It's not inconsistent to support the troops and support peace
I am writing in response to the March 28 letter "Ill-Informed Protesters." The letter, by Pete Evans, refers to peace activists as ill-informed. As an educated, mature mother of three, I know it's possible to be well-informed and disagree with this war. Furthermore, you can be a proponent of peace and a supporter of our troops.
The war plan we are currently employing was devised years ago by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolf-owitz and included a vision of America that embraced imperialism and the notion of the pre-emptive strike. I am opposed to this point of view. The pre-emptive strike goes against previously held American values and rules of "just war." This war is illegal in the eyes of the international community because it violates these international rules.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, but I feel strongly that he could have been removed through continued diplomatic efforts. U.N. weapons inspections were working and Saddam's influence was declining. If the United States had supported the newly created International Criminal Court, it might have provided a venue to try Saddam for his well-documented crimes against humanity. The bombing of a sovereign country, the killing of its people and the deaths of American soldiers are not justified when saner means could have been successful.
Mr. Evans asks peace activists to explain the phrase, "Bush is after oil." Mr. Bush and his top advisers have ties to oil companies that will benefit monetarily during the "rebuilding phase." Should those who propose war benefit from it? Peace activists raise these troubling issues, which should be discussed by the American people. It's my responsibility as an American to speak out about what I consider to be an unjust war and to work to bring our troops home.
JUDITH FOCARETA
Shaler
Watching too much TV?
I'd like to respond to the April 1 letter by Daniel Heryer of Bloomfield ("Violations of Protesters' Rights Are Getting Little Attention"). He stated that his civil rights were violated during a protest and that he spent 27 hours in jail without a phone call or having his rights read to him.
First, he needs to quit watching "Law and Order." There is no part of the Constitution that says you are allowed to make a phone call; if you are in jail you are a big boy.
Second, he needs to read up on his rules of criminal procedure. The only time someone has to read him his rights is when he is questioned about the incident that he was arrested for, and not basic questions like name, date of birth, address, etc. The reason it took him so long to get arraigned is because the city police had to type up 122 criminal complaints and affidavits and then a judge had to arraign all of them one by one after checking previous background for prior arrests.
Police just can't wave a magic wand and all the proper paperwork is completed while they do real police work along with baby-sitting these ungrateful American citizens. All I have to say is that if they don't like the way the system is set up for their freedom, don't let the customs agent at the border kick them in the behind as they leave.
RICHARD MIKES
Munhall
Editor's note: The writer is a police officer.
Understand the law
I couldn't help but find myself nauseated after reading a letter by Daniel Heryer about the treatment he received after being arrested following his participation in anti-war protests in Downtown Pittsburgh on March 20 ("Violations of Protesters' Rights Are Getting Little Attention," April 1). In addition to having that sore-loser tone, Mr. Heryer exposed himself as a citizen woefully unaware of the operation of our law enforcement system.
He repeatedly whined about not being read his rights following his arrest. Miranda rights must be read only when three conditions are met. The first two, stating that the arrest must be made by the police and that the person must be in police custody, were surely met in Mr. Heryer's circumstance. However, the third condition is that he be the subject of an interrogation. Therefore it was not necessary to read him his Miranda rights if he was not the subject of an interrogation.
Regarding the assertion that Mr. Heryer made about his right to free speech being compromised, it seems that such an infringement did not, in fact, occur. By participating in a protest, he surely would know that his actions would be very closely scrutinized by the police, and that enforcement of laws regarding seemingly minor infractions would be more strictly enforced, as they would in any large public gathering.
DANIEL BENACQUISTA
Squirrel Hill
Disgusted by cartoons
While I generally do not side with the liberal viewpoint espoused in your newspaper, I can agree to disagree with the points you present in your editorials. However, the continual, almost-daily bashing and mockery of our president by your editorial cartoonists is totally disgusting.
At a time of war, we need to be united and supportive of our government. The two card-carrying socialists who draw in your paper should stick to the highway overpasses where their work can usually be seen.
JOE SIEBER
McCandless
Inappropriate for kids
Suicide bombing featured in your "News for Children" section -- what are you thinking ("What Is a Suicide Bomber?" April 1)? Was this an April Fool's joke? How do you plan to terrorize the little ones next week? Now, I too miss Fred Rogers, who surely would have found a more appropriate piece of news to highlight for our children.
MARY WALSH
Churchill
About 'Salty Talk'
After my advanced placement chemistry class read the Life Support column "Salty Talk" (March 4) by Dennis O'Brien of The Baltimore Sun, we were appalled by its inaccuracies. Consequently, I gave an informal quiz: Determine the mistakes in this article. They passed with ease.
The subheadline claims to tell the readers "everything you always wanted to know about sodium chloride," but the column contains blatantly unscientific information. These are the mistakes the students identified:
1) The column incorrectly states, "How salt works is a matter of simple chemistry: Salt enters the snow, absorbing the moisture from it, on contact, the way that a sponge or towel will absorb drops of water." In reality, salt helps snow to melt because it dissolves in the water and depresses water's freezing point below the prevailing temperature.
2) To describe salt as being made of two "chemicals," sodium and chloride, as the author stated, is not an appropriate description. Salt is in fact a compound of two "elements," sodium and chlorine.
3) The freezing point of salt, an ionic solid, is not minus 6 degrees Fahrenheit, as stated, because the freezing point of a substance is the temperature at which it changes from a liquid to a solid. The substance salt accomplishes that phase change at a much higher temperature than minus 6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is, salt is a solid considerably above that temperature. This also applies to the false statement that calcium chloride freezes at minus 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Perhaps the writer meant to say brine and calcium chloride "solutions" freeze at those temperatures, but that is not what he said.
4) The presence of salt in water is not the "trigger" in the mechanism that contributes to the formation of cracks in paved streets. Pure water would do the same thing through the cycle of freezing and thawing (i.e. expanding and contracting). It may be true that the salt present will increase the number of thermal cycles, but it is not the cause to the mechanism.
5) The final problem the writer raises is the accumulation of salt in our environment. That may be a problem, but he suggests it's because the salt is not breaking down. In solution, the salt has dissociated into its ions, sodium and chloride. No further breakdown is feasible from a chemical perspective. What does he want it to do, undergo nuclear change?
Although the average reader may not be a chemistry expert, that is no reason to print oversimplified, incorrect information.
MARK KERNION
Chemistry Instructor
Mt. Lebanon High School
Mt. Lebanon
Jim Roddey, too, must take this bitter pill
In December 2002 the Post-Gazette reported the following statement from Jim Roddey concerning wage cuts for US Airways employees ("Airline Crunch Time," Dec. 10):
"Allegheny County Chief Executive Jim Roddey yesterday said that workers, some of whom are bristling at the latest request, need to understand that the fate of their company rests in their hands. US Airways employees 'have a choice -- change their work rules so they are competitive with the rest of the industry and they will have a job and a pension. Or turn down the proposal and have no job and no pension,' he said."
That was strong medicine that Dr. Roddey prescribed for US Airways employees, but he showed no misgivings about other people taking the cure when it appeared that he would be able to balance his county budget without sharing a similar sacrifice in the form of lower airport fees. No doubt he expected that by acting as head cheerleader for US Airways that the company would return the favor.
But on April 1, Jim Roddey had newfound sympathy for US Airways employees and clearly did not enjoy the news that he will need to take his own medicine ("County Stunned by US Airways' Bid to Cut Lease").
Note to Jim Roddey: Open wide, Jim. Your medicine is a large and bitter pill to swallow, but it will be good for you.
CHRIS McNALLY
Upper St. Clair
Editor's note: The writer is a former Democratic state representative.
E-mail this story 
