Nonsmokers have always been inconvenienced

If there were a contest for "America's Most Retrogressive City," Pittsburgh would win hands down. Don't believe me? Read the May 1 story "Smoking Ban Fires Up Bar Owners, Patrons." Allegheny County officials and organizations supporting the ban, which is again on hold pending a court appeal, are only trying to better the community for everyone. Yet some residents are stuck in a prehistoric, deep-cough dimension, offering nothing but resistance.

In the PG article, Bill Martin, owner of Dee's Cafe, one of 53 local establishments granted a waiver to the ban, says nonsmokers can choose not to enter his bar. As a nonsmoker, I'll be happy to oblige. Does Mr. Martin, or any other bar owner opposed to the ban, realize how much business from nonsmokers they've lost over the years? My nonsmoking friends and I prefer to give our hard-earned money to businesses that actually care about their employees and about the community as a whole.

And how selfish is Valentina Perri, a South Side resident also quoted in the article? She says that having to go outside "every couple of minutes" to smoke will "be horrible" and will disrupt the "whole social interaction" between her and her friends. Ms. Perri, I have some advice for you: If you don't want to be disrupted, then quit smoking.

Nonsmokers have been inconvenienced and unofficially excluded from smoky dance clubs, bars and other public places for centuries. Isn't it about time for Pittsburgh to embrace change and to let smoke-free winds blow us in a healthier, more progressive, direction?

TOM INTERVAL
Sewickley

---

Our time has come

What do you expect the response to be to the long-overdue smoking ban when you interview smokers and bar owners afraid of the unknown ("Smoking Ban Fires Up Bar Owners, Patrons," May 1)? Perhaps it would have been a more balanced assessment had the reporter also asked the nonsmoking majority what we think. I think the overwhelming response would be -- finally, we don't have to choose between breathing and going out in public!

EMILY GARRETT KUDRYTSKI
Bloomfield

---

Will go elsewhere

I just printed off the list of establishments where my rights as a smoker will not be taken away (those that have been granted a waiver by the county health department), in case an appeal by two Pittsburgh restaurants is unsuccessful. The places on the list will get my business as will Washington, Beaver and Westmoreland counties.

DOLLY ROTH
Pennsbury

---

Butt-laden walkways

As a smoker, I'm OK with the smoking ban. I've been to many cities where smoking is not allowed indoors and found it very refreshing. I would just like to know what the city plans on doing with the new problems that are going to arise from this ban.

It's a Friday or Saturday night in the South Side, the bars are packed as always and people are walking up and down the streets. With the ban, you will have every smoking patron lining the sidewalks smoking, making it hard for people to walk.

Also, does the city plan on adding places for people to put the added butts that were being put into ashtrays in the bars? I can see a sidewalk/street that is completely littered with cigarette butts on Sunday morning while people are walking with their children to church. I've heard so much about putting the ban into effect but nothing about what will be done in the aftermath.

MICHAEL CATULLO
South Park

---

Rendell's speeding

OK, the governor ordered his state-police chauffeurs not to exceed 80 mph unless passing a vehicle or in an emergency ("Rendell Says He Still Feels Need for Speed," April 26 Web; "Fast Eddie," April 30 editorial). Does he officially have the right to break the traffic laws, or is it just a perk that he not be charged?

Do his drivers have the obligation to follow the speed limit when not responding to an emergency? Do they have the option? If the governor orders them to exceed the speed limit, is the governor breaking the law? If he does order them, and a driver refuses, will his job be affected?

Does the governor have the responsibility to encourage the drivers in the commonwealth to obey the law? Or does the governor have the obligation to point out that his highways are unsafe at the posted limits? Does he believe that we should all speed up on the highways to be safe? Will he recommend an increase in the maximum speed limit to 80 mph, unless passing another vehicle? If he does, will he order his drivers to obey the new limit?

If I am caught speeding, and I tell the trooper I was following the governor's advice, should I be cited? Should it matter if I'm wearing my seatbelt? Should it matter if I was passing someone going 79 mph? Would it matter that I have emergency driver's training if I'm not responding to an emergency? Should it?

PETER B. BALFE
Brookline

---

It's up to parents

In regard to the Federal Communications Commission wanting Congress to regulate television ("FCC Wants All TV Guided by Congress," April 27): This is a bad idea.

As a father of two children under 10 years old, it is my job to regulate what they watch and listen to, what video games they play and for how long on all of them. I do not need nor do I want the government to make this decision for me.

If something comes on the radio or TV, I have the responsibility to turn it off if it is something that I don't want my children or myself to watch or listen to. The government is spending enough time wasting our money in the attempt to make decisions that we are capable of. The reality is there has always been violence in our world and television is not the contributor. How many backwater countries are there where there isn't television, and they are more violent than we are?

Leave the regulation to the individuals. The best way to remove an unwanted show from TV is low ratings.

PAUL CELLA JR.
McKeesport

---

Columnist uses the illogic of King George

In response to the column by Dan Simpson ("Disarm America?" April 29 Perspectives), I submit that Dan Simpson should be disarmed.

His idea negates any sacrifice made by the Minutemen at Concord, Mass. It should be noted that the British told their citizens to store their weapons at the Concord armory. I am sure Gen. Gage also told the citizens the rifles and pistols would be safe and well protected, and the king's subjects could draw them to hunt with when needed. It should also be noted that the British moved on Concord armory to confiscate those weapons on April 19, 1775, when Gen. Gage decided to stifle patriot opinions.

Now Dan Simpson proposes those exact procedures using the exact logic as King George and Gen. Gage. To which I now submit that Dan Simpson should be stripped of his rights under the first 10 amendments since he cares not a whit about defending ours.

His right of free speech should be removed from him forthwith. This man has the logic and arguments that made King George famous. What's next, close the opposition press?

JOHN K. BEDNAR
Baldwin Borough

---

Tell me he's joking

I've just finished reading the Dan Simpson column "Disarm America?" (April 29) and am not sure if this was an attempt at humor or if he and the paper have lost their minds.

Maybe in his career as a diplomat Mr. Simpson has spent too much time out of this country and forgotten we have a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. His plan destroys several basic, God-given rights spelled out in the Constitution, among which are the right to own firearms, the right to be secure in our possessions and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

We have been unable to secure our borders against massive numbers of illegals coming across, as well as a mountain of drugs annually, so how does Mr. Simpson propose to make us secure against smuggling of firearms? We saw once how successful prohibition of alcohol was. I'm sure the next Al Capone wannabe is rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of the fortune he'll make by smuggling and manufacturing firearms.

Next, where does Mr. Simpson propose we house what could be millions of firearms owners sentenced to a year of imprisonment for each firearm? Who is going to pay to support, feed, house, guard and provide medical care for that many people during their prison terms?

Last, if Mr. Simpson still believes this is a good idea, I'd like to suggest he be the first through the door of the first house his proposed storm-trooper brigade raids. Since it's his idea, let him take the brunt of attempted enforcement.

TIM GOOSMAN
Washington, W.Va.

---

We receive more letters than we can fit into the limited space on the editorial page, so we'd like to share some additional letters with our Post-Gazette Web site readers.

---

If Congress has a strong mandate, why would it back down?

Your April 22 editorial ("Hang Tough: Congress Has a Powerful Public Mandate on Iraq") argues that the Democratically controlled Congress should not "lose its nerve" in pushing its war funding bill that mandates a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, a provision President Bush opposes. To all but the PG, this begs an obvious question: If Congress has such a "powerful public mandate" then why should there be any risk of Congress backing down?

The PG later argues that there is nothing more of value to be gained by further U.S. troop involvement in Iraq. Fine, but if that's the PG position, why not show the same courage demanded of Congress by calling for elimination of funding now?

All of this suggests that both Congress and the PG both realize that voters, while ambivalent about the war, aren't as keen on losing it as, say, Sen. Harry "War Is Lost" Reid. The fact that PG editors must resort to intellectually dishonest partisan cheerleading tells you all you need to know about Congress' supposedly strong political position. That the PG would subvert its editorial page to actually do so tells you all you need to know about the PG.

DOUGLAS POWELL
Coraopolis

---

Inappropriate memorial

I was disgusted by the picture on the Post-Gazette's April 23 front page of a memorial to the Virginia Tech mass murderer. This memorial stone never should have been included along with the ones to his victims. And, in fact, there should be no memorial for him. This fellow was nothing but a coward who, most likely, would never have faced his victims one-on-one without the use of weapons.

In my opinion this is no different than a plaque at the Holocaust Museum commemorating Hitler.

Should anyone try to excuse Seung-Hui Cho by saying he was mentally ill, I can only reply that, without question, so was Hitler.

ROBERT MATCHETT
Zelienople

---

Mister Rogers deserves better

When was the last time someone from the Pittsburgh International Airport administration walked over to the Mister Rogers display and really looked at it? I am very proud to have grown up in Pittsburgh. I am very proud to say that I grew up in the same Neighborhood as Mister Rogers. I am not proud of the Mister Rogers display in Pittsburgh International Airport.

There are letters missing from the title "Pittsburgh is Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." The video display is not working. There is a big dent in one side. It looks like a luggage cart ran into it. All of these things can be fixed. The display can be dusted and freshened up. I am not proud of the state of disrepair of a display that should sparkle and welcome each child who enters the airport.

How much money would it cost to fix it? I am willing to contribute to the repairs needed, and I am sure that other people would be willing to assist if cost is an issue.

Please don't wait too long to fix this mistake. Every day new visitors arrive and depart from Pittsburgh International Airport. Every day children view the Mister Rogers display. Please make this display as special as it should be in honor of Fred Rogers.

I recently flew into Pittsburgh International Airport on my way to visit family. I always stop at the Mister Rogers display. The state of the exhibit brought tears to my eyes. When I departed from the airport, I could not bear to walk past it but promised myself that I would send this letter

I hope that when I visit your airport this summer, I will be proud of the Mister Rogers exhibit.

JUDI MORROW
Tulsa, Okla.

---

Please reconsider roadside displays

It drives me crazy when people put flowers, teddy bears, etc., where someone died or was killed. Your relative, friend, etc., is not at that telephone pole, intersection or curve in the road. Go to the cemetery.

Wouldn't it be better if you took the money that you spent on the plastic flower/cross/teddy bear and gave it to the family or donated to a charity? I hate driving down a road and seeing where people died. Go to the cemetery.

BARBARA CAPP
Ross

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.

---