Businesses should be mandated to offer child care
Ellen Goodman's May 29 column, "Mother of All Tough Talk," struck a chord with me. The lack of solution, however, left me disturbed.
I am a single parent currently on a job search. I have had to turn down several positions because there is no available child care during the working hours of many of the positions I was offered. Also, many day-care centers do not offer van service to specific schools.
The solution seems so simple to me. If mothers are mandated to work under welfare reform, then companies should be mandated to provide in-house 24-hour child-care centers that also offer adequate before- and after-school programs with transportation.
Not only would this create employment, it also would make child care a viable benefit for employees. Child-care fees could easily be deducted from earnings, and parents also could have the option of peeking in on their little ones during the workday.
If this is too much to ask of welfare reform, then I suggest we stop complaining about mothers who are unable to work because their children need to be supervised. As an American mother, I should have the indeniable right to be employed and raise a family.
NANCY LUTHERAN
Lincoln Place
The Garden's good fight
I am writing to comment on the city trying to take over the Garden Theater on the North Side. Whatever happened to the First Amendment? I personally don't like adult films, but I feel that the people who frequent them have every right to.
I've owned a restaurant around the corner from the theater, called Toulas. In my 31 years of business at this location, I have never seen a child bothered or a police call there. Even though it's not my style, there are people who enjoy spending a little time at this theater. Where does the city get off with this eminent domain?
All of the people on the Federal-North project have paid their taxes. They have all been granted licenses. Fifteen businesses have been forced to close, with little remuneration.
What is a small businessman who has put his heart and soul into a little mom-and-pop corner store or a bakery or a corner drugstore or a bookstore supposed to do when the Urban Redevelopment Authority tells you that you have no choice but to leave?
Wake up, people of Pittsburgh. Look at what the state did to the poor people on East Street -- forced them out of their longtime homes. Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it might be ringing for you the next time. If you don't stand up for something, you are going to fall for nothing.
I applaud the owners of the Garden Theater for taking a stand on their constitutional rights. You can drive to McKnight Road or Bethel Park and see video stores selling adult movies. That is the people's choice. Go in or drive by -- that is what has made this country great: freedom of choice and the right to stand up for yourself against the powers that be.
HARILAOS N. SELEVOS
North Side
Rights are from God
Regarding Sally Kalson's article "A Bipartisan Choice: Elsie Hillman Convenes Abortion Rights Meeting" (May 22): No one who truly understands rights would ever use the term "abortion rights."
The Declaration of Independence says, "Men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights." We can conclude that rights come only from God since the Founding Fathers did not contradict the writers of the Declaration on that point.
Wherever Alan Keyes appeared during the Republican presidential nomination process in 2000, he always stated that rights come from God and only from God. Of the thousands of liberal journalists who flayed Dan Quayle for misspelling "potato," most also heard Keyes state that rights come only from God.
To me, the most memorable aspect of that 2000 race was the silence of the media regarding Keyes' statement. I do not know of a single journalist who challenged Keyes on that claim. Even without the silence of the media regarding Keyes' statement, the Declaration and the men who signed it are witness enough to the precept that rights come only from God.
William Blackstone, a legal authority most influential on the thinking of the founders of this nation, said, "Any human law that is contrary to the law of God is not valid law" (Blackstone's Commentaries). With the exception in the Constitution of permitting slavery (without which exception the Constitution would not have been born) both the Declaration and the Constitution are completely consistent with the law of God.
Just as there is no argument that the law of God forbids abortion, there can be no rational argument that there is any source for rights except the God of Holy Scripture. The question is now quite obvious: From whence then does one get the "right" to abort and kill the unborn?
The "Supreme Court" somehow found in the folds and creases of the Constitution "a right to privacy," which has become the rationale to destroy the unborn. It will be an interesting "trial" when those Supreme Court justices who made abortion "legal" are called, inevitably, to God's bar of justice to answer for what they have done.
ALAN WAKEFIELD
McKeesport
Hero of education
I was pleased to read the tribute to Jack Pidgeon, the retiring headmaster of The Kiski School, by David Conrad ("Top of His Class," May 25).
In a world where heroes are in limited supply, Jack Pidgeon serves as a role model for that title. He is truly one of the country's great educators and great human beings. He embodies all of the qualities that we admire and he transmits the elements of quality education to every young man whose life he has influenced.
Jack Pidgeon believes not only in what is, but also what can be. His contribution to education and to our society is immeasurable.
David Conrad's tribute to Jack is right on target. I've been privileged to call him friend and that has made my life much better.
ROBERT J. McCULLY
Point Breeze
We didn't learn from '93
There is much discussion as to what was known prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. One should look back to 1993, eight years before, to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. News articles stated that an informant complained to law enforcement officials that they failed to act on his tips about the planned bombing.
A New York Times article stated that a taped account of conversations between the informant and law enforcement agents "portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers."
What is amazing about this story is that it wasn't amazing. There was no public outcry for the truth. There were no public hearings. There was nothing -- only silence.
One can only wonder if there had been accountability for Feb. 26, 1993, would there have been a Sept. 11, 2001? Would there be dead Afghans? Would there be anthrax attacks? Would there be more restrictions on our rights, in order to keep more secrets with more control?
If our current questions are not resolved fully, one can only wonder what future destruction and evil will return to us.
BARRY LIGHT
Squirrel Hill
E-mail this story 
