Real patriots must stand up to the erosion of our rights
Newspaper columns like Dennis Roddy's "A Specter Is Haunting America" (Feb. 16 Forum) have been far too rare and much needed. Unfortunately, it now seems to take courage to criticize those in our government who treat the Bill of Rights as something that can be thrown out every time they decide that we should be afraid of something.
The problem is that the concept of fundamental rights, which was articulated in the Declaration of Independence and is central to our Constitution, is meaningless if it can be ignored any time we feel stressed. The very purpose of rights is to protect people from the arbitrary decisions of individuals in our government.
Yet several people in the current administration, including President Bush, have stated that certain people they can personally identify should have no rights and should be put away without any of the protections implied by or stated in our Constitution.
This could make sense if there were some way to know beyond any doubt that a person was guilty of a particular crime in the absence of judicial processes based on the understanding of rights and rules of evidence. The fact that history describes a very poor track record for such determinations by accusers is the very reason the Bill of Rights exists.
Now, with the so-called "USA Patriot Act," we are seeing the beginning of the end of the concept of fundamental rights in the United States, and the current administration has quietly been trying to push through an even more extreme act that would make the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution obsolete.
Mr. Roddy was not exaggerating when he wrote: "Citizens can be held in cells for years without lawyers. All evidence against them is the new equivalent of the specter evidence -- unseeable save to special sets of eyes and beyond question by those who are not even told of its existence." It is time for real patriots to stand up against these government excesses. The very idea that we can be made safer by giving up our rights is absurd.
ROBERT J. REILAND
O'Hara
Feeding off hysteria
Dennis Roddy's Feb. 16 column ("A Specter Is Haunting America") points out the shameful, cowardly, frightened behavior of many U.S. citizens in the aftermath of 9/11.
There have, since then, been tremendous public and private costs incurred for dubious security precautions. To take just one example, at the airport, where one night when I returned from a trip, a cadre of dozens of "security" guards were stationed at the then very empty passageway to the flight gates at Pittsburgh International Airport.
The politicians have been quick to exploit this mass hysteria; witness the rapid creation of "Homeland Security" departments at even the state levels to siphon money from frightened taxpayers. As we have seen recently, these parasites actually "create" nonexistent crises to justify their existences. Let's end this nonsense before it's too late.
ANDREW GERENYI, M.D.
Franklin Park
An easy victory? Hardly
In his Feb. 9 column "Cast Iron Case," Jack Kelly writes that "the war in Afghanistan was won quickly and easily." Mr. Kelly should not think that his readers are so gullible as to take this statement at its face value. He trumpets the positives of U.S. action in Afghanistan without mentioning the negatives, like the facts that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leaders evaded capture, that al-Qaida is still fully operational (why else have we been on high security alert?), that there have been attempts to kidnap and/or assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and that as recently as a few weeks ago there has been fierce fighting in Afghanistan.
Any of these facts makes it clear that the victory there has not been as complete, quick or easy as Mr. Kelly would want you to believe.
JULIA LEYZAROVICH
Greenfield
What will you sacrifice?
I thank Post-Gazette staff writer Robert Dvorchak ("Their Grim Task," Feb. 16 Forum) for giving some attention to the flesh-and-blood people who are sent to war -- not the sanitized high-tech war we'll see on CNN but the real war we are no longer allowed to see.
My husband, a 45-year-old Army Reserve nurse, was called up to active duty a week after the military announced a plan (since withdrawn) to incinerate soldiers' remains on the battlefield. While TV broadcasts are filled with blathering theorists and advertisements for Hummers, we're worried about whether our soldier's chemical protective suit will work while his forward surgical team is treating battlefield casualties.
My husband was also called up for the first Gulf war. That conflict killed 383 Americans and afterward there was a lot of talk about moving toward energy independence. Instead there has been an explosion in the number of heavy pickups and sport utility vehicles on the road.
Perhaps Americans don't mind a war every few years as long as someone else's husband/son/daughter/wife goes to fight. Some may think supporting the troops is a matter of sticking a fresh American flag decal on their vehicles. I respectfully suggest that my fellow citizens take a moment to tell their elected representatives that they are willing to make a concrete sacrifice to avoid more bloodshed.
C.J. MULLINS
Sewickley
Evidence to the contrary
As a homemaker with a bachelor of arts in elementary education, I feel compelled to respond to John B. Fardo's letter ("Speaking of 'Uneven,' " Feb. 9). Mr. Fardo is long on complaints and accusatory, insulting comments, but short on proof of his assertions. He states that "you better take a long look at the thousands of kids being educated through home schooling if you want to see an utter lack of any quality teaching at all." I see two problems with this statement.
First, where does he get his information? I did a very cursory Internet search for statistical data on the performance of home-schooled children, and I found thousands of Web sites listing studies and reports on this very subject. Among the data I quickly scanned were some interesting facts.
A 1996 survey of Ivy League universities quotes a Harvard admissions official who said that home schoolers at Harvard "have done very well. They usually are very motivated" (www.hslda.org). For the 1999-2000 school year, 27 percent of home schoolers who applied to Stanford were accepted; that is double the overall rate.
If you are interested in SAT scores, home schoolers score an average of 1083, 67 points higher than the national average. The Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 11, 2000, that "while home-schooled college freshmen have a higher-than-average grade point average, they also show superior leadership qualities."
The second problem I see with Mr. Fardo's position is that he attacks the "usual Republican philosophy on education" without specifying exactly what he opposes. The Republican philosophy aims to empower parents and local communities rather than centralizing power in the state and federal bureaucracies. What exactly does Mr. Fardo oppose here? Parental choice? Competition?
In a search for solutions to our education system's shortcomings, we are better served by facts than defensive, emotional rhetoric.
LEIGH BOYER
O'Hara
The GOP wants it both ways in special election
As Democratic Committee chairperson of South Park Township, I read with great interest the Feb. 16 editorial "Aside" regarding state Senate Republican candidate John Pippy's call to duty.
I see a paradox developing. Last month, state Senate President Pro Tem Robert C. Jubelirer, R-Altoona, called for a special election on March 11 (at a possible cost to taxpayers of up to $250,000) to fill the vacancy left by Tim Murphy when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the last election. Along with other Republican leaders, he forced this election now rather than wait until the May primary because of a belief in the importance of having a senator in Harrisburg immediately, representing the people, debating issues and casting votes.
However, as a result of John Pippy's recent call to duty, the Republicans changed their tune. Suddenly, it's "OK" to have someone elected to the state Senate but not be present to serve his constituents.
I agree with their earlier stance that we need a special election now rather than wait until the primary. A delay until then would deny my district representation because a winner in a primary would not be sworn in until early June.
Once again, reiterating Republican Sen. Jubelirer, we cannot leave that seat open. We need someone in place to represent our interests now, especially during Gov. Ed Rendell's first budget session negotiation. Major issues will be discussed that will affect the 37th District, including medical malpractice, economic development and education. We cannot afford to have our district's priorities omitted from debate and vote for a long period.
Lifelong 37th District resident and Democratic state Senate candidate Paul J. Gitnik knows our needs and priorities. As a small-business owner and a representative on many organizational boards in the 37th District, his credentials are impeccable, and I feel that he is more than qualified to represent us. More importantly, he can begin his term in person on March 12, which is what the Republicans had originally wanted.
John Pippy's service to our country is honorable, but unfortunately, he cannot represent our district at the same time.
We need representation now.
DAVE BUCHEWICZ
South Park
E-mail this story 
