 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wednesday, January 16, 2002
Ford's troubles show the folly of not buying American
The headline on the Jan. 12 Post-Gazette, "Ford Cuts 35,000 Jobs, 5 Plants," should be a wake-up call. It makes a strong statement why I have never owned a foreign-built automobile. The long-standing rationale for buying a foreign-built automobile -- American-built automobiles lack equivalent quality -- is simply not true and offers little comfort to the laid-off workers in the automobile and related industries.
Every foreign-built automobile on the road is one that has displaced an untold number of American workers and the welfare of their families. Granted, some American jobs have been created in support of these foreign cars, including those actually built in this country, but this does not offset the influx from overseas.
Another example of our government's unwillingness to deal with fact can be seen with the ongoing destruction of the American steel industry. If this is to continue, if not already beyond repair, our need for steel will be at the pleasure of foreign suppliers, as is now the case with our ever-increasing thirst for oil.
If our government continues its policy of doing little or nothing to counter unfair competition by foreign suppliers, it can be expected that Ford's announcement will be increasingly echoed in other areas of the nation's economy
I submit that American industry and its workers can compete with any foreign producer when on a level playing field. A level playing field is not one where the cost of producing a product is subsidized by a foreign government, enabling that product to be sold at less than cost. This is seen as a viable option to avoid unemployment in that country. Products and materials produced in this country and sold overseas stand on their own merit with no subsidies.
Our great country has always shown compassion to those in need in foreign lands. Perhaps it is time to establish priorities and respond to the needs of our own people. It is only through appropriate government action, along with our buying practices, that this can be accomplished.
It is your neighbor that is out of a job today, but tomorrow it may be your job that is lost to unfair foreign completion.
M.W. COLLIER
Jobs tied to U.S. cars
Did you read the Jan. 12 article "Ford Cuts 35,000 Jobs, 5 Plants"? This is much worse than even these terrible numbers convey.
Ford is eliminating 21,500 of those jobs in North America. These are head-of-household jobs, so this means that 21,500 families are affected, enough families to fill a city the size of Harrisburg.
But it's even worse than this. There are probably two more jobs lost for every job at Ford, from the huge chain of suppliers that support a factory of this magnitude. Now we are talking about as many people being affected as live in the city of Pittsburgh. Many of these associated job losses will also affect entire households. How are these families to pay the mortgage, buy food and clothes for their kids?
I really hope that you think about this when you buy your next car. Don't tell me that it doesn't matter what you buy. It does. One out of six American families is tied to the auto industry, including mine. This amounts to millions of people around this country who are affected by your purchasing decisions.
So, for all of you out there who helped cause these job losses driving your imported cars, I hope you feel shame.
Many of these are built without U.S. parts or labor and do nothing for our working families. It's very easy to know this; they put a big sticker on the side window that tells exactly what percentage is from our country. And with the huge assortment of vehicles available from GM, Ford and Chrysler, there is just no reason not to support your country and your neighbors. It matters.
And for God's sake, get those American flags off your imported cars. You had your chance to be a patriot and blew it. It's an insult to those who have just lost their jobs because of you.
BOB WRIGHT
Alcohol ads on TV are bad for children
Kids plus alcohol equals bad news, and alcohol advertisements promote drinking. These are facts. Why then would we want to push more messages glamorizing alcohol into our children's faces? ("Bottoms Up" Dec. 31 editorial).
We should look at reducing the number of messages normalizing alcohol consumption as a way of preventing underage drinking. How can parents and teachers persuade kids to avoid drinking when kids see these slick ads over and over and over again?
There should be much higher standards for all types of alcohol advertising -- beer, wine and liquor -- in all types of advertising venues that reach children -- Web, print, radio, outdoor and television. Pennsylvanians Against Underage Drinking knows how effective these media are for reaching kids and parents. That's why we try so hard to get messages about reducing underage drinking into them.
We have redoubled our efforts lately because the news about the scope of the problem is not good. Alcohol is the No. 1 drug of choice among youth. The most recent "Household Survey on Drug Abuse," released in December, found that nearly 10 million 12-to-20-year-olds reported drinking alcohol in the past month. That's 28 percent among a group of people who shouldn't be drinking at all.
The number of adolescents ages 12 to 17 admitted to addiction treatment increased 20 percent between 1994 and 1999, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Alcohol was the most common drug (47 percent of all admissions). The next most common drugs were opiates (mainly heroin) at 16 percent.
Given the bad news about the problem of underage drinking and the fact that we should aggravate the problem by bombarding kids with pro-drinking messages, why would the Post-Gazette editorialize that "liquor in TV ads shouldn't cause headaches"?
Underage drinking and adults who provide alcohol to kids are the headaches, and liquor ads on television contribute to the headaches. Enough is enough.
FELICITY DeBACCO-ERNI
Letters condescending
I am writing in response to two letters to the editor from Jan. 10 by Dennis Fleming of South Park ("Simms Sold Poor Communities Down the Drain to Get Ahead") and Rich Tenney of Greenfield ("Democrats Betrayed") concerning County Council President the Rev. Jim Simms selling out his constituents. I find both letters condescending as to how Mr. Simms and Ms. Frazier worked together to take control of County Council.
First, let's understand that the Democratic Party did not support Ms. Frazier's nomination in the party. We won with the people's action. Second, what does Mr. Fleming or Mr. Tenney know about the alleged poor people in our communities? Third, as for the living-wage vote, very few people of color in districts 10 and 13 work for county contractors who would have benefited from it.
Last but not least, when will the Democratic Party leadership and people who think they know black voters realize we also vote in our best interest?
If Mr. Fleming and Mr. Tenney would put comparable interest into helping poor people in their neighborhoods, they would not have time to address our black leadership. Oh yes, our communities are not poor, but disenfranchised. Do they understand the difference?
LESTER J. CAIN
Editor's note: The writer was campaign chairman for Brenda Frazier.
Women and the military
I found the Jan. 11 article, "Women Quietly Filling U.S. Combat Positions" intriguing. Why? Maybe because I served in the field artillery (yes, women can) at a time when we were in the limelight. And I really just wanted to be a soldier without any interference or judgment. Well, hooray.
Today we can! It's been a long haul to allow qualified women to serve this nation (as I still do). A few corrections to the article, however. The U.S. Army allows women in some of its field artillery specialties (missiles mostly, target acquisition and ground survey), but it is true that women are still barred from tanks and infantry combat positions. That does not mean we can't support their efforts with ammunition, fuel and other logistical needs. It keeps them rolling along.
KATHLEEN SILVIA
Editor's note: The writer is a 1980 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, West Point.
Wrong call
Now I have heard everything. The Pittsburgh school board wants to re-evaluate its position on students carrying cell phones ("Cell Phones Discussed," City Briefs, Jan. 9)! And the reasoning is so the student can be contacted in an emergency!
What happened to the old-fashioned way of using the home telephone to call the school and have them get in touch with the student? And how does the school board think administrators will be able to police these so-called emergency calls? Talk about creating more havoc in the classroom.
I think the school board has more important issues to take care of at the present time than this one.
SUE MEHRING
What ceremony meant
The Jan. 14 photo of Pope John Paul II baptizing a baby in a special ceremony on Jan. 13 ("The Pope's Blessing") caught my eye. The caption, however, did not mention the real significance of the ceremony.
This year, Jan. 13 was the day on which the Catholic Church, as well as many other denominations, celebrated the feast day of the baptism of Jesus by St. John the Baptist, which is recounted in Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:7-11 and Luke 3:21-22. The church designates this feast as the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. The child's baptism is therefore ceremonially linked with the baptism of the one in whose name Christians are baptized.
JASON B. GRANT
Peters
Clairton
Program Director
Pennsylvanians Against Underage Drinking
Harrisburg
Stanton Heights
Carnegie
Kennedy
Oakland