needs a junior high and high school combination, which the district does not offer. The district did not inform the parents who completed the survey that the district does not qualify for the international baccalaureate program.

It is these less-than-honest surveys and twisted truths that are the root cause of the big credibility problem the district has within the community.

The district should abandon its policy of managing one problem at a time, come clean and disclose to the community the elementary schools it plans to close in order to make the fifth middle school operational in 2005.

—Suresh Kadiyala, Cupertino