The time is ripe for a Republican to run for mayor

Come on, Republicans -- get on the ball!

Many registered Democrats who live in the city of Pittsburgh are ready, willing and desiring of a better candidate for mayor. This is your shot to get the Democratic vote. Get us a viable, responsible candidate and you may see a large crossover vote.

Most of us cannot bring ourselves to vote for a candidate whose main platform is a "Trolley to Oakland." In fact, Bob O'Connor is part of the reason that Pittsburgh is in the shape that it is in. He was president of City Council and could helped stop the city's demise, but he was too worried about his political future. Now he wants us to see him as a knight in shining armor. I do not think so.

Bill Peduto is at best a council member in the tradition of Michelle Madoff: All show no go. What has he done as a council member? Nothing.

Michael Lamb has potential, but without money, he cannot win. He appears honest and was willing to cut his county office job. Not many politicians would do that.

If the Republicans do not field somebody who can win, then Lamb gets my vote. All we really want is a choice this year, so Republicans, the ball is in your court. You may never have this chance again.

RICK McCLELLAND
South Side

---

Vaccination rates

UPMC is disappointed that the Post-Gazette, in its April 2 article "Hospital Report Cards Online," did not include the full response regarding the pneumonia vaccination rates for UPMC hospitals.

We explained we had openly shared internal best practices among our hospitals to improve care in this area. As a result, we noted that UPMC Passavant dramatically increased its vaccination rate from 6 percent to 60 percent and UPMC Braddock further improved its rate from 60 percent to close to 90 percent.

UPMC has significantly improved pneumonia vaccination rates -- and virtually all other CMS quality measures -- across the health system and is committed to its quality initiatives.

HELEN Y. CHANG
Vice President, Quality Management
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Oakland

---

Skyline abuse

As I look out my window, I am saddened by what I see. Most Pittsburghers are proud of our beautiful nighttime skyline. What a shame that Highmark has been allowed to ruin the appearance of Fifth Avenue Place with its signage and lighting scheme.

The signs are not the issue (I have seen FreeMarkets change to Ariba with no detriment to the appearance of the building). It is the change in lighting that has virtually cut off the top of Fifth Avenue Place. I am sure the architect included lighting effects into the original plan to accentuate to peak of the structure. Instead of the dramatic building that once enhanced the city skyline, we are left with a building that stops with a logo and is topped with a red light at the tip; everything in between is invisible.

To be more precise, as I look out my window I am more saddened by what I don't see. Fifth Avenue Place, where are you?

GRANT GERLICH
Lawrenceville

---

Straight talk

Finally! I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to point out the sheer audacity of President Bush siding with the creditors (who themselves could use several lessons in sound business management) and making it more difficult for debtors, in a debt-driven society, to attain help with their debt, all the while running up a deficit that is increasing by billions and billions of dollars.

My wait was rewarded by Reg Henry's April 5 column ("What You See Is Not Always What You Get"): "They preach fiscal prudence but they have taken a wrecking ball to the federal budget," he wrote.

What can you expect from an administration that is overrun with hypocrisy and lack of taking responsibility for anything?

GINA VUONO
Mt. Lebanon

---

Our infamous past

I knew from the start where Arthur Wilson's letter ("Awful Standards" March 31) was going. But that knowledge did little to stem my fury or disgust when it finally got there.

Mr. Wilson caps off a short but grim list of recent social developments with which he -- along with many other Americans -- disagrees by asking "What have we come to in this country?" It is an overly theatrical and historically naive question, which I have heard repeated many times in the last three weeks, usually in the course of cheerfully comparing the Florida judicial/law enforcement system to the Third Reich in 1930s Germany.

To these people I say: If you really want to induce moral nausea, don't look at where the country is going, look at where it came from. This country was co-founded by slave-owners, and expanded "from sea to shining sea" by men who saw nothing wrong with mowing down any of the proud native peoples who got in their way. Not to mention that some of the first colonists here were theocrats who saw fit to torture and execute their neighbors on suspicion of witchcraft.

I'm not one of those America-haters who claims that the Republic in which we live is inherently corrupt and therefore lacking a right to exist. I'm just saying that if we are treading water on certain human rights issues and not making the forward progress we would like, we should have the courage to be honest with ourselves and not go into hysterics over phantoms of some paradise lost, where peace, justice and charity reigned unchallenged.

ANDREW LUGO
Hampton

---

Hijacking the judiciary

It's in everyone's best interest to encourage rational debate when it comes to confirming federal judges who will stay on the bench for a generation or more. But instead of letting our legislative body do its intended work, a number of right-wing senators are trying to hijack the process and bully their ideology onto the federal bench.

The decisions of these judicial nominees will influence millions of lives. Decisions about who will become our federal judges are important and worthy of thorough debate and examination. Making it easier for extremist judges to get lifetime appointments is not in America's best interest. Since the Republican leadership knows they cannot win playing by the rules, they are ready to break them, no matter what the cost. These hardliners care more about intimidation and power politics than rational and honest debate.

JODI HIRSH
Wilkinsburg

---

Worn down

I applaud Boris Weinstein's initiative on litter and wish him the best ("I Am Picking Up Litter," April 2 First Person). But count me out. Been there.

I've done my share of picking up after others, admonishing those who litter (a head butt by a chastised litterbug only discouraged me for a short while) and cheering others who railed against litter, notably the PG's Barbara Cloud (she must be as discouraged as ever).

But life is now too short to risk a punch in the face or a vile verbal assault. Until the city gets serious about punishing those who litter -- and it now will claim it does not have the resources, but never did it have the will -- litter will be with us, and will continue to get worse.

DOUG CHAMBERS
Squirrel Hill

---

Beware Act 72

All of Pennsylvania's 501 school districts have studied Act 72, yet only four have opted into the plan. Does that tell you something?

The offer from Act 72 is this: You will get a small property tax cut in three to five years, but to get it you must accept an income tax increase next year. Then when the state cuts education funding (as it has before), and your district can no longer legally raise taxes, your school district will suffer. The loss in property value will certainly not be offset by the meager few hundred dollars Act 72 offers in property tax rebates.

Only a politician can offer such a convoluted plan and then chastise you for declining to be a part of it.

JOE SCHEUERMANN
Greensburg

Editor's note: The writer is a teacher at Hempfield High School.

---

Don't fall for the anti-smoking lobby's tricks

Alana Semuels' April 4 article "Smokers Could Lose Now That Error's Fixed" fell into a classic, and carefully planned, trap of fallacious reasoning.

The anti-smoking lobby in America has become very skilled at using various styles and tricks of fallacious argumentation to advance its cause.

At the start of the article, Semuels wrote, "New York did it. Columbus did it. Even Wheeling, W. Va., is doing it. Everybody's doing it, and some say Pittsburgh should be next to ban smoking in workplaces." This is an example of the "bandwagon argument" usually used when more solid arguments aren't available. Even if the underlying facts are true (i.e. everyone is actually "doing it"), the argument by itself is still specious.

In this particular case, however, as with far too many arguments supporting smoking bans, the underlying facts aren't even there: There are many places that are now resisting smoking bans, overturning them or weakening them to the point where they're almost meaningless. In the month before a March 7 Philadelphia Council vote on a ban, a Google search showed that there were close to a dozen towns, cities and even entire states that said "no" to smoking bans in one form or another.

But you'll never hear that information from the antismoking lobby. Unfortunately, the media seem all too willing to take the anti-smokers' press release sound bites and simply repeat them over and over again exactly as intended.

MICHAEL J. McFADDEN
Philadelphia

Editor's note: The writer is the author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains."