Are we tired of getting overcharged by the oil companies and the indecisive action by our government representatives? They are doing nothing about the high price of fuel.

Our lawmakers have been telling the American people since the 1960s that this country needs to develop alternative fuels and break away from our dependence on oil from the OPEC nations. They have done nothing to accomplish this.

There was talk that something might happen between the United States and Iran, and the price of gas at the pump went up 10 cents. The money-hungry gas companies used this for an excuse to raise the price.

Our government is being kept hostage by the oil companies here and abroad. We worry more about the effect on the animals if we drill in Alaska than we do on the effect of the high price of fuel to the people.

What do the OPEC nations buy from the United States? Do we hold them hostage by increasing the price of the products they buy from the United States and do we control the supply? Why not?

Exxon Mobil again announced record profits. The others had record profits too. The oil companies are gouging the American people. They are controlling the price by keeping the supply down just like the OPEC nations are doing. This is also one of the reasons the economy is in bad shape.

We are having an election and none of the candidates have mentioned anything about the high price of fuel and what they will do about it.

SAM PALLOTTI
Baldwin Borough

---

Two March 17 letters sought to explain the rising cost of fuel.

Dan Bednarz ("Peak Oil Problem") was about the idea of peak oil. How can the world be unaware that oil is not a limitless resource?

When I was an elementary school student in the early 1950s, a science teacher told us that we were in for trouble, as the fossil fuels we depend on will run out. The teacher was speaking of coal, but it was easy to realize as I grew older that it was also about oil.

Dan Woods' letter discussed the lack of refinery capacity ("Big Oil Isn't Increasing Oil-Refining Capacity"), and I think there is a definite tie between the two.

Why would they build new refineries when they know that the raw materials will run out before the investment cost is paid? The oil companies are reaping big profits because they know their time is limited.

MARIE SCHURR
Hickory

---

When the Israeli Defense Forces made the recent incursion into the Gaza strip to destroy rocket launchers that fired rockets into cities in Israel, unfortunately they caused many civilian casualties. The IDF did not specifically target the civilians, but since Hamas placed the launchers in residential areas those people became casualties. However, the Israelis did not celebrate when they heard about the civilians being killed.

When the Gazan residents heard that one of their terrorists killed eight young Israeli seminarians and severely injured many more, they took to the streets in celebration, firing rifles in the air, passing out candy and candles.

How can these sorry people be considered civilized? Just barbaric!

MEYER ROSENTHAL
Wilkinsburg

---

Regarding the March 21 article "Rooney's Rationale in Abuse Cases Leads to Criticism": Steelers chairman Dan Rooney is right. My father was a Pittsburgh police officer. Many times at our dinner table he would have my sister, brother and I recite a phrase: "Circumstances alter cases, time changes issues." How apropos.

I believe Mr. Rooney has wisely used this type of reasoning in dealing with this current issue. Wouldn't we all like the benefit of this phrase? Under the leadership of the Rooney family the Pittsburgh Steelers have retained a respectful image. In this day and age it's a marvelous goal.

PATRICIA FALOON
Beechview

---

Your editorial "Ferraro's Slur" (March 13) perceptively questions Geraldine Ferraro's intent. Such an "honest" statement first evokes racism, suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama's appeal is due to color. It also raises doubts among those who want a Democrat in the White House and believe that Sen. Obama is better presidential material. Will racism prevail, as the machine is suggesting?

I volunteered with the John Edwards campaign, not because he is white or male, but because of his stand on American jobs, trade, health care and the environment. As I reluctantly removed my John Edwards bumper sticker, I wondered about racism and sexism and November.

Then I heard about some golf event and thought: Americans accept a black man as almost a "god" in the most "establishment" and WASP-y sport. And Western Pennsylvanians seem to have no room for racism when it comes to football.

Trying to look for distinctions in critical issues such as war, trade, jobs and health care, I find this slur to be a distraction akin to the desperately Machiavellian spin in Sen. Hillary Clinton's attack of Sen. Obama's inspirational eloquence as "words, not action," and in the absurd entitlement argument that one needs to have been "in" the White House to deserve to be in the White House. There are real policy distinctions, but at the end of the day, I have to admit that, just as golf fans compare Tiger Woods to "everyone else," I would so much rather hear Mr. Obama on the evening news than Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain.

JEANNE CECIL
West View

---

Regarding "Ferraro's Slur" (March 13 editorial): I beg to differ. What Geraldine Ferraro said was not a racial slur. She did not say that race was "the principal factor" in Barack Obama's appeal. Race, like sex, religion, national origin, etc. is but one part of many that make up one's being. As you aptly point out, one need "only to look at the fate of previous African-American presidential candidates -- the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples -- to see that Mr. Obama's appeal is not (just) because he is black."

But there is nothing racist, sexist, etc., if -- all other things being relatively equal -- one takes into consideration race, sex, etc., when deciding to vote for someone (as opposed to vote against someone, which all too frequently still happens). And there is nothing racist, sexist, etc. in pointing these facts out, as Ms. Ferraro did.

Some people have voted for Sen. Obama because he is an African American and otherwise well-qualified to be president. Others have voted for Sen. Clinton because she is a female and otherwise well-qualified. Being looked at as black or female has a history of negativity. But being black or female may portend a revitalizing new perspective in a candidate and president.

SAM WILSON
Monroeville

---

In the March 13 editorial "Clearing the Smoke," you state your opposition to sensible exemptions in the smoking ban by explaining that bar and casino workers shouldn't have to change jobs to avoid smoke. Well, why shouldn't they change jobs, if the atmosphere is not to their liking?

People with peanut allergies don't work in peanut-processing plants. Those without driver's licenses don't drive taxis. People who don't like children shouldn't teach school. Our lifestyle choices influence our career choices every day.

It is not an unreasonable hardship for smoke-averse waitresses and bartenders to seek employment in a different environment. And if you drive out smoking patrons and their dollars, many of those jobs will go "up in smoke" anyway.

MICHAEL DAVID PLITTMAN
Greenfield

---

Regarding the editorial "Clearing the Smoke" (March 13), the Post-Gazette has it exactly right: a statewide smoking ban must include all workplaces. Not some, not most, but all of Pennsylvania's workers should be protected by the legislation. They must not be required to choose between a paycheck and their health.

And it is their health that is at stake. The U.S. Surgeon General's 2006 report on the health consequences of involuntary tobacco smoke exposure made that clear. The risks to health are more than can -- or should -- be expected to be taken by those simply trying to earn a living.

It is important to realize that while the public hearing period is over, Pennsylvania's residents do still have an opportunity to comment. The next week or so is critical to the health of Pennsylvania's workers; the House and Senate are expected to finalize the Smoke-Free Pennsylvania Act by the end of the month. E-mails and phone calls may help. The bill should be passed without exemptions -- so that the health of Pennsylvania workers may be protected, and we can all breathe easier.

HEIDI GREEN
Research Communications Manager
ReSET (Reduce Smoking Exposure to Tobacco) Center
University of Pittsburgh
Oakland

---