Pennsylvania can't afford a ban on smoking

I admit that I chuckled after reading the June 9 letter "What Could Be More Pressing Than Our Health?" by Sally Davis -- especially after she posed the question, "If New York City can go smoke-free and survive, why not Pennsylvania?"

According to the last census New York City alone has a population of more than 8 million. The entire state of Pennsylvania has a population of a little more than 12 million. Also, consider that New York City receives more tourists per year than our whole state. Get it?

I say that banning smoking would be a blow to our local economy and a loss for our state -- especially after New Jersey banned indoor smoking in public places and now Jersians are going to Philly so they can have a beer and a smoke.

She also mentions that California's statistics show that its alcohol sales have gone up. I'm curious as to whether the statistics are referring to dining/drinking establishments or state stores/beer distributors? If distributor sales have increased, then I'm guessing people are staying home to drink. It might be great for California (also receiving more tourists than we do), but not Pennsylvania.

Although health is a big concern, let's be realistic here. Would that bar on the corner of your neighborhood survive without smokers? Would you even consider visiting that bar just because it was all of a sudden smoke-free?

Would you feel more comfortable entering the bar with seven smokers outside and with their cigarette butts covering the sidewalk just because they aren't smoking inside?

NATASHA WASSON
Wilkinsburg

---

Keep it up, mayor

When Bob O'Connor ran for mayor of Pittsburgh, I thought he was just one of the "good old boys."

He has since changed my mind by being out in the community and actually trying to get things done and not just hiding in his office. I hope this is for real and not just part of the "honeymoon" period of his administration.

R. HEIM
Beechview

---

Humane policy

Kudos to Dr. Sarah Springer for her compassionate and rational commentary "The Marriage Protection Amendment Is Bad for Kids" (June 7).

Compassionate because she outlines the suffering caused by slavish devotion to outdated prejudices. Rational because she explains the need for social policies that benefit all people. It is a call for humane government policy.

Unfortunately, today our politicians seem intimidated by factions using the guise of religion to push bigotry and persecution. Policies based upon dubious interpretations of ancient sectarian texts are no more convincing today than when they were espoused by slave owners and segregationists, opponents of women's equality or anti-Semites. Hate and prejudice are not family values.

Perhaps one day politicians will find the courage to return to a secular government serving all the people as our founders envisioned.

LEO NAGORSKI
Shaler

---

What kids need

This letter is in response to state Rep. Tom Yewcic's quote on childhood development -- "Children need moms and dads. To say that moms and dads -- male and female -- don't matter causes harm in their development. Having two fathers or two mothers is neither real nor plausible biologically" ("Pa. House Passes Gay Marriage Ban," June 7).

Children need a safe and loving environment, proper nutrition and proper medical care. The harm he speaks of in regard to gender is found in adult discrimination and intolerance, not in the development of children.

DIANA SCHULTZ
McCandless

---

'Christian' co-opted

Tony Norman's June 9 column was outstanding ("If Ann Coulter's a Christian, I'll Be Damned").

For quite some time I have been angry that the term "Christian" has been co-opted by the religious right. Though I am a Lutheran pastor, my political positions and my method of interpreting the Scriptures would put me outside the fold of "real Christians" -- as the phrase "real Christian" is understood by the religious right.

I can see very little of the teachings and mode of life of Jesus in the teachings and mode of life of those believers who seem to revel in being "holier than thou." They seem to believe that they are doing God's will when they oppress, exclude, ostracize, marginalize and even seek to kill people who do not live according to their standards.

God save the world from those who believe God has anointed them to be the new saviors of the world. And God save the church from its members who besmear the name "Christian" by living lives of hatred -- a hatred that is expressed by attempting to turn our country into a place of oppression for gays, liberals, the poor, illegal aliens and others whom members of the religious right persecute in the name of supposed Christian love and righteousness.

REV. KIMBERLY A. RAPCZAK
McKees Rocks

---

Yes, outrageous

Thank you, Tony Norman, for so eloquently putting it into words ("If Ann Coulter's a Christian, Then I'll Be Damned," June 9 column). I have felt the same outrage over the claims of Ann Coulter and the so-called Christian right.

GEORGINA RONDINELLI
Clairton

---

Bipartisan FAA call

Air traffic controllers from the Pittsburgh and Allegheny Towers would like to thank Reps. Mike Doyle, Tim Murphy and Melissa Hart for their support. On June 5 they voted for fairness and air safety by voting in favor of HR 5449, a piece of legislation that would have restored fairness and accountability in the Federal Aviation Administration contract negotiating process.

While the special vote on this bill did not achieve the required two-thirds tally by a very slim margin (eight votes), thanks to the support of these legislators a clear bipartisan majority, 65 percent of the House, demonstrated they want current contract negotiations to be reopened and resolved. Their votes demonstrate they do not believe in allowing the FAA to impose a non-negotiated contract on our nation's air traffic controllers.

We salute our representatives for their courage and leadership on this issue, and we urge the FAA to heed this message.

CHUCK ZIELINSKE
Beaver

The writer is treasurer of the Pittsburgh Tower Local, National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

---

Zarqawi's death won't stop the carnage

Regarding Ruth Ann Dailey's June 12 column ("The Left Is Mum on Zarqawi's Demise"): Ms. Dailey, please forgive your friends on the left if we do not share your enthusiasm for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

As you might understand, it's difficult to become excited about a death that, in all likelihood, will not reduce the deaths of innocent Iraqis or our troops, nor bring our troops home any sooner.

It's also difficult to become excited knowing that al-Qaida never had a presence in Iraq until after our invasion ... in other words, in many ways, al-Zarqawi was a monster of our own creation. Once again, reality has a liberal bias.

SCOTT NICOLSON
Monroeville

---

Part of our mess

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death is probably a good thing for Iraq ("U.S. Tracked Terrorist, Called in Lethal Airstrike," June 9). He was a vicious killer. The degree of value of his death partly depends on who gave him up and what their motive was. Did the bin Laden wing decide they were tired of his approach or feel threatened by him? Did one of his own decide to remove him so they could take his place?

In any event, Zarqawi was a product of the misdirected and bungled Bush incursion into Iraq. Zarqawi was an insignificant player until the United States moved on Iraq and failed to wrap it up properly. His rise to prominence was nurtured by the Iraq war. He was, largely, a Bush creation. Getting him comes under the heading of cleaning up our own mess.

The original World Trade Center mass murderers are bin Laden and his cohorts. They were the ones whom our president vowed, on the ashes of the WTC, to get. They remain relatively unthreatened in Afghanistan or Pakistan. What is being done to bring them to justice? Maybe we will next invade Iran to really threaten them.

DAVID M. TURNER
Mt. Lebanon