In his “The Floating Library” column in last week's issue, Jim Ruland referred to Traci Foust, author of Nowhere Near Normal, as Traci “Faust.” We're sorry for the error.
Union concessions needed
Regarding your Nov. 2 editorial about education funding, “Education can just die”:
Yes, Scott barnett has some ideas at least. Those school employees earning $150,000 and up would pay a little more than the 10 percent while those earning little would pay less or not pay anything. Wait, who in the education field makes $150,000? Maybe that's part of the problem. Usually, teachers go into the field because of a calling and they love to teach (or should).
My son teaches in the Napa area and they certainly pay toward their healthcare. The unions here need to make concessions more than they have been willing to so far. Decreasing enrollment dictates at least looking at releasing some teachers, hopefully non-performing ones and not the newer and excited ones, and perhaps closing some schools.
Jan Bourgeois, East Village
‘Private Bankers reserve'
About your Nov. 9 editorial, “The root of the problem,” regarding Tom Udall's proposed constitutional amendment: Something along these lines must be done. Corporations are known under the law as “fictitious entities.” They have “rights”? I think not.
The root, however, in my opinion, is the Federal Reserve. If markets set the interest on capital, the magic of compound interest would make people able to have a savings account that would provide security for savers in later years. The river boat gamblers—banksters—love fiat money, debt and 401(k)s—anything but Social Security and savings accounts. “Private Bankers Reserve” would be a better name. Treasury prints the bills (it's not money yet), gives it to the Fed (still not money), passed to the private member banks for .5 percent (too big to fail)—now it's money, and they lever it up 10 to 40 times and, likely as not, buy Treasuries at 3 percent, or some politician's TV time.
Just something for you folks to consider and maybe look into. Keep up the good work.
Chuck Cantwell, Mission Beach
Occupy should be shunned
It's good that you see that the fundamental problem facing the United States is the incestuous relationship between the government and certain (but not all) corporations and the pressure that such a relationship means to the country's economy. In your Nov. 9th editorial [“The root of the problem”], you put your finger on the nub of the problem. But your analysis goes hilariously wrong at the end when you want to employ the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations to redirect their attentions to the government/corporate inbred relationship.
If you want to be thought of as a serious publication dedicated to legitimate reform of our economic and political establishment, then you should associate yourself with serious people, and the OWS crowd isn't them. Those idiots are confused, incoherent and willing tools of the very establishment that they demonstrate against. By employing a garbled, scattershot approach of demanding change of everything all at once, they only assure that they will accomplish nothing at all.
And when you add the social cost of their encampments: The destruction of private property, the flouting of laws and contempt for law enforcement, the violence, rapes, drug use, the epidemics of everything from head lice to venereal disease to tuberculosis in the OWS camps make this a movement to shun, not champion.
Reforming the way by which politicians finance their campaigns is vital. But these economically ignorant and willfully infantile demonstrators will not provide it. Show some leadership yourself and condemn them, for the good of society.
Rob Houghton, Downtown