Disturbing movie

Dear Editor: The Academy Awards now over, some people are breathing a sigh of relief that "Amour," the movie about an elderly French couple in the aftermath of the wife's stroke, didn't win. Why? Spoiler to follow: Because the film depicts a shocking, morally repugnant murder as if it were acceptable. It would have been shocking enough if the wife had been in unendurable pain, but this was not the case. In fact, she was near enough to death that had her husband not interfered she may have died naturally and peacefully in just days, with her husband holding his beloved wife's hand.

Instead, the husband, depicted throughout as a caring, loving spouse, in a quiet moment suddenly grabs a pillow and smothers his helpless wife as she struggles for breath. With this violent act, the husband betrays both himself and his spouse, and the film betrays the viewer. Perhaps because talking about this spoils the "surprise" for viewers, or perhaps for other reasons, very few critics have discussed this aspect of the film, or even remarked on its being about murder -- the ultimate crime. Fortunately, the law still regards it as such.

In 2000, 45-year-old former Redwood City resident Rosa Ana Manrow smothered her 78-year-old husband and was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter in a jury trial. She was given a sentence of 15 years to life and recently was denied parole. That is a reality check on the film's matter-of-fact treatment of murder, regardless of the age or condition of the victim.


Cherie Zaslawsky,

Menlo Park

Vocational course in danger

Dear Editor: I received information Monday night that the Regional Occupational Program will be eliminated in the next school year. The program is designed for those who want vocational training in very specialized areas, such as computerized accounting, computer use, dental hygiene, automotive and body repair, air and travel training.

To remove the program for high school students and selected adult students is improper, as many of them are not college-bound and need vocational skills to enter the job market.

It appears that the state superintendent of public instruction is destroying a vital program that helps students gain skills that are not necessarily taught in high school. Our community college system may be useful, but the downside is that it is semester-oriented. Regional Occupational Program students move at their own pace, but community college students must wait for the next semester to enroll in advance courses.

Vocational teachers are required to work in their areas of expertise but do not have college degrees or credentials in a single subject matter. Many of these teachers will have to look elsewhere for work or be hired by for-profit businesses. In a time of high unemployment, students and teachers are likely to be unemployed.

Jack Kirkpatrick,

Redwood City

Stalled Congress

Dear Editor: Jeannette Andrews (Letters, Feb. 26) couldn't have said it better concerning how apathetic our Congress is in doing its job. Let's start a movement to ensure our representatives actually work on appropriate issues and get measurable results. Perhaps it could begin with their benefits being equal to the rest of ours. Maybe terms should be limited to allow for more people to have a say in our government. I'm ready for any change that gets this train on the move again. We are stalled.

Ann Blote,

Redwood City

Budget balancing act

Dear Editor: The president asserts that Republicans will cause pain by refusing to raise taxes, causing unemployment. The Republicans are willing to cause a little pain to avoid the enormous pain that soon will be inflicted, mainly on Democrats, if the president's spending patterns continue.

The budget is 40 percent out of balance and is maintained by borrowing. So the budget could be balanced by raising taxes 67 percent. That is unlikely to happen. The national debt now amounts to about $60,000 per tax return. Getting people to cough up that much is less likely to happen than raising taxes 57 percent. So what is likely to happen?

The people who loaned us money will not be totally repaid, if at all. That's their fault for trusting our inept and dishonest government. Default would tarnish our image but clear us out of debt. But we would still need to balance the budget because lenders would no longer lend to us. Then an immediate 40 percent cut in spending would need to occur, triggering extraordinary economic and social upheaval and suffering like we have never seen. The only hope is to get the budget balanced before lenders wise up. The president is likely to bear full responsibility if that doesn't happen.

Jerry Clements,

Los Altos