CHEERING, NOT STALKING

THOUGH I was pictured in Nüz as "the "cheerleader for charter schools," I am better known as a cheerleader for all public schools. I, too, fear the "stalking horse," those who seek to privatize our nation's schools through stealth tactics. I support charter schools only when they are inclusive and innovative, consistently opposing charter schools that are elitist, private school wannabees.

There should be no surprise that the local teachers' union endorses my candidacy. In fact, I am the union-friendly candidate, with the lion's share of labor support, including the California Labor Federation, due to my 30-year commitment to working families.

You are right-on when you define my mission as saving the public schools. The charter schools that I support are staffed by union teachers. School districts grant charters to such schools, and recoup administrative costs so that education dollars are not lost. These charter schools are partners in education, not competitors, that provide options that regulations do not allow in our regular public schools.

Your readers can count on me to bust apart the neocon dream of privatizing education.

Sandra Nichols, Watsonville

HOBSON'S CHOICE

I SHUDDER at the demise of George W. Bush from, and the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton to, the presidency. It seems to be a Hobson's choice, with no clear alternative of returning our nation to the independence it once enjoyed under the Founding Fathers.

At age 78, I have lived through many presidencies starting with Roosevelt. I could never understand the steady drift away from national independence both during Democrat and Republican administrations over the generations. Then I bought the book by Professor Carroll Quigley, called Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time, and found out why this is going on.

It is not by happenstance; in fact, it follows a design advocated by Carroll Quigley. The late Georgetown University professor explained: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

In addition to this, Quigley argued, there is one other benefit to having two political parties, each with the same program. Should either party become corrupt or unenterprising while in office, "Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

Now I can understand why Democrat Jimmy Carter gave away our Panama Canal, to be followed by Republican Ronald Reagan, who ran up our national debt. I can understand why Republican George H. W. Bush told us that we are in a New World Order, and why he then ceded his campaign to Democrat Bill Clinton, who then gave away our weapons technology to the Communist Chinese, and gave them the management to the Panama Canal.

Now we have Republican George Bush moving to merge our nation with the North American continent, while Democrat Hillary will pretend to rescue us from this fate. And always there seems to be the same outfit in the background subtly and covertly steering us into less freedom and independence.

I think the solution is to get the American people as a whole to understand this process before anything can be done.

Frank M. Pelteson, Las Vegas

Send a letter to the editor here.