Letters to the editor
Share with others:
The newest talking point seems to be "Why can't Obama close the deal?" For those who support Hillary Clinton, the better question should be "Why can't she?"
Pennsylvania was tailor-made to her strengths -- older, undereducated, white voters. Yet her more than 20-point lead fell to under 10 points once the voters got to know more about Barack Obama. Even with the whole Rendell machine behind her, her lead was cut in half.
She was ordained the nominee and had nearly all the superdelegates that she currently has long before the first vote was even cast in this race. Yet even with decades of name recognition, and the most powerful political machines behind her, she can't close this deal!
Could it be that just having the right last name isn't enough? Or, perhaps it's just that we've all had our fill of the Clintons?
I was appalled by the story regarding a student who was beaten on a school bus while students looked on and may have even recorded the beating on cell phones ("Police Are Likely to File Charges in Student Attack on School Bus," April 24).
How can this be happening? How is it that not a single student on that bus made a reasonable effort to stop it? Whether or not a "verbal altercation" occurred prior, it does not diminish the heinous nature of this attack.
I hate to believe that these students did not believe they had any responsibility at all toward the teen being beaten. As Albert Einstein said, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
I believe the teen who inflicted the beating should be held fully responsible for his actions, and I don't believe it should stop there. All of those who chose not to help in any way, and especially those who kept help from being offered, should be held responsible as well. Who was it that said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"?
As a graduate of West Virginia University (yes, I earned my degree and have the transcript on record and a diploma to prove it), I was sickened and appalled by the cascade of events at my previously well- respected alma mater.
Although I am relieved to read of the resignations of Provost Gerald Lang and business school Dean R. Stephen Sears -- President Mike Garrison, a politically connected lawyer with no real experience in higher education, should resign next. His lack of integrity in trying to cover up a messy situation involving a personal friend has tarnished WVU's reputation.
Accompanying him out the door should be Chief of Staff Craig Walker, and then every other individual involved in the ill-fated meeting on Oct. 15 "to justify granting the degree if at all possible" even if no proof could be found that Heather Bresch actually earned the degree.
WVU students and alums deserve better! The actions by the administration belittle the hard work and sacrifice of all of us who have earned our degrees and now cause all future employers to take pause when they read our resumes. Shame on all of them!
My sincere hope is that the faculty senate will continue to stand up to these politically connected cronies and lead the charge to demand their resignation. I also hope that the Post-Gazette reporters who contributed will NOT let this story die till all of these perpetrators are removed from their positions and trust and honor are restored to my beloved West Virginia University.
Class of '79
As a very proud father of a gay daughter, I am speaking out against attempts to amend our state constitution to discriminate against gay individuals. My daughter who served her country in the Army is a loving person, a successful professional and a home-owning taxpayer. She and her partner are not seeking any special privileges. They only ask to be treated equally as any other good American individual or couple.
This attempt to amend our constitution to discriminate against another American is an affront to any fair-minded citizen. The argument presented by those favoring this amendment is posed under the guise of protection of marriage and family. The political leaders pushing this amendment are nothing but political opportunists and hypocrites -- political opportunists because, by taking advantage of fears, prejudices and ignorance, they would hope to create a wedge issue that would aid their own political aims, and hypocrites because if they were truly concerned with protecting marriage and the family, they would attempt to legislate against divorce and to legislate for pre-marriage testing to ensure that couples would be stable partners and parents.
This hypocrisy is shared not only by many religious leaders but by most if not all who support this amendment. It is also interesting to note that many who support this amendment would and will vote to elect divorced individuals to public office. So much for their concern with the sanctity of marriage.
Although my daughter and her partner are loved and accepted by their immediate and extended family members, they also wish to be afforded the same rights as all Americans and not to be discriminated against by of all things -- an amendment to our constitution.
I want to agree with columnist Brian O'Neill that a "remarkable amount of time was spent talking about all the things this amendment won't do" at a hearing on the Marriage Protection Amendment held earlier this month at the Allegheny County Courthouse ("A Marriage Amendment That's Tied in Knots," April 13).
I was one of the couple of hundred people stuffed into the Gold Room at the state Senate hearing on SB 1250, and after listening to several hours of testimony, I left thinking it is time to let the people of Pennsylvania decide what marriage is and is not rather than the courts or the Legislature.
Contrary to the attitude shared by several of the senators hosting the hearing, I think the people of Pennsylvania do understand what marriage is, what it is not and why we need to protect this bedrock of our society. I would venture to say that every member of those listening to or offering testimony, whether supporting or opposing the amendment, was born as a result of the union of one man and one woman and understand the value of marriage.
The limited role of government in our representative republic is to establish and maintain laws that are determined to be best for the country and its people. Marriage over time has been shown to be the gold standard for raising children, socializing men and women, building a strong economy and providing for healthy, long lives.
I strongly agree with Mr. O'Neill that we need to "make divorce more difficult." Eliminating "no-fault" divorce would be a start, but to unravel the knot of traditional marriage will not increase the value of the family. I support the Marriage Protection Amendment and urge the General Assembly to let the citizens of Pennsylvania decide.
Kudos to Bruce Kraus ("Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania," April 27 Forum). I have no idea how exactly the anti-gay marriage amendment will "strengthen marriage" -- an institution that has been in decline everywhere without any help from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and lots of help from educational, religious and legislative bodies.
I do know that GLBT people marrying will have no impact on my 45-year marriage. The adoption of the amendment will disenfranchise a host of my fellow citizens who -- constitutionally -- share all the rights and privileges that I enjoy... well, almost, but not quite because they're... you know.
It infuriates me every weekend when I see the miles-long line of cars through Wilkinsburg on the Parkway East detour. The expensive gas being wasted, the people being inconvenienced, the gas tax-funded construction dollars being wasted paving a road that has no potholes.
It's not being widened. It won't handle traffic any better after the work is done. It will only be a little smoother for a year or two until the asphalt, softer than the concrete it covers, begins to rut and crack.
And don't bother checking the PennDOT web site for the latest information on closings. When I checked, the postings had info for the weekend before. District 11 needs an overhaul.
First Published April 29, 2008 12:00 am