It is ironic that whereas state Secretary of Education Gerald L. Zahorchak and Karen Farmer White advocate that schools "Teach for Success: Pennsylvania Must Make Sure That All Grads Are Ready for Life" (Jan. 14 Perspectives), that same goal was undermined by the State Board of Education in terms of world language education.

The two wrote that Pennsylvania has a "patchwork of vastly different graduation standards." They say lack of readiness results in "an inability to compete in the ever-competitive global economy and a loss of opportunities and wages. This affects Pennsylvania's overall economy and competitiveness, leaving the commonwealth at a disadvantage."

While these words were written to support graduation exams, they are also true for world language standards, which the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission recently voted to leave out of the state's curriculum regulations.

In 1993, a Pennsylvania curriculum outcome mandated that to graduate, students must attain an intermediate low level of speaking proficiency as measured on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Oral Proficiency Scale in one language other than English. It allowed a 12-year phase-in and would now be in effect. The outcome was rigorous, measurable and attainable. Unfortunately, outcomes were thrown out and not all were replaced by standards.

Without at least one world language standard, serious educational inequities will continue. We call on state board members to reverse their decision and provide leadership, support and funding for world language standards so that all Pennsylvania students may benefit from our increasingly global economy.

THEKLA FALL
Mt. Lebanon

The writer is a past president of the Pennsylvania State Modern Language Association. The letter also was signed by current president Ellen Irish of King of Prussia and past presidents Frank Mulhern of Lansdale, Phyllis Rzodkiewicz of Erie and Bonnie Youngs of Squirrel Hill.

---

Letter writer Joe Schreiber is not exactly correct when he states "There has not been one documented case of voter fraud, anywhere" ("Vote Blocker," Jan. 25). As far as I could tell in about five minutes of research on Google, 87 people have been convicted of ballot fraud in the United States since 2002. I do not know if this figure is 100 percent precise, but all signs indicate the number is greater than zero.

While I agree this does not seem like an earth-shattering problem, part of the issue here is that knowing or suspecting that fraud is occurring is far easier than actually finding someone to prosecute. If I fill out six fraudulent registration cards, how would you ever bring me to justice? My registration might claim that I am a tabby cat from Squirrel Hill, so good luck. Think this doesn't happen? Confirmed instances of voting by both nonhumans and dead humans alike were part of the evidence supplied to the Supreme Court recently.

The bottom line is that there is no possible way to know how big of a problem this is because we have made virtually no effort to limit fraud. I think that our government should strive to ensure that all citizens over the age of 18 get every opportunity to vote. I would also hope that they would work to make sure that you get to do so only once.

MICHAEL HOLZWORTH
Washington, Pa.

---

This is in response to Mark Byrne's Jan. 30 letter ("No to National ID") in reference to the Real ID Act and his opposition to the act. He has every right to oppose. But Mr. Byrne is very naive to think that the Real ID Act is going to infringe on his rights.

After reading his letter to the editor, I spent just 20 minutes on the Internet. In that 20 minutes, I know Mr. Byrne's street address, his telephone number and that he is a prolific letter writer to many of the regional newspapers in the Tri-State area. I also was able to determine his political affiliation; where he stands on the war in Iraq; his opinion of the current state of affairs in local, state and federal government; and how he feels about the educational process in a local school district.

Mr. Byrne's naivete as to what information is available is stunning. If you have a job, a Social Security number, a telephone, a credit card or a driver's license, then your life is open to anyone who happens to be able to use the Internet.

BRUCE KARGER
Hampton

---

Two persistent inaccuracies cropped up in the letter "Help Your Bottom Line by Purchasing Local Products" (Jan. 23) -- namely, that "local food" is often "organically grown" and "cheaper."

First, it is worth noting that no connection exists between "local" and "organic." Local is a subjective term and is unrelated to the actual method of farming, whereas organic is measurable and -- thanks to a federal standard -- enforceable.

Granted, "organic" does indeed imply a whole system, originally intended to reflect a level of purity and ecological integrity that goes beyond the simple omission of chemicals (and should not be confused with the popular marketing term, "sustainable"). Regardless, organic is technically unrelated to geographic location -- nonorganic produce from up around the bend is still nonorganic.

Second, the connection between local production and cost is a bit tenuous. For example, although most of our customers live or work within 25 miles of our farm, we nevertheless bear the full costs of production and distribution, just on a micro rather than a macro scale. Our prices are based on our variable costs of production (for example, taking into consideration the labor involved to grow, harvest and process a single squash as opposed to a pound of mixed salad greens), and we do not use labor-saving chemicals or imported seasonal laborers to cut costs.

So, please support the organic farm nearest to you -- it may not be the cheapest option, but it will certainly be the healthiest and purest option for you and our region's farmland.

EVAN VERBANIC
Co-Owner
Cherry Valley Organics
Smith

Cherry Valley Organics is a certified organic farm near Burgettstown, Washington County.

---

To those who think government is the answer to health care:

What? Are you serious? You gotta be kidding me. You mean another government program like Social Security, welfare, our public school system? No thanks!

How about stopping the government from strangling the ingenuity and creativity of free people and a free market from coming up with ideas and solutions to solve our country's problems? Where we choose, we decide and we make the demands.

Please, not another high-taxed, highly regulated, pay-more-for-less government program. It's time we stop the oppressive, corruptive claws of the government from digging into every phase of our lives and our market.

DAVID OBERLEY
Glassport

---

I am appalled by the arrogance of Joshua Sebrasky of PennPIRG and his thought that all Pennsylvanians would benefit by yet another increase in the cigarette tax ("Health Benefits," Jan. 23 letters).

True, many of us would benefit from the windfall of such an additional tax, but for what reason should smokers alone bear that burden? A brief Google search of statistics tells me that the "smoking-related" illnesses treated through Medicaid programs could just as easily be attributed to obesity, alcoholism and simple inactivity, all of which carry the additional burdens of diabetes, liver disease and circulatory maladies.

A report on the National Center for Health Statistics Web site, while noting the steady decrease in smoking, also acknowledges the severity of our increasing rates of obesity. Many in the health-care industry consider it an "epidemic." The report also acknowledges that our decreasing physical activity has the potential to be an "effective target for health policy reform."

Tax cigarettes more if need be, but let's not forget about fat-laden fast food or store-bought convenience food with a higher-than-average fat or salt content ... increase the tax on those to 30 percent or greater. Let's also add another buck onto alcohol and beer, but don't forget to equally tax computers and TVs. Cars? Obviously, they need to be taxed some more, as we would all be healthier if we walked or biked to work.

Seriously, why doesn't some expert, somewhere, look into the benefits of taxing fat, lazy drunks. As Mr. Sebrasky says, the taxes would only serve to deter us from smoking ... or likewise, poor eating habits, inactivity and drinking. We would "save countless lives as well as millions of dollars."

SUZANNE WOLFE
Whitehall

---

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.