Complimentary drinks at casinos: the reality

Recent editorials and readers' letters on the subject of complimentary drinks at Pennsylvania casinos require additional comment and clarification.

House Bill 446, which included the provision for drinks at slot machine facilities, received bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and was signed into law by the governor. In his signing letter of Nov. 29, the governor pointed out that there had been significant public and legislative debate on this matter since 2003.

One of the principal concerns relates to casino customers driving after drinking too much. Comparisons have been made to the Atlantic City where, although gamblers have access to 24-hour free drinks, many of them have only their "hallways to navigate." The reality is that 20 million of the 30 million trips a year to the Atlantic City casinos are day trips made by car. It is a fact that more than half the customers on the casino floor request soft drinks, and the availability of complimentary alcohol has not given rise to any public health or public safety issue.

However, we do recognize the heavy responsibility operators bear in ensuring that the distribution of such beverages is under a strict policy code and within the regulations to be promulgated between the Gaming Board and the Liquor Control Board. Racetracks and off-track facilities around the state already operate under all the provisions of the liquor code. Under no circumstances will the new law be used as a means to induce patrons playing slot machines to consume alcohol or to gamble irresponsibly.

As the Legislature correctly acknowledged, House Bill 446 will help the industry to service its customers (the vast majority of whom have already visited out-of-state casinos) in a way they have grown used to in a gaming environment. We appreciate the public's concerns and we will work hard to ensure that the provisions of the new law are subject to rigorous control and oversight.

DAVID JONAS
President and Chief Operating Officer
Philadelphia Park Casino
Bensalem, Pa.

---

Carter's blather

In reference to Tina Whitehead's Dec. 20 letter stating that Jimmy Carter's book should be read with an "open mind" ("For the Sake of Peace, Please Read Carter's Book With an Open Mind"): I guess that in the new liberal (excuse me, I meant to use the term "progressive") lexicon, an "open mind" actually means "empty head."

I say that because anyone who would put any weight to the words or thoughts of easily the most incompetent statesmen of this or any other century has, as I said, an "empty head."

I wish Mr. Carter would just fade away into the dark past of the 1970s when inflation was hovering around 13 percent, and we combated high fuel costs by wearing an extra sweater. I can only wonder what his solution would have been had sheep been able to vote, and if I know the Democrats they probably did vote -- twice.

THOMAS MAZULA
Ross

---

Carter's case

Judging by their Dec. 14 letters criticizing Jimmy Carter and Dan Simpson's Dec. 6 column about his book ("Carter's Clear-Eyed View"), Cyril Wecht ("Beyond the Pale") and Zalman Shapiro ("Carter's Fiction") apparently have not read President Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Unfortunately some members of the Jewish-American community are so passionate in their support of Israel that they, along with our government, refuse to criticize Israeli policy when it takes a wrong turn.

In defense of Mr. Simpson: In his weekly column, he has criticized our government's direction in Iraq, our foreign policy and our failure to build a consensus with other nations. He has shown a thorough understanding of his subject matter in his writing and has made us take a hard look at ourselves. In democratic societies, it is necessary to question our leaders and our government policies. With African Americans denied their civil rights in our country, activism and dissent led to a change.

Let's hope that a change in direction will lead to a more humane treatment of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. President Carter has traveled the world as a champion for human rights. He has worked tirelessly worldwide to advance democratic elections in developing nations. Attempts to silence or discredit the former president are misguided and counterproductive. We need to discuss and confront these issues.

Someone had to speak up for the Christians and Muslims in Palestine, and I applaud President Carter for having the courage to do so.

TED W. SOFIS
Mt. Lebanon

---

Their role

I have been following the story of the Rev. Brent Dugan, the local Presbyterian minister who committed suicide last month, presumably in response to the fact that KDKA-TV was planning to air a story that exposed him as a gay man. As a lesbian and a Presbyterian, my sadness over this senseless death turned to shock and disappointment when I read the Dec. 8 story "Last Letter to Flock Reflected Pastor's Anguish."

The article described the Dec. 7 reading of a letter that the Rev. Dugan wrote to the Pittsburgh Presbytery. At the end of the article, the Rev. James Mead, pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery, is quoted as saying, "I will ask for an apology [from KDKA] and do what I can do to send a message to leave our pastors alone."

Instead of using this tragic event as an opportunity to reflect on and reconsider their anachronistic and homophobic tenets -- including voting in February 2006 to ban the ordination of ministers who are sexually active outside of a heterosexual marriage -- the Pittsburgh Presbytery opted instead to point the finger of blame at KDKA.

Before rushing to condemn others, perhaps the Rev. Mead and his colleagues at the Pittsburgh Presbytery should consider the responsibility that their own organization has in Brent Dugan's death. The Presbytery's long history of supporting the Presbyterian Church (USA) ban on the ordination of sexually active gay people certainly could not have helped the Rev. Dugan as he struggled along on his faith journey. By forcing him to feel "less than" his heterosexual peers, it seems that the Pittsburgh Presbytery was very clear in the message of condemnation and exclusion.

Instead of pointing fingers, isn't it about time the Pittsburgh Presbytery ended its practice of sanctioning discrimination in God's name?

CAROL MULLEN
Edgewood

---

A welcome Promise

Kudos to Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt on "The Pittsburgh Promise" ("Tuition Grants a Lure for City Schools," Dec. 14). It is this kind of forward and novel thinking that will sustain Pittsburgh at the pinnacle of great U.S. cities.

As an administrator at Lynchburg College, I am reminded that over 90 percent of the students at LC and other private universities and colleges receive/require financial aid. Something novel and "out of the box," such as the Pittsburgh Promise, is sorely needed.

JOHN P. STAFFORD
Bedford, Va.

The writer is a former Mt. Lebanon resident.

---

Let the voters judge candidate Dennis Kucinich

The Post-Gazette editorial board seems outraged that Dennis Kucinich should again run for the U.S. presidency ("Kucinich, Again," Dec. 20 editorial), proclaiming that he's nothing more than an egomaniac seeking attention. The PG has the grace to admit that Rep. Kucinich was right about the war in Iraq. You want Mr. Kucinich to represent his constituents' "needs and concerns on Capitol Hill," which his persistent anti-war stance seems to do, given the results of the last election, rather better and more consistently than most of the currently announced contenders for the highest office, who were also elected to represent their constituents in Congress or in governorships.

What seems to outrage you is that he does not wait to be baptized by media attention, to be proclaimed a star (like Barack Obama) or a big fund-raiser (like Hillary Clinton). In other words, he has the temerity to run without media-approved celebrity. The media were similarly outraged by Howard Dean, who dared to run for president without their laying-on-of-hands: It was largely media who ended his candidacy (also anti-war and also a lot more far-sighted than the "electable" Sen. John Kerry) by magnifying his "scream" and declaring over and over that he couldn't win.

When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1982, the Post-Gazette, having decided that I couldn't win, proceeded not to cover my campaign on those grounds. I wonder if the PG has forgotten that it is the people who decide who should govern, who decide which outsize ego is tolerable, whose foresight about war is qualification to run seriously for high office.

LIANE ELLISON NORMAN
Squirrel Hill