The Sandcastle land simply isn't wide enough

Regarding Brian O'Neill's Aug. 10 column ("Drawing a Line in the Sandcastle") and Troy Bogdan's Aug. 15 letter ("The Trail Would Be an Asset for Sandcastle"): We have welcomed dozens of trail organizers, county officials, engineers, members of the media and other interested parties to Sandcastle to let them see for themselves the problems with the route they selected for the proposed bike trail.

Mr. O'Neill described Sandcastle as "tucked between the river and the railroad, so parking can be tight." He could have added that the entrance road from The Waterfront to Sandcastle is really squeezed between the park and the railroad tracks. In some places, the property for the entrance road is less than 30 feet wide. Space is needed for two standard 12-foot vehicle travel lanes, a six-foot pedestrian walkway, the proposed 10-foot bike trail and the three-foot safety buffer between the trail and the vehicles: a total required width of 43 feet. Since the land available is only 30 feet wide there is a real problem.

We have reviewed many proposals presented over the last eight years and each time concluded that there is just not enough space available to accommodate the trail and a safe entrance road to Sandcastle. There are many other safety, parking, liability and entrance area issues that may have a solution, but we have yet to see a practical business solution to not having enough land to meet the requirements.

The next time you visit Sandcastle take a close look at the tight access road and try to visualize a 10-foot-wide trail running between the road and the railroad tracks. I hope you will conclude that not having the available land wide enough for a trail does not make us stubborn.

PETER McANENY
President
Kennywood Entertainment
West Mifflin

---

Left unsaid

Regarding "Enough Said: Facts That Speak for Themselves" in the Aug. 10 Forum: I would like to say that these facts do not speak for themselves. Social Security and Medicare were set up as dedicated trust funds quite apart from the general federal budget. Thus, Social Security and Medicare payments were to be made out of revenues collected from payroll taxes and thus it has been since they were instituted.

These are the facts that speak for themselves. They never have used any money from the individual income taxes paid by the citizenry. In the 1960s, however, the waters were muddied by folding Social Security and Medicare into the general budget and national accounting system. The purpose of this was to hide the magnitude of the deficits due to defense spending principally.

Presenting Social Security and Medicare in the way you do as "Facts That Speak for Themselves" is often done with the purpose of advocating the abolition of these programs. It is part of a right-wing economic agenda that falsifies the facts.

MICHAEL DROHAN
Wilkins

---

Right-wing ad

I was disappointed to see a partisan advertisement from the far-right Heritage Foundation presented as "fact" in the Aug. 10 Forum. The table in the "Enough Said" feature compared U.S. spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to the gross domestic products of four foreign countries. If this were an honest comparison, it would have shown our spending as a percent of GDP compared to theirs, also given as a percent of GDP.

Instead, this misleading ad warns of the perils of Congress failing to "reform these programs" and that "left unchecked, they'll eat up all tax revenues within 45 years."

Even worse, the fine print encourages us to find out more about "taking back our fiscal future" at the Heritage Foundation's Web site.

No thanks. I'd rather make Medicare even better and have it cover every U.S. resident. That's a future worth fighting for.

MIKE USMAN, M.D.
Indiana Township

---

When 'facts' aren't

Anyone can take a group of so-called facts, put them into some sort of chart/graph and present them as proof of a particular point of view, or use them to frighten the ill-informed. "Facts" placed out of any context are simply meaningless and there is certainly no context for the "Enough Said" chart in the Aug. 10 Forum. After all, what does it tell us that the U.S. government's big three entitlements are equal to the GDP of Canada, except that it is a large number?

How is it that other industrialized countries (Canada) can provide much more for their citizens without the constant state of crisis that our social programs are supposed to be in? Two major reasons are self-evident, but seldom receive serious consideration. The first is the fact that the United States spends approximately $1 trillion (madness) on its military/intelligence operations (this being more than the next 25 nations in the world combined), and the second is the slashing of progressive tax rates on corporations and high incomes over the past 25 years.

The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, is well known to often use intellectually fraudulent data to advance its conservative agenda such as the privatization of Social Security. It is not "enough said" for the Post-Gazette to publish such data from such a biased source, and I find it, at the very least, disingenuous on your part.

HENRY W. JONES
Moon

---

Opening subtext

While mesmerized watching in awe the stunning performance by the Chinese at the opening of the Summer Olympics, I had one overwhelming thought: America, be afraid. Be very afraid. Your days as the world's superpower are numbered.

ED GRAHAM
North Strabane

---

China's deceit

How dare they! How dare the Chinese substitute another child to lip-synch for a girl who has so much talent simply because her teeth are crooked ("China's Singer Was a Ringer Over Looks," Aug. 13). Would the Chinese use substitutes for their gold medal winners simply because they might not look good? You bet they wouldn't. You go, little Yang Peiyi!

KATHLEEN GARLAND
Greenfield

---

The PG's ethics regarding Wecht story are questionable

The Post-Gazette's decision to feature a front-page story last Sunday impugning Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's medical ethics ("How Wecht Served 2 Sides in Malpractice Suit," Aug. 10) raises only questions about the PG's journalistic ethics.

First, one has to question how a 12-year-old malpractice case involving Dr. Tusharsindhu Chauhan suddenly became the centerpiece for a front-page story. Who would be interested in seeing such an attack at this time? The two disgruntled litigants who clearly fueled the story, Dr. Chauhan and federal agents, did not exactly distinguish themselves in their respective cases and the feds no doubt want to rally support for their plan to subject Dr. Wecht to another trial at precisely the time the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether to preclude that effort. As the saying goes, one might think your reporter would "consider the source" before acting as a surrogate for vindictive agendas.

Second, your readers should know that the PG refused to include a three-paragraph response made on behalf of Dr. Wecht in the Sunday article. Our response included facts showing that there was no substance to the story, but your editor said it was too long. Having refused to print Dr. Wecht's short response, the PG then printed a lengthy 81-paragraph, full-page attack on Dr. Wecht.

Third, the PG deliberately omitted facts, included in both our statement and in documents given to it, showing that three leading experts from Duke Children's Hospital, University of Texas Health Science Center and the University of Minnesota had written extensive reports documenting the substantial malpractice of Dr. Chauhan which caused the death of a young girl. By omitting this aspect from the story, the PG made it appear as if Dr. Chauhan had to settle a meritless malpractice case because Dr. Wecht, after reviewing Dr. Chauhan's treatment of the young girl, correctly and ethically modified his original findings to reflect his opinion that her cause of death was something Dr. Chauhan had not properly diagnosed or treated.

Fourth, the PG knew that Dr. Chauhan settled the malpractice case against him, and that he now admits doing so in the hope his malpractice would not be properly reported. The PG also knew of his vexatious behavior ever since, which included actually suing the parents of the young girl who died in his care, only to be tossed out of court. He then tried to inject his vindictive campaign into Dr. Wecht's trial. The feds wouldn't sponsor him as a witness but now feed your reporter documents about his case to fuel the story. In short, Dr. Chauhan lacks the qualities one looks for in a source to question the ethics of those who brought him to justice.

In the end, it appears that the PG thinks Dr. Wecht should have given a false opinion because Dr. Chauhan hired Dr. Wecht to review his treatment of the young girl. Investigative reporters may well subscribe to a standard of journalistic ethics requiring them to shape a story to favor their "sources." World-class pathologists, such as Dr. Wecht, do not practice such "ethics" when it comes to medical science.

JERRY S. McDEVITT
K&L Gates LLP
Downtown

The writer is Dr. Wecht's attorney in his federal case.

---

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.