The legislative control freaks are after our cell phones

The Pennsylvania Legislature's record on affirming individual freedom has not been stellar as of late.

Legislators have brought us the mandatory seat belt law, the headlights on in construction zones even in broad daylight law, and may soon enact a disgraceful piece of legislation that will keep you from smoking in bars.

If this wasn't enough, a Philadelphia-area Democratic legislator has proposed legislation that will ban us from holding our cellular phones in our cars ("Bill Would Require Motorists to Unhand Their Phones," June 20).

This ludicrous bill will make it possible for authorities to fine motorists who freely elect to hold their cellular phones while driving. I believe that this is yet another prime example of a state government that cannot keep its fingers out of the people's business. The passage of this bill simply moves us one step closer to having all phone usage banned in vehicles.

Banning cellular phone use makes as much sense as banning car radios, outlawing travel with children in the back seat, criminalizing driving with a pet in the car or stopping the heinous act of rolling down the window to catch a breeze.

This bill demonstrates that the overwhelming goal of the state is control, whether it is over what goes on in bars and eateries, personal vehicles or other facets of life.

Perhaps the Legislature should concentrate its energy on lowering the personal income tax, privatizing state liquor stores and returning the $720 million state surplus to the taxpayers.

NATHAN R. SHRADER
North Huntingdon

---

Enforcement issues

I am currently a resident of New York State but previously resided in Pennsylvania for three years. Upon learning that a Pennsylvania legislator has introduced a bill outlawing use of hand-held cell phones while driving ("Bill Would Require Motorists to Unhand Their Phones," June 20), I would like to offer my opinion.

In New York, where such use is illegal, enforcement of the law is hit or miss. Violators play a cat-and-mouse game with police -- when they see a police car, they hide the cell phone until the police are out of sight, then resume their conversation. During the hours of darkness the chances of getting caught are greatly diminished.

The likelihood of vigorous enforcement should be one criterion for any new law, and the cell phone law fails miserably in this respect.

A more practical remedy would be to enhance penalties for other traffic violations committed while using any cell phone. Following too closely, failure to keep within a single lane and red light violations are probably the most common.

DAVID R. MARKUS
Depew, N.Y.

---

Power outage reality

I find your June 20 editorial "Power Loss" to be amusing and at the same time off-base. The editorial starts out with the statement that electrical power outages should be a thing of the past, and then further on describes the reasons for some.

I guess we have to cut down all the trees that may fall on lines and find a way to control the weather if we need to move into the 21st century. Or they could tear up everyone's front yard and put the transmission underground, thus eliminating the weather from the equation.

Electrical distribution is not just plugging in some wires to a generator and hoping for the best. Modern systems have grown large and complex, with each one interconnected to the next. Proper planning, operation and control of these require great skill and work.

The $500 million mentioned is not even the tip of the iceberg when considering grid upgrades. The grid is outdated, having been constructed randomly for more than a century. Equipment can be updated, but it also must be coordinated with the existing equipment for the process to work.

There are many fine system engineers and technicians, myself included, who work hard in order for your digital clock, TV and radio to remain on.

Is a power outage inconvenient? Yes. Unacceptable? I suggest a move to Utopia.

TERRY A. HUNT
Shaler

---

Rotten delay

I read the June 16 article "Casinos Could Be Delayed by a Year." I cannot understand why we are all not crying foul here. It is clearly an attempt to line political cronies' pockets, and the powers that be can't agree on whose pockets to line -- shocking. It's starting to really stink in our once beautiful state.

JACKIE ALBEE
Crafton Heights

---

Suspect sale idea

About once per decade, politicians in Harrisburg start muttering about selling the State Office Building in Pittsburgh and moving all the agencies that operate there into leased space scattered about the city ("State Officials Consider Sale of Downtown Office Building," June 17).

This would of course be an awful inconvenience to taxpayers -- often, they have to deal with more than one state agency at a time, and having them in a central location is very helpful. It is also doubtful that moving these offices to leased premises in prime office space Downtown would save money.

The only possible real motivation is this: If you have leases to award, you have another means of paying back campaign contributors. Politically connected property owners will get the plum leases. It also means the offices will be moving to new locations every few years as political power shifts occur. The resulting expense and chaos will be the taxpayers' burden. This already happens with those offices that are not in the State Office Building.

Just as politicians quietly hate the merit-based civil service system, as it limits the number of jobs they can pass out as favors regardless of competence, they also dislike owning property, as it limits their ability to pass out tax money to wealthy, friendly building owners.

This is a power grab, pure and simple, using our money to feather the nests of the well-connected. To try and pass it off as saving tax money is a bold-faced farce.

HOWARD SCHMITT
Green Tree

---

Marriage rights

In his June 14 letter "Marriage Is a Social Custom, Not a Right," Jeff Olen of Butler diagnoses a person quoted in a news story with intellectual decay and accuses the person of engaging in rhetoric rather than in debate. I can give this advice to Mr. Olen: If you want to debate, check your facts.

The U.S. Supreme Court long ago determined that the right to marry the person of one's choice was a fundamental civil right. The government generally is not permitted to decide if a marriage is a "good idea" for any particular couple. There is no limit to how many times a person can marry, no specific reasons to marry (such as love or procreation) and no rules against marrying for money, publicity, fame or just to upset one's family. The only requirement currently being debated is to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Additionally I would like to clarify for Mr. Olen that the true controversy is not over the specific right to marry but the rights provided by marriage. At this time, there are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage and, on average, 300 more per individual state. Therefore, any marriage-license-carrying heterosexual couple has access to approximately 1,300 rights, benefits and protections that my partner and I never will have.

These rights, protections and benefits even can be secured by incarcerated serial rapists, murderers and child pornographers by getting married while in prison and never having to live with their spouses -- unless they are gay or lesbian.

BARRY SOLARCZYK
South Side

---

The liberal media and other leftists do not want us to win this war

I am convinced that liberals are opposed to us winning this war. The liberal drive-by media have proven this assertion again. The media take the capture, torture and killing of two U.S. soldiers ("Two Missing U.S. Soldiers Found Dead," June 21) as a political negative for President Bush. They even suggest that the torture and killing of the two soldiers is payback for the killing of al-Zarqawi, forgetting that the terrorists have been doing this for years.

To the left, this is nothing more than an incident used to help the enemy defeat us in this war. There is no condemnation of the Islamic fascist brutality. There is no condemnation of these terrorist animals from the various human rights groups. No, the United States is the enemy here rather than the terrorists.

The left apparently hates America. When will they wake up and realize that we are fighting a war for our very existence as a nation? Perhaps they never will. Their hate for President Bush knows no bounds, even risking the destruction of our nation.

Thank goodness we have a president who understands the threat that we face from the Islamic fascists and has the steadfastness to fight this war and thus keep us safe. And thank God that the appeasers starting with Carter to Clinton to Albright to Kerry and others on the left are not in charge.

SAM SINDERSON
Pleasant Hills

---