Sen. Reid is a champion for integrity in government

Regarding the May 31 editorial "Ethics on the Canvas: Minority Leader Reid Suffers a Black Eye": Many U.S. senators attend prominent cultural or sporting events in their home states. Senate ethics rules specifically permit a senator to attend such events as the guest of a state or local government agency, and it was on this basis that Sen. Harry Reid attended several boxing matches in his home state as a guest of the Nevada Athletic Commission.

The fact is, the commission is one of the leading sports regulatory bodies in the country, and Sen. Reid was proud to work with them on his federal boxing bill. Also, your editorial failed to note that Nevada law explicitly prohibits the commission from accepting reimbursements for credentials.

That said, Sen. Reid will refrain from accepting boxing credentials in the future.

He will, however, never stop standing up for legislation that benefits Nevada, including government reform.

In January, Sen. Reid and congressional Democrats introduced legislation to completely change the way business in Washington is done. The tough, meaningful reforms they unveiled in their Honest Leadership, Open Government Act will eliminate fraud and abuse in our government today.

Despite the best efforts of Sen. Reid and other congressional Democrats, these reforms languish in Congress. This is unacceptable.

At a time when gas is at $3 a gallon, middle-class life is more expensive than ever and our security is a constant concern, one thing the American people should be able to count on is the integrity of their leaders in Washington.

That's not the case today, and the American people continue to pay the price.

JIM MANLEY
Senior Communications Adviser to Sen. Harry Reid
Washington, D.C.

---

Atrocious claims

In his poetic -- yes, and cynical -- diatribe, Tony Norman ("The Atrocities of Civilians Back Home," June 6 column) unfortunately permits his deep-seated biases to shine through. For a writer with his gifts that is lamentable.

Despite his pedagogical claims -- and I have widely read on such matters -- I am unable to cite actual instances where it has been offered that "those of us who have never marched in formation are expected to keep our mouths shut and our morality to ourselves." To even use the phrase "our morality" is an egregious stretch of arrogance or assumed moral superiority.

Similarly, I'm not aware that it has been suggested that "a higher morality than pure expediency detracts from the war effort." The extravagance of such unsupported claims serves no one -- especially Mr. Norman -- well. The implicit assertion that Haditha indeed occurred as an unprovoked, unjustified incident ignores the requirement for legal proof. Is this an example of a higher morality -- the pre-empting of our legal system?

If he feels that civilians truly chuckle over the concept of military "core values," and if he feels that flags flying is "dime store patriotism" and that the Dixie Chicks are now rehabilitated, Mr. Norman was on sabbatical far too long.

BOB GOLD
Mt. Lebanon

---

Highlights his point

Fred Yenke's letter ("Wait for the Facts," June 9) is a fine example of the dime store patriotism described in Tony Norman's June 6 column ("The Atrocities of Civilians Back Home").

As Mr. Yenke would have it, exercising critical thinking, taking thoughtful and objective stock of ourselves and our adventures abroad -- for good and for ill -- is calling America "bad" and our military "bad."

I suppose that by referring to the column as "Marxist tripe," Mr. Yenke must then think that the PR folk passing for the press these days (and the blind faithful passing for an informed and active citizenry) are among the few things keeping us from ... socialism?

Was that what the Founding Fathers were so concerned about?

Even if you chose to read it that way, Mr. Norman wasn't slanderously trumpeting a presumption of a guilt -- his point was that it's sad that we even have to be having this conversation in the first place.

TRACY LEVITZ
Indiana, Pa.

---

Santorum's clout

Pennsylvania voters must keep in mind this election year the unmistakable fact that Sen. Rick Santorum is the third-highest-ranking senator in the U.S. Senate and has considerable clout to bring about much-needed financial aid and resources to our commonwealth -- especially if re-elected to a much-deserved third term in November.

To replace Rick Santorum with a rookie senator who has nothing to offer Pennsylvanians but a popular political name given to him by his father (Bob Casey) and who has no political clout in Congress would cause a monumental setback for Pennsylvania's future.

Add the fact that voters can't say where Bob Casey stands on the issues and you know why this is not the time for a change in the U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania.

Sen. Santorum is a strong leader for our state and America and is a steadfast supporter of America's values and traditions that have made our nation great. I'm confident that he will continue to help lead our nation's fight against international terrorism, support our military and provide it with the best weapons and instruments it needs to be successful, continue to defend traditional American family values and work to reduce taxes so families' financial burdens are eased and their money can be put to use in other areas of concern, such as their children's education and health care. And Sen. Santorum has always been there to help and support our senior citizens.

Pennsylvania can't afford a change in Washington now!

JERRY DAUGINIKAS
Chairman
Baldwin Borough Republican Committee
Baldwin Borough

---

Regressive thinking

I am writing to express my complete disgust for state legislators regarding their vote to ban gay marriage ("Pa. House Passes Gay Marriage Ban," June 7; "Same-Sex Union Ban on Fast Track," June 9).

First, this vote is another diversion from more-pressing state matters and issues, not dissimilar to the tactic used by our less-than-competent President Bush. Surely finding solutions to deteriorated housing/communities, health care for the needy and environmental protection at a minimum are more pressing for our elected officials.

Second, at a time when many decry the decline in our moral values I would think the meaningful union of two people committed to each other would have some respect and legal protection. This vote smacks of the old days when mixed-race marriages were banned and lawmakers decided who could drink from which fountain or go in which door.

Pennsylvania needs to take a hard look at why we have a declining population. This kind of regressive thinking is reason to move.

DOROTHY LENGYEL
Squirrel Hill

---

Helmet-free riding comes with a big price tag

One would wonder what would possess a man who is one of the most important and valuable figures in professional sports to risk life and limb not only by operating a motorcycle, one of the most dangerous means of transportation, but also to do so without a helmet, further increasing his risk ("Roethlisberger Hurt in Motorcycle Crash," June 12 Web).

It is instructive to recall that in one of his few decisive acts while in office, Gov. Ed Rendell signed into law legislation that repealed the requirement that motorcycle riders wear helmets. This was perhaps the only time we will ever find this governor adopting a Libertarian stance on an issue.

Ben Roethlisberger noted the actions of the governor and General Assembly on this matter, previously stating, "Obviously, Pennsylvania doesn't think people need to [wear a helmet]."

I imagine "Big Ben" and others now know that regardless of what "Pennsylvania" thinks, motorcyclists must wear helmets unless they are seeking to commit suicide. Much as the "helmet-free" law makes for the ultimate personal freedom, it comes with a high price tag: the higher cost of vehicle liability insurance to be borne by the responsible who subsidize the actions of the irresponsible.

The additional cost to the Pittsburgh Steelers of what one hopes will be only the temporary loss of their star quarterback and to the region of its beloved football star may be incalculable.

OREN M. SPIEGLER
Upper St. Clair

---

Not worth the risk

They could call it "Ben's Law" when the Pennsylvania Legislature re-instates the motorcycle helmet law. I know a well-educated man, over 60 years old, who refuses to wear a helmet. He lives in Beaver County, and he rides his motorbike to work in Pittsburgh every day. He says that if he is involved in an accident, he wants to die immediately rather than be paralyzed or have a brain injury. He says a helmet could prevent his death but keep him alive in misery.

I say riding without a helmet, out on the highways with all kinds of drivers in all kinds of vehicles, is like having random sex with strangers without a condom. It might be good, but sooner or later you will suffer and maybe die.

MEREDITH GRAY
Beechview

---