Regarding state House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese's commentary "Pa. Democrats Are on the Move" (In Rebuttal, Dec. 30 Forum):

It appears that Rep. DeWeese feels that the citizens of Pennsylvania do not care about the facts. He stated that the Speaker's Reform Commission has implemented 32 reforms as part of reforming the legislative process. Yet we cannot easily find out how any representative has voted the day after a vote has been taken. One would think that by the 21st century, an "open" Legislature would have a bill's roll call available with just one click at the General Assembly's Web site. At present, it takes some digging.

Mr. DeWeese stated that "when I first learned about the bonus allegations. I would do what any corporate executive would do." It appears that he did not know about staff bonuses. What kind of executive does not that a bonus system is in place? If he did know about the bonuses, does he feel that state employees deserve bonuses for doing their jobs?

Mr. DeWeese seems proud that he was able to unseat Speaker John Perzel since he was no friend of reform. Unfortunately, Mr. DeWeese's "reforms" only seem to keep the Legislature's "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours and no one will know" way of doing business intact.

CHARLES E. PREMICK
Hampton

---

The abandonment of the Allegheny library building by Carnegie Library ("City Council Clears Way for New North Side Library," Dec. 28) is a classic example of the institutional arrogance demonstrated many times in Pittsburgh: "We do good work, so we can do whatever we want. We might have public meetings and occasionally even pay attention, but we will do whatever we want."

Before the building was struck by lightning in April 2006, plans for a new North Side library were in the distant future. They used the lightning strike as an excuse to abandon the building. The damage was repaired, but the library remained closed in an effort to pressure North Side residents to accept their plans. They held meetings about the new library with the implied threat that if people did not support them, there would be no North Side library.

The possibility of keeping the first commissioned Carnegie Library in the country operating as a library was never discussed. The historical and architectural value of maintaining the operation was ignored, as was the possibility of raising funds from organizations in Pennsylvania and the rest of the country to cover any excess costs.

If they were interested in serving the community, why is the building still closed, depriving people of a library for at least another year?

I am also concerned that building an inappropriate one-story library on Federal Street is an indication that the Federal North project is really Allegheny Center Phase II -- and, just like Allegheny Center, will be something that North Siders will regret in the future.

ROBERT MALAKOFF
Allegheny West

---

In response to the Dec. 30 letter "Preserving Rights," by John F. DeLallo Jr: I can think of 89 good reasons why the logic used in the aforementioned "Asides" editorial does indeed fly. Eighty-nine is the average number of Americans killed by gun violence per day, according to the Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org).

To use the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and George Washington as justification for the right of the American individual to bear arms is completely absurd. These were, after all, slave owners from slave-owning families. We can only imagine what they said about this practice.

Just because these men played a role in writing the Constitution does not mean that they were always correct. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not the constitutional right of an American citizen.

Curiously, the Second Amendment of the Constitution as passed by the Senate reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I challenge anyone to prove that the wording in this amendment means that the individual and not a standing militia has the right to bear arms. Then -- and only then -- would that person have a leg to stand on when arguing that a gun-free America is unconstitutional.

VALERIE WINSCHEL
Mt. Lebanon

---

I have sympathy for Shawn Pirrung's situation in having his effective asthma medicine become less effective through the use of more planet-friendly ingredients ("Put People First," Dec. 29 letters). But I heartily disagree with his premise that the altering of his medicine because of "supposed" harm to the ozone layer is doing anything other than putting people first.

Indeed we hear often, from reputable sources, that the incidence of serious allergy and asthma is growing. We also hear that there may be links between our increased exposure to pollutants and other chemicals and this increase. It is not a big stretch to suppose that the damage that is being done to our planet on a daily basis will have dire, and perhaps, deadly, consequences for children and our grandchildren, and perhaps for ourselves.

We cannot ignore the effects that our required changes will have on the poor and the elderly. We must, however, act as a whole people and focus on making sure that future generations have a habitable planet.

SHARON HICKS
Mt. Lebanon

---

I had a good laugh when Alco Parking President Merrill Stabile said that his company did not raise its rates when the parking tax jumped to 50 percent in 2004 ("Alco Says It Won't Cut Parking Rates," Dec. 29).

Technically, that is true. I had a monthly lease in one of Mr. Stabile's North Shore lots at the time, and Alco did not raise the rate. Instead they closed the lot and forced everyone into an adjoining lot which was about 50 percent more expensive.

So let's be honest: Alco really did not "eat a good portion of that tax." They still passed it on to their customers. They just found a clever way to do so without raising rates.

In their defense: What kind of a city imposes a 50 percent parking tax, and then tries to act like they are doing everyone a huge favor when they cut it to 40 percent?

TIM HANNAN
South Fayette

---

Your Dec. 26 article regarding Mitzvah Day at the United Jewish Federation shows the hypocrisy of the event ("Mitzvah Day Catching on as Community Service Event for Jewish Volunteers").

A Mitzvot is not "giving back." They are the 613 commandments G_d gave Moses and his people at Sinai through Torah. The word Mitzvot or Mitzvah means "commandment." We as Jews are obligated to perform them and to expect nothing in return.

The Mitzvah Day appears to be all about self-gratification, not the true reason for the Mitzvot. G_d gave us these commandments to help us navigate through this world and to show us how the mundane actions in our lives can be a connection to him. "The commandments" -- Mitzvot -- come from the word tzavtah, which means "connection."

In other words, through the commandments, we connect with G_d.

This is the message that is lost through the Mitzvah Day activity. Mitzvot are not necessarily nice deeds or community service deserving of recognition. Mitzvot are our obligation as Jews, in our daily life to connect to G_d.

BERYL SHOLOM TZVI
Upper St. Clair

---

Your comments concerning Barack Obama in the Dec. 30 editorial "The Next President" are, to put it mildly, surprising.

To say "with him, there remains, unfortunately in our view, the question of whether Americans would elect an African American as president" -- and then to leave that question hanging without answering it -- implicitly suggests to readers that:

a) Voting for Obama will be pointless as he will not be elected.

b) Americans (presumably you meant non-black Americans?) are too racist to vote for a black president.

You may think it "unfortunate," but hand-wringing will not change the second suggestion, and the first suggestion will be a self-fulfilling prophecy in unwitting support of racist non-black Americans.

You did not question whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as president in your comments about Hillary Clinton. Yet this is an equally complex issue.

I am a U.K. citizen living here and so cannot vote. But I have a keen interest in how people have access to information and opinion that helps them cast their votes. None of your comments about the two Democratic frontrunners, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, were about their policies and the implications for America and the rest of the world.

But this is what people need in order to make up their minds. Otherwise the choice would come down to who has the best advertising or soundbites -- or who is most "acceptable" in terms of their gender or race, when it is clear that being white and/or male is scarcely a guarantee of having great policies.

HILARY ROBINSON
Lawrenceville