I am writing to comment on storeowner Cara Finn's "Etiquette important when bringing wine to an eatery" article. I would like to act as the receiving end of the article's focus, the restaurant patron and wine enthusiast.

Why should I automatically assume I am supposed to fork over "a large portion of the bill" to tip a waiter regardless of service or wine knowledge? It almost seems, from your article, that the reason would be because owners of establishments want customers to. I am baffled as to why the majority of our society can avoid telemarketing scams and Internet fraud to be easily persuaded to fork over 20 to 50 bucks to some rude waiter who doesn't know the first thing about proper service or wine etiquette.

I agree on reasonable corkage fees on wines that are also available at the establishment. However, why should consumers suffer because establishments can't afford to carry a large wine inventory? We are already paying half of the server's salary with the tip. Why not invest that other half on some wine choice for loyal customers?

This whole thing also affects the servers as well. Being a server at a local winery, I can only anticipate an average gratuity when I provide great service. Although I am probably the only server in the world to say this, the following advice could possibly make the world a better place:

* Tip 15 percent for a server who has made a conscientious effort

* Compliment (to the manager) and tip 20 or more percent for a server that was great.

* Stiff a rude server, explain to them why, and save your money for the good ones.

—Steve Morris, Los Gatos


Independent media is slipping away

Dale Bryant's recent article about former New York Times plagiarist/reporter Jayson Blair didn't address the mystery of his perennial smile. Did it merely signify deceit, or was it a subliminal message to the public, because so much of what reaches us in the major media is either untrue or so adulterated it is misleading?

For more than 200 years, the nation's independent press was just a large basket of sectors that created a balance of power between the administration, the judiciary, the corporate sector, farmers and small businessmen, organized labor, and the military. With the exception of organized labor, which is much weakened now, the rest of the sectors have for the most part combined into one massive blob of truly monolithic power balanced almost solely by the influence of the electorate. How puny that influence can be was evidenced during our 2000 presidential election and, as I write this, it is being demonstrated again by FCC Chairman Powell as he ignores a Congressional request to allow more time for scrutiny before permitting further media consolidation.

The FCC's refusal to delay is especially telling because even with the present 35 percent ceiling on media holdings, the Iraq War has shown that something very akin to brainwashing can take place in America. Approximately 55 percent of the American public was convinced that a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq.

The UN inspectors who were in Iraq said it wasn't true; there was little or no evidence. Why did Americans persist in crediting this misinformation? CBS and NBC took part in sounding the false alarm, but mainly it was Fox Television's new series "Countdown on Iraq" that deserves to be termed one of the "Intolerable Acts" of recent media history.

Month after month, Americans were lied to on matters of national security. The rest of the world didn't go for it and they were right not to. If we take an honest look at what has occurred, we'll recognize it as a form of "voluntary censorship" by our corporate-owned media, a kind of Pravda-American style.

The present 35 percent ceiling is already much too high. For their breach of public trust Fox should be censured by Congress, and the FCC needs to push network holdings back to a 10 or 15 percent maximum.

It's clear we're living in an oddly passive period in our political evolution; the public is going to have to get much angrier before such Intolerable Acts become obsolete.

—Alan Rosenus, Saratoga


Wildlife cartoon shows no humor

OK, DeCinzo crossed my line of fair and appropriate. His "cartoon" of June 4 regarding the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley was absolutely out of line. First of all, WCSV does not rescue pigs, goats and roosters. They rescue baby birds, injured raccoons and other animals that have been harmed by encroaching civilization. What brought on such a crass attack? WCSV is a small, volunteer, nonprofit organization caring for over 5,000 birds and animals each year with a very high release rate. Decinzo is ignorant of WCSV's mission and his cartoon shows no humor.

—Freddy Howell, owner, Wild Bird Center


Recent break-in leaves residents uncomfortable

A break-in into a house is a terrible feeling. Since this has happened, I have not been able to sleep through a full night. It is the worst violation I think that can happen in one's home. To have it happen while we were in a different part of our home is cause for even more concern for us.

Recently we were the unfortunate target of a professional jewel thief. He had to have known our place because of where he chose to enter our residence, as well as his escape route through the relatively unknown creek trail at the end of our court.

We have been residents of Saratoga for 20 years and have felt completely safe in our neighborhood and home. Little did I ever think that our ranch-style home would be the perfect target for a professional jewel thief. He had probably been checking out the neighborhoods before he chose our house, and then watching for our habits to know when to strike.

This is my way of giving a warning to all of Saratoga that we have a professional jewel thief lurking in our neighborhoods. Be more aware of strangers and their cars. Take down information if you are uncomfortable with anyone strange to your environment.

—Marilyn Hasler, Carnelian Glen Court