In defense of Super Suppers

I read Mackenzie Carpenter's article "Dinners Qualify as Solid Family Fare" in the April 16 edition and have a few comments.

I too have used Super Suppers. ... I like to be left alone when I'm assembling dinners, so from my perspective I prefer that the staff at Super Suppers spend time in the back preparing the food. If I need anything I know that help is just a call or a few steps away.

The other comment I take exception to is that unfrozen food has to be fresher than frozen food. Meats (chicken, beef, pork, fish) shipped to the Pittsburgh area generally are cryogenically frozen after processing at the packing facility. This means that local unfrozen meat isn't "fresh" in the sense that it has never been frozen. Unfrozen meat is best described as "thawed." Meat loses flavor in every freeze/thaw cycle, so I prefer the frozen meat at Super Suppers. I have to take the meals home and freeze them, so I prefer not to refreeze previously thawed meat. From that perspective the frozen meat at Super Suppers seems fresher to me. And by the way ... the rice is cooked on the premises each day -- I bothered to ask.

The menus change monthly, and tastes vary, so you'll always find something not to your tastes. I'm glad that Creative Dinners happened to be featuring a menu Ms. Carpenter liked, especially its crab cakes.

HAROLD POLEY
Murrysville

Highmark's vision is blurred

In reference to the May 2 article "Highmark Deal Expands Eyewear Stores' Reach," why would some optometrists be rankled at Highmark? Do you think it's because I make more money selling a $40 handbag than I do selling a pair of glasses to a Security Blue patient? Maybe it's because I can't believe I went to school for eight years to be an optometrist and I'm selling handbags so I can pay my bills. Davis Vision stinks!

CLAUDIA WENDEL, OD
Kennedy

Reach out and teach science, math

Your article on May 9, "Survey: Firms Can Do More for Math, Science Students," brings to light the great shortage of women and minorities in science and technology. We at the Girls, Math & Science Partnership applaud companies such as Bayer that proactively educate teen girls by using their own team of professional scientists.

Our city and its companies, however, have a greater role to play in our global competition in science and math, and the key is bringing a more diverse set of talents to the table. According to the latest labor data from the National Science Foundation, females account for only 33 percent of the work force in life and physical sciences, 29 percent in computers and math professions, and 11 percent in engineering.

Corporations like Bayer and Microsoft are realizing something different. Microsoft Corp. gave $1 million to the Center for Women in Information Technology "to raise awareness of today's changing work force and the positive impact that women in IT have on the industry and the U.S. economy." While Microsoft already has a foundation that contributes to solving the educational divide for women and minorities worldwide, it also is making an investment -- in attracting its future work force. This type of investment looks to the bottom line; by training, recruiting and retaining the best and most diverse staff of scientists, it is more likely to increase profits and competitiveness in the context of a more robust and effective company.

Our economic vibrancy in Pittsburgh is ever more dependent on science and technology; over this decade, 2.2 million national high-paying, skilled jobs will become available. Are we doing enough to proactively embrace women and minorities in our current and future work force?

JENNIFER STANCIL
Shadyside
Executive Director
Girls, Math & Science Partnership

Part of the solution

Two articles in your May 9 newspaper highlighted the critical need for our country -- and our region -- to remain competitive globally by attracting workers to fields related to science and technology. One of your articles, "Survey: Firms Can Do More for Math, Science Students," highlighted the excellent job Bayer is doing to address this issue through its Making Science Make Sense program, whereby Bayer visits classrooms and conducts hands-on science activities designed to attract all students -- and especially girls and minorities -- to science-related fields.

The cultivation of tomorrow's science and technology work force is up to us all: educators, parents and employers alike. Science centers also play a crucial role. In this region, Carnegie Science Center serves as a gateway to improved science literacy by sparking scientific curiosity and providing interactive, informal learning experiences to tens of thousands of children each year. We've shown kids how rainstorms start, why airplanes fly and how bridges are built. These types of learning experiences connect science and technology with everyday life -- and ultimately demonstrate to our children the breadth of career possibilities in science-related fields.

RONALD J. BAILLIE
Hampton
Chief Program Officer
Carnegie Science Center

Not so smart after all

In your May 9 article, "Pittsburgh Ranks 9th on Magazine's List of 'Smartest Places to Live'," Mayor Bob O'Connor is correct: "Numbers don't lie." Unfortunately, he is not sharp enough to realize what those numbers mean. Pittsburgh ranks high in only families and retirees. This city cannot keep young people here because there are few good jobs. The median home price also is one of the lowest on the list, which seems to support the fact that there is little economic boost here.

The way I read Kiplinger's chart is as follows: The retirees are the oldest generation here that have probably lived in the same house for decades. There is a greater concentration of families here because they still have ties to the city. They probably moved away but moved back to raise their family due to their ties here. However, the city does not rank well in empty nesters, which means that as their kids grow up, they are moving elsewhere. This leaves little reason for their children to move back to Pittsburgh to raise their families. In the next five to 10 years those categories will probably not be ranked either.

I am 27. Most of my friends have moved away -- many of whom have moved to larger, more expensive cities. Reasons: There are more opportunities and the salaries are much, much higher than in Pittsburgh. It is true that they are paying three times as much to live there, but they also are making three times as much, plus they have the opportunity to grow in a career that may not keep them with the same employer for 20 years if they wish to advance. None of my friends has any intentions of moving back to Pittsburgh. I am not quite certain how Mr. O'Connor derives these delusions of grandeur.

Of the 50 cities that Kiplinger's listed, only two had a population decrease -- Pittsburgh being one. There is a reason for that. Building more sky-rises Downtown, fixing up the Fifth and Forbes corridor, adding high-end retailers and building a new arena are not going to keep people here when they have so many more opportunities in other parts of the country.

DAVID D. SMOLLER
Dormont