– Charlene Jones, Sacramento

Educators vs. scientists

"Gates, U.S. partner on schools" and "U.S. placing bets on 37 energy ideas" (both Page A13, Oct. 26): The juxtaposition of articles on the Washington page is interesting. The education goals of the federal government and Bill Gates appear in direct contrast to Energy Secretary Steven Chu's ideas about how to nurture progress.

The education article offers our nation's "boxed-in" approach to education reform by focusing on teacher pay, standardized testing and common standards that seem less likely to produce the kind of learners/risk-takers prepared to participate in the dice game going on at the Energy Department.

One advantage scientists have over educators is that the behavior of their charges is somewhat more predictable. Bacteria, enzymes and chemicals don't suffer from the uncontrollable root causes that human organisms experience, which so often affects an educator's ability to guarantee results.

If forced to place a bet, I'm going with the innovation and potential for real progress that comes when humans are allowed the flexibility to address problems from outside the box more often than from in.

– Michael Leeman, Roseville

State can't subsidize lost hikers

Re " 'Yuppie 911' distresses wilderness officials" Capitol & California, Oct. 26): The article presents an opportunity for our state Legislature. Anyone requesting wilderness or waterway rescue who has not done all the right things in regard to equipment and preparation should be billed for calling a rescue service, needed or not.

For example, anyone swimming the English Channel must have a résumé of comparable swims, etc. About 20 years ago, the U.S. Coast Guard stopped rescuing boaters who ran out of fuel. An industry grew up to tow in boaters without genuine emergencies.

The state of California should bill the company providing the locator service immediately. It will be up to that company to get paid by the unprepared hiker or climber.

– Stephen P. Keller, Rocklin

Nestlé foes steer a bad course

Re "Council considers special ordinance on water bottlers" (Page B2, Oct. 15): The discussion about the new Nestlé Waters bottling facility should be about Sacramento's commitment to job creation and the process and rules by which businesses come to our city, not about bottled water or the environment.

In choosing Sacramento, Nestlé followed all the rules for the permits and utilities needed, and leased existing space from a local property owner. Now, some members of the Sacramento City Council, prompted by special interests, want to change those rules midstream and create a new law that would either delay or completely stop this plant – a frightening proposition to anyone interested in job creation, business development and future availability of capital in our community.

Nestlé has received more than 2,200 job applications in just two months. It has already hired 11 people and has a local contractor and his crew of 80 people, now standing idle. Nestlé has already invested more than $3 million, with another $11 million to follow.

If the City Council stops this project due to nothing more than political whim, council members had better be ready to take responsibility for hanging that "closed" sign on the Tower Bridge.

– Linda Cutler, chair, Sacramento Metro Chamber Board of Directors