Letters to the editor, 04/24/06
Share with others:
Blogs have a role in media, but they steal my time
In her April 12 column about bloggers ("Say It Ain't So"), Ellen Goodman provided an excellent example of Gresham's law applied to information. It provides us with an opportunity to rationalize and visualize the importance of our time.
The blog response to Jill Carroll's nightmare is a perfect example. Gresham's law (named after Sir Thomas Gresham in English Tudor times) states basically that bad money will always drive out good money. When inflation raises its ugly head, hard money (e.g., gold, which keeps its value) is pulled out of circulation while paper money inflates away.
Ms. Goodman states that the Pew Internet & American Life Project estimates that a quarter of Internet users now read blogs. If that isn't driving out reliable information by default, I don't know what is. I believe that blog information is unreliable information. Lazy research (what research?) drives out information. But my point is time, not money -- time lost through unreliable information.
And confusion. David Brooks lets us know periodically in his New York Times column where we should get our perspective -- from those who helped to define our civilization: the Greeks, Romans, the United States' founding fathers. He recommends reading those who grappled with the same issues we face in today's world and provide us with a modus operandi for dealing with them.
I'm not against bloggers per se in the same way that I'm not against pulp or escape fiction. But they are stealing my time. I can go to a local pub and hear the latest "news." There are so many really creative ways to escape briefly.
Sources such as The New York Times, my Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the web sites of other established media (and not television news) provide me with my antidote for Gresham's law.
THOMAS C. RUPPEL
Bethel Park
Iran with bombs?
A very provocative letter was printed on April 17, "My Fellow Americans: We Cannot Bomb Iran to Peace" by Scott Manley. He worried about a KQV poll in which 57 percent of those polled favored nuclear bombs to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The letter did acknowledge that, according to the news reports of Pentagon planning, the weapons under consideration are bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons. They would destroy facilities, though certainly human causalities would result.
Does Mr. Manley think we should wait for a nuclear bomb produced by Iranian madmen to be sneaked into New York, Baltimore, Boston or Washington? This would not be a dirty bomb designed to kill by radiation, but a detonated nuclear blast. If it happens, one would suppose Mr. Manley and others would be willing to destroy Iran's capabilities.
I prefer negotiation. But, negotiation does not exist without the ability to impose actual and uncomfortable problems on the other side. Without the threat of destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, no real progress can be made. Sanctions are impotent, U.N. nonsense talk which helps no one but allows nuclear development to continue.
Mr. Manley needs to ask more questions and think more about the consequences of losing say, a New York, or a Philadelphia.
PAUL E. FRANCIS
McCandless
What's the rush?
In his April 12 Midweek Perspectives piece, "Why We Need a Marriage Amendment," state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, purports that proposed House Bill 2381 puts responsibility for defining marriage into the hands of voters. But he leaves out crucial points.
Voters should be made aware that this proposed bill was rushed through committee without public hearings which were requested by opponents. Hearings provide an opportunity for the people of Pennsylvania and legislators to become better informed on the issues at hand.
Since same-sex marriages are already illegal in Pennsylvania, I wonder why the urgency to push this bill through?I hope it is not to ensure it's on the 2008 presidential election ballot.
Additionally, Rep. Metcalfe states the amendment will not take away any current rights allowed to unmarried couples. Why then is the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposing this bill?
An Ohio court ruled under that state's marriage amendment, unmarried men and women living together were no longer protected by domestic violence laws. In Michigan, a state with identical language to Pennsylvania's proposal, domestic partner health-care coverage offered by state-aided universities is now being banned. We are not just imagining that the consequences would be to take away current protections allowed to Pennsylvania families.
Voters should be offered correct information. A permanent amendment to the constitution is extremely serious and difficult to undo. If passed, Pennsylvanians lose their ability to dialogue on and impact laws on this, creating the very situation Rep. Metcalfe says he opposes.
DANA ELMENDORF
Monroeville
Dodging questions
I listened to "Mayor" Bob O'Connor dance around and avoid answering every question asked of him on WDVE Thursday morning regarding the casino license. It has become increasingly frustrating that neither he, nor any other public officials will come out and support any of the plans.
The way he acted certainly makes me believe "the fix is in" for Harrah's. It makes my blood boil. It almost seemed as if Mr. O'Connor was mad that Isle of Capri has the majority of the public support, and referred to the people supporting Isle of Capri as only "loyal Penguin fans," as if that is a bad thing.
I am a huge Penguin fan, but this decision obviously goes well beyond the Penguins. Having been to a hockey game in Columbus, I have seen what a wonderful environment can be created around an arena. And I would love to see that in Pittsburgh.
C'mon, Bob, if you are for Harrah's, have the guts to say so. If you feel it is the better plan for Pittsburgh, tell us why. Until then, based on all the information that has been made available, I'm for Isle of Capri.
Also, all the politicians who declined to support Isle of Capri will not get my vote come election time. Luckily for Bob, I am not a city resident. I hope all those who are city residents will do so.
DAVE HATHAZY
Moon
Hey, look, here!
It baffles me, really -- the simplest of solutions seem lost on Pittsburgh. Driving the turnpike, it is difficult to see signs of life from the city of Pittsburgh.
On a recent drive back from Washington, D.C., I saw a billboard for the museums of Pittsburgh, hotels and chain restaurants but nothing that sells Pittsburgh itself as a tourist or stay-over destination (Monroeville has that locked up). Where is that great panoramic view or the houses perched on the hills or dining in an elegant restaurant atop Mount Washington, or the green hills from Downtown?
Major cities force you to move through them or around them. Try driving the east-west route through Chicago any day, any time. There may be congestion, but you get a view -- you wonder, what is happening there -- let's stop for lunch and break up this drive or maybe next time we should plan an overnight and take in a show or a museum. It inspires you to see more.
Pittsburgh's perception could be helped by an attractive city campaign, too. People who don't stop -- don't want any part of a city -- would see a positive image that doesn't get out to the public much.
Pittsburgh deserves to feel good about itself, and it needs to show the world how terrific it is. According to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Web site, in 2005 an average of 447,441 cars used the turnpike every day. Let's start with them.
MARY ANDERSON HARTLEY
Lawrenceville
Fathers who abandon families leave a gaping hole
We say it takes a village to raise a child. But there are so many children in need of guidance, love and support that even the village is not large enough to care for all of them.
I don't know when exactly it became acceptable to father a child and then to abandon mother and child. How can anyone think the child will not be adversely affected? Children who are blessed to have both parents in their young lives still live with risk from the streets; but an overwhelming number of children living without fathers actively in their lives are struggling financially and emotionally to find their identities in this life. Why are we denying them their right to a loving, secure and supportive family? Fathers are the earthly image of our loving Father in heaven. What could be more secure than this?
My mother became a widow at age 37, with three children, ages 7, 14 and 18. Because our earliest years were formed by the presence of a loving and strong father, we knew what was expected of us. While struggling financially, we loved and respected our mother; followed her work ethic, did well in school, helped one another and our neighbors. This is what families do in order to survive the perils of life.
Daily we witness the struggles that grandmothers and single mothers endure trying to raise children with absent fathers. These children crave attention, most especially from my husband. They need hugs, cookies, guidance and prayers. We worry about them as they approach the teenage years. Unless they know who they are and whose they are, the streets may get them and that will break our hearts.
THERESA J. SICURO
Greenfield
First Published April 24, 2006 12:00 am
