My fellow Americans: Keep a stiff upper lip and an open mind
Let's face it, most of us have lived a pretty cushy life, particularly in comparison with the young, destitute and hopeless millions most susceptible to Osama bin Laden's mantra, "Kill the Americans!" We'd better stop focusing on plastic and duct tape and start looking for some backbone. Our fear is the terrorists' best weapon.
I suggest that we take a moment to reflect on something Winston Churchill said in 1941: "We have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy."
We need to remember who we are, what our ancestors went through to create this country and why people all over the world still want to join us here.
Then we'd better start asking ourselves and each other why so many people all over the world suddenly seem to hate us so much.
DIANE E. LAW
Churchill
Why Iraq?
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Iraq really is hiding a huge arsenal of dangerous weapons. Would that warrant an attack by the United States? Since when do we strike the first blow against other nations, however sinister?
The trumped-up danger of Iraq's arsenal, the doctrine of "pre-emption," the U.N. resolutions are excuses for doing what the Bush administration wants to do anyway; the unequal treatment of equally dangerous North Korea makes that clear. But why the big push to take over this particular nation, rather than any other armed, dangerous, defiant, repressive ones?
Maybe it is for the oil, which would be handed over to Bush's pals in the industry. Maybe it's a distraction from the failed war on terrorism or from an unpopular domestic agenda. Maybe it enriches well-connected defense contractors. Whatever the real reasons might be, they don't warrant an unprovoked attack either. That would be unjust and as civilized people, we should not stand for it.
Justice aside, however, such an attack would also be recklessly imprudent. Does anyone think that invading Iraq would result in less terrorism, rather than the opposite? Indeed, Bush seems like a greater threat to our domestic security than Saddam.
But isn't war inevitable now? Even if we oppose it -- and most people do -- can the great Bush push for war still be stopped? The beautifully simple fact is that it can easily be stopped; this is still a democracy and our elected officials defy the clear will of the people only at the cost of reelection, a price most of them are not willing to pay. We need only make our strong opposition known, and the war machine will grind to a halt.
STEVE AWODEY
Point Breeze
Duct tales
OK, so we rush out and get duct tape and plastic to encase our homes. Let's look at that: Last I heard, duct tape is not too effective against radiation, but I could be wrong. Going to have to stay barricaded inside a long time. What American do you know who can last longer than two days without going to the mall or otherwise being entertained?
"Ninety to ninety-five percent effective" if properly sealed and ventilation is turned off. Put it on the outside and the wind will rip it apart; put it on the inside and kids and pets get it or heat from the furnace destroys the effectiveness of the tape. I was down this road before I had the windows replaced. Didn't work, even with the heaviest plastic I could find and layers and layers of tape. The wind always got through regardless of whether the plastic was inside or outside.
How are you going to cook if you only create one safe room and what about bathroom facilities? What about the water coming through pipes? What about the 40 percent plus of the population who cannot afford to buy this stuff? Gee, that solves the poverty problem.
Is this supposed to be permanent or are we to rip it off and replace it every time the government "hears something"? Gonna get a little warm come summer, especially since air conditioners are to be turned off so as not to draw in outside air. The next "run" will be on paint to repair window frames and walls when the tape is pulled off. The president has found a way to stimulate the economy after all!
NANCY M. WINTERS
Kennedy
Of the people?
President Bush speaks of the United States of America as a free country, a democracy. And yet he ignores the opinions of the majority of Americans. Polls taken the day before the State of the Union address indicated that over 60 percent of Americans oppose a war with Iraq, and favor allowing inspections to work.
There are peace marches all over the United States, with 5,000 people coming to a march in Pittsburgh alone. Is this truly a democracy? Is this a government that represents the opinions of the people? Or does President Bush have his own agenda?
It appears to be a form of "doublespeak" to on one hand say we are a democracy and on the other ignore the wishes of the people.
To support Bush so as to not appear unpatriotic would be a large mistake on the part of patriotic Americans. Real patriotism means supporting the democracy we all value and speaking up for your beliefs.
MIRIAM DeRISO
Hampton
Bring on the casinos
The legislators of Pennsylvania had better wake up and smell the coffee! When are they going to realize that our state is missing the boat when it comes to casino gambling? Are they blind to the fact that people are flocking out of state to spend money that could be realized by Pennsylvania?
If their reasoning is that it is going to cause the senior citizens or the less fortunate to spend more than they can afford, why is it any different from the legalized Pennsylvania lottery or the church bingos?
The only person with any insight is Charles Betters, the developer from Beaver County. His efforts to build a horse-racing track in this area should be applauded. If approved, this would not only bring revenues to the state, but it would also provide employment that is needed in this area as well as entertainment that is so lacking around here.
To carry this a bit further, they should concentrate their efforts on protecting the masses from the abuse of alcohol. Lives are ruined, marriages broken, people are severely injured if not killed when this substance is misused.
JANET CALDARELLI
Ambridge
Police force and citizens
Recent regional and national encounters between police and citizens have renewed debate about the use of force by police authorities. The article "Police Are Training to Use Deadly Force" (Jan. 19) offered an ambiguous headline and, as Pittsburgh Police Commander Catherine McNeilly noted in her Jan. 30 letter ("Headline Off the Mark"), could have led a headline-skimming reader to interpret it as a new or sinister training strategy.
Police are not trained to shoot to kill and they are not trained to shoot to injure. They are trained to stop the threat. They are trained in other techniques that can be just as lethal as a bullet. Yes, oftentimes use of force by police results in death and leaves a surviving party fraught with personal demons -- and a community in shambles. We emerge questioning public policy, seek alternatives, debate facts and shallowly return to indifference -- until it happens again. Each and every time, tragedy is the only result.
"Badge and gun heavy" police officers are a menace, but most officers are just like the rest of us. Choices made by competent but irresponsible citizens, as well as ill-trained self-absorbed police officers, carry consequences -- and we must all live by our choices. Do we have the guts to hold the choice-makers responsible for their actions? Or do we simply project our common feeling of inadequacy onto the incident with no tangible effort toward preventing the next incident?
Has our comfort level descended to such levels of cynicism and diminished civility that we find it acceptable to dehumanize, to deny the reality of the damage done to each of us when it occurs to any one of us, to justify or lay blame with transitory satisfaction, to promptly retreat to the safety of routine?
ELIZABETH C. PITTINGER
Executive Director
Citizen Police Review Board
Downtown
Arm your home to prevent criminal invasions
Home invaders are becoming bolder and better organized in our area. They arrive armed, in gangs. They terrorize, brutalize and rob our defenseless families.
Depending on a home's location and the ability of victims to call for help, the police may arrive minutes to hours after the criminals have fled. Most of us are vulnerable and trust only to chance that our homes won't be next.
Unless we live behind iron gates with cameras, alarms and motion sensors to alert guards patrolling the grounds, there is no way to defend ourselves against this kind of attack -- unless we ourselves are armed.
I cannot think of any better plan than for each household to have a pump-action (multiple shell) shotgun on the premises. The sound of a large-bore weapon being chambered and locked strikes fear into any burglar or would-be attacker. Even Grandma can be trained to use this weapon without hurting herself.
We have the right to defend our homes. And if we have families, we have the obligation to do so. Even your neighbors cannot help unless they are armed.
We are not talking about assault weapons here. An old duck or varmint gun might be the only firearm. But what burglar wants to risk staring down a 12-gauge barrel? From the beginning of this country, it is for this reason alone that home invasions have been unusual.
I am not a paranoid, trigger-happy gun advocate. Everyone -- liberal, conservative, worker or businessman, mother or father -- is in the same boat with this problem. If every home in Western Pennsylvania had a shotgun, for around a $100, or a registered handgun, the occurrence of home invasions would return to near zero.
VINCENT EGRY
Homestead
E-mail this story 
