Sen. Santorum's weather service bill is absurd
Let me see if I understand this: Sen. Rick Santorum is introducing legislation to protect private weather firms such as AccuWeather and its employees against unfair competition by the National Weather Service ("Storm Over Weather Service Initiatives," April 26). I can think of many more important issues in this state that require his attention.

This is not to say that AccuWeather doesn't provide a worthy product. But is it not the same product that's been provided by the National Weather Service since 1870? So along comes AccuWeather in 1962 duplicating what we already have and then crying foul.

To cover these inequities, Sen. Santorum's bill will reduce NWS services to just those that private-sector companies cannot offer or are unwilling to offer. The analogies to the idiocy of this are endless.

Aren't we paying for weather forecasting twice? Our tax dollars cover the NWS. The cost of AccuWeather is likely factored into the price of this newspaper and any other media that use it. Of course, all this competition for weather does allow one to keep changing channels until a more favorable temperature or forecast is found.

Yes, I believe I do understand. And Election Day is circled on my calendar.

ELAINE HERMAN
Shaler

---

Most not sacrificing
James Cannon asserts that the Post-Gazette "did a disservice to readers" by printing a viewpoint Mr. Cannon disagrees with ("No Standing," April 25). I might concur that an "artificial timetable" for troop withdrawal will not remedy the untenable situation facing our brave soldiers and marines. However, the Post-Gazette did me no disservice by publishing the Quakers' opinion.

Mr. Cannon also argues that "most Quakers sacrifice virtually nothing." Who, other than the military families, has been asked to sacrifice anything for the war effort? We are not paying for the war. Taxes are cut and appropriations are handled through deficit spending. We are not contributing our offspring through national service.

Troop shortages are made up through stop-loss orders and repeated deployment of exhausted units. The lieutenant general of the Army Reserve has stated he is on the verge of having a broken force. Army recruitment is running as much as one-third below goal. Instead of a timetable for withdrawal, I recommend a timetable for drafting the nation's children and grandchildren to replenish our depleted forces and complete the mission.

When my husband joined the Army he swore an oath to protect our country and uphold its Constitution. After carefully reading the president's State of the Union message, I believe that oath needs to be amended to reflect the fact that the commander in chief may order soldiers to sacrifice their lives to deliver democracy around the world. Does the nation really support this effort or do my fellow citizens merely acquiesce as long as it is not their children who are sent to do the sweating and the bleeding and dying?

C.J. MULLINS
Sewickley

---

No bad peace
To have read the exchange of views between James Cannon ("No Standing," April 25) and Zig Dermer ("Iraq Timetable," April 21), on April 25 of all days -- ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) Day for Australians and New Zealanders -- was an exercise in irony. As a Quaker who served in the Australian forces in the New Guinea Campaign 1942-43, I believe the American Friends Service Committee is right on target in its policy statement. (The AFSC is not the parent of Quakers but is the affiliate for those who want to personally serve to alleviate suffering in difficult arenas -- not natural disasters, but man-made disasters. The AFSC has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.)

On April 25, 1915, in one of Winston Churchill's quixotic military schemes, the Gallipoli Campaign, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed on the north coast of the Dardanelle Peninsula; 248 days later they were withdrawn. A half-million Aussies, Kiwis, English and Turks were killed, missing in action and wounded in Churchill's blunder. My wife and I visited that spot 10 years ago and all we could see were graveyards; one of my mother's cousins is buried there at Lone Pine.

I suggest Mr. Cannon visit Gallipoli, Ypres, Paschendale, Tarawa, Pelelieu, Runnymede, the Punch Bowl, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, and rethink peacemaking. As one former statesman put it, "I have yet to see a good war or a bad peace."

PHILLIP HARTLEY SMITH
Fox Chapel

---

Inappropriate sale
The State Department declared that it is going to let Pakistan buy two dozen F-16 fighter planes ("U.S. Allows Fighter Jet Sale to Pakistan," March 26). This is given as a reward for cooperating and helping the United States in efforts to fight against terrorism. I agree that a reward should be given to Pakistan for all its efforts and cooperation. I would think that an appropriate reward would be $25 billion to $100 billion as grant money so that the economy of the country would improve considerably and it would cease to be the breeding ground for terrorists.

The fighter planes will be of no use to Pakistan as it is not capable of fighting against China and will not fight against Afghanistan and Iran. The only country it has fought in the past is India and that is not going to happen in the future, either. Just as the Berlin Wall collapsed and both Germanys were united, it is only a matter of time until India and Pakistan unite as one country.

Although the Kashmir issue seems to be an obstacle today, it will disappear when these two countries become one. Most likely, it will happen by 2020 and can happen even earlier if the State Department keeps out of these countries and refuses to supply any kind of war weapon. Selling weapons might create jobs here, but it creates tension in other countries.

HARILAL L. PATEL
Monroeville

---

Does his job well
It is such a shame that Charles L. Davis ("Ditch Rogers," April 25 letters) cannot get past his objection to Rob Rogers because of a cartoon he found offensive. Editorial cartoons are meant to evoke emotion and controversy. A decent editorial cartoon sparks dialogue and debate, whether you agree or disagree.

Throughout history, the editorial cartoon has evolved to a significant form of commentary, taking serious issues and presenting them in a manner that is not only funny but also designed to affect the viewer's opinion. And that is just what Rob Rogers does.

The Post-Gazette and the people of Pittsburgh are fortunate to have one of the most talented and, yes, clever editorial cartoonists in the world. I had the privilege to participate in a shadow study with Mr. Rogers as a teenager and it was an opportunity for which I am most grateful.

Although I no longer live in Pittsburgh, I look forward to seeing what he has in store each and every day.

ANDRIA KEVAN ROBBINS
Memphis, Tenn.

---

Excellent cartoon
I have read the letters from readers regarding Rob Rogers' April 21 editorial cartoon. I laughed my head off when I saw the cartoon. I think Mr. Rogers is one of the best things the Post-Gazette has going for it. Should the PG ever drop him I will immediately quit my subscription.

I am a Catholic from birth and was for close to 20 years a Franciscan brother serving at Loretto, Cambria County. Those of us who have been active in the Catholic Church and especially those of us who appreciated progressive movements in the church have for years known Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to be the stomper of liberal grapes.

An excellent cartoon. Classic Rogers.

STEPHEN DONAHUE
Bloomfield

---

Pope Benedict XVI is the right choice
I am a Catholic college student and I am thrilled that the cardinals elected the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy. In this day and age of tremendous moral relativism as defined by the media, the Internet, college campuses and Hollywood, I want a pope who speaks the truth with love -- a pope who, like Pope John Paul II, encourages us to live the Gospel message today and shows us, through both word and example, that extraordinary virtue and holiness are possible in our daily lives.

I want a pope who tells us that we do not have to give in to the cultural values and norms of the secular society that change as dependably as the seasons, but that there is one truth and that it has not changed and cannot change. I want a "Rock" that will not budge. Pope Benedict XVI is that Rock.

I believe that, had most young Catholics been interviewed, their greatest fear would not have been an "archconservative," traditional pope, as portrayed by the media, but rather a pope who was different from Pope John Paul II and who did not speak the truth as clearly and decisively. If the former were true, there would not have been millions of people running to St. Peter's Square over the past week to be fed by the new shepherd.

The terms conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, traditionalist, modernist, etc. do not apply to Catholics in general, and they apply even less to our Holy Father. We are Catholic, plain and simple. However, if the media want to apply labels to Pope Benedict XVI other than "Catholic," which is the only one that truly applies, go for it! Call him whatever you want. Regardless, "Habemus Papam!" I am overjoyed.

SARAH MITCHELL
Upper St. Clair

Editor's note: The writer is a freshman at Carnegie Mellon University.