If anyone is interested in why we have a problem of illegal immigration in this country, Dan Simpson's Dec. 12 column ("A Mean-Spirited Season") supplies a big part of the answer.

According to Mr. Simpson, because the vast majority of Americans are the descendants of people who legally immigrated to this country, we have no right to complain about those who are doing so illegally today.

There were no exclusionary immigration laws in 1888, when my grandfather came to this country; that is not, however, a reason to justify contravention of the laws that exist today. Let's face it: In 1888, we had no significant problem with drug smugglers, terrorists and other criminal types that lurk in the shadows of our global economy. And while the vast majority of illegal aliens don't fall into those categories, our nation cannot afford not to protect itself against those that do.

Our failure to act against illegal immigration 40 years ago, when it might have been possible to retain control of our borders, results in major part from the attitude of liberals like Mr. Simpson, who just plain don't believe in immigration laws.

Of course it also results as well from the hypocrisy of conservatives, who, while pretending to support effective border controls, managed to prevent them from being implemented in order to protect the interests of their capitalist friends who wanted low-wage labor.

Of course, in the end, we are going to have to deal with the problem we have created. Mr. Simpson, on this, is right: We cannot just seal our borders and send all the illegals home in a shrimp boat.

DOUG BURNS
Mount Washington

---

Dan Simpson's Dec. 19 column ("Climbing Down on Climate Change") overlooks two important facts.

1) During the Clinton-Gore administration, the U.S. Senate passed unanimously a resolution forbidding the government from signing the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control, primarily because developing nations like India and China were not required to participate and because the technology for substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants was not available at the time.

It is unlikely that a Gore administration could have reversed this action.

2) In the interim, the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on research into the required technology. Much of this work, still ongoing, has been done at the Pittsburgh-based National Energy Technology Laboratory. One outcome is the development of the FutureGen process for generating power from coal with no net emissions of carbon dioxide. The first commercial scale application of this technology is planned for installation in Illinois, as reported in the same issue of the Post-Gazette ("Mattoon, Ill., Picked for FutureGen Pollution-Free Coal Plant").

ALFRED MANN
Highland Park

---

The Dec. 18 letter by Liane Ellison Norman ("Scared to Death") should have been printed on the funny pages rather than in the Letters to the Editor. When she contends that global warming is a more pressing issue for the United States and the world at large than terrorism, she illustrates the disconnect between extreme liberalism and common sense.

I expect that, if the worldwide coverage of 9/11 or the subway bombings in Spain do not convince one of the immediate dangers of terrorism, then nothing will. One does not need a doctorate to understand the priority of human life when you have such compelling evidence.

The only group that warrants nearly the disdain as the terrorist is the intellectual liberal as they do their best to change others while keeping their lifestyles intact.

They are full of advice, though they fall far short on personal action. They sell books written on dead trees yet chide the logging industry. They teach in institutions heated by natural gas and funded by fuel taxes yet scold oil companies. The real inconvenient truth is that this Republican drives a Toyota Corolla to do my part while Al Gore flies in private jets which expel more harm in one trip than does my Corolla all year.

When Ms. Norman writes of a free nation's need to work with terrorists to solve global warming, I hope she, herself, has volunteered for a trip to Afghanistan or Iraq to do so! I'll pledge $100 to send her.

JACQUELYN ADAMIAK
O'Hara

---

I read E.J. Dionne Jr.'s Dec. 5 column ("Raising Taxes") and thought about the cry of our citizenry for "a change in direction" of government. But how can this change happen when we have been duped into believing that smaller government is better and that taxes are nothing but highway robbery?

We want government services, national health coverage, infrastructure improvements, better monitoring of imported goods and all the rest, but heaven forbid that we pay for any of it through taxes.

People long for the days of World War II leadership; but do we realize that the war was not won with the last bullet fired on Germany or the last bomb dropped on Japan? We would have faced the same kind of unmanageable insurgency in those countries that we are facing in Iraq.

WWII was ended as much by foreign aid as it was ended by B-29s and Sherman tanks. The money infused into Japan and Germany allowed them to break the poverty and destitution that would have fostered insurgent behavior. Those programs cost our country billions in tax dollars, and the citizens of the "Greatest Generation" were citizens enough to willingly pay those taxes.

As long as we continue to believe the lies about government and taxes, our country will continue its downward spiral into the abyss of mediocrity. Think back to what this nation accomplished before the conservative revolution and what has not been accomplished since.

JOHN BROBST
Bradford Woods

---

I think Frederick Rokasky is on to something when he suggests we need to quit shirking our duties, crying about our taxes, and take a refresher course in civic responsibility ("It's Our Duty to Fund Government Responsibilities," Dec. 8 letters).

Years back, we worked our butts off for Big Coal, Big Steel and Big Glass. We argued relentlessly about how to make a better city. Even though the big companies paid a lot of our taxes, we were proud to pay ours, too, and we stepped up to the plate when we had to.

Today we complain about our fair share while we build enormously expensive ballparks, centers and halls, and pay other people enormous salaries to entertain us while we sit on our cans and gripe.

We need to build our roads, fix our bridges, lay new water lines, get the sewage out of our rivers and expand our transit. We need to quit subsidizing wealthy corporations who build pretty buildings and provide low-paying jobs, need to stop subsidizing out-of-town developers to provide upscale housing for affluent professionals in the condominiums of their dreams, need to forget about searching for slick slogans that advertise Utopia-on-the-Cheap.

Pittsburgh was built by people who worked hard, griped a lot, squeezed every nickel, but paid their share, and -- though they wouldn't have thought of it that way -- valued civic responsibility.

JON SMITH
Banksville

---

Regarding Maureen Dowd's Dec. 20 column, "Aging in Public: The Double Standard Rears Up and Picks Apart Hillary's Looks": I am not at all surprised that this issue of female aging came to be an issue in the campaign.

I was born in 1939 and have faced this combination of age and sex discrimination all of my life. I have chosen to ignore it and go on with my life. Many of the men who felt that I was too old are now deceased and I persist and am admired by the male survivors.

In days gone by, my surprisingly healthy good looks would have raised suspicion that I am a witch. I would need to fear being burned at the stake. Luckily, I live in a state in which we are allowed the freedom to live as we chose.

Ms. Dowd's male colleague was right on in his assessment of why men look better than women at certain ages. If a woman lives in poverty and bears many children, she cannot expect a long, healthy life span. In Africa, where this condition exists, many women die in childbirth. In contemporary society, where women have a choice of how many children to bear, we have women living as long and as healthy lives as men. In fact, most outlive men.

I feel it is time to stop judging human beings by their looks and decide on how their intellect and leadership will enhance our chance to lead decent, healthy and happy lives. I know many men who admire Hillary Clinton and feel she is the person who can lead us out of the financial blackness the current administration has pushed us into. These are intelligent and thoughtful men.

These are the "male survivors" I now associate with.

HILDA (AMY) ROSENBERG
Leet