independent solutions

Jack Kelly is Wrong

2011-03-04T13:22:00.001-05:00

Jack Kelly's Jan. 3 column ("Blowing Up Liberal Shibboleths") is typical of his style and what has come to dominate opinion pieces: a distortion of facts for partisan bickering. Mr. Kelly, like writers on both sides, offers selective information to support his opinion, rather than arriving at his conclusion after reviewing the information.
He describes the Transportation Security Administration as a "bumbling empire" when it successfully assists 10 million commercial flights a year to operate safely in the United States. He then opines that "hurting the feelings of Muslims" affects President Barack Obama's security policies. Mr. Kelly should also know that of the 1 billion people who practice the Islamic faith, fewer than 1 percent are involved in active radical jihadist activities.
What Mr. Kelly really exposed is not a weakness in Mr. Obama's approach, or an issue with Islam, but the weakness of his writing. Why is someone who distorts facts given space in the Post-Gazette?

URA?

2011-03-04T13:21:00.002-05:00

The report by Mark Belko about the URA's involvement in the Strip District is concerning ("URA Approves Deal for Strip Development," March 12).
While it is a laudable goal to improve the area with recreational riverfront opportunities, it makes no sense not to renew the agreements with current occupants of the produce terminal. The URA's mission includes, "creating jobs ... and working with businesses."
So why would businesses that are staples of the area be relocated for what the mayor's office feels are "the highest and best use" of their space?
The mayor, Sen. Jim Ferlo and the URA should keep their plans away from successful businesses and instead grant the terminal a historic designation. The Strip should look like Pittsburgh, not a "redeveloped" common area with no unique character.

Jack Kelly is Wrong

2011-03-04T13:21:00.001-05:00

Jack Kelly is at it again, writing a column of distortions and half-truths. He claims the president is "in bed with big oil" ("Sloth in Charge," May 30). However, President Barack Obama's contributions from employees of oil companies represented only 1
10,000th of his campaign donations. Mr. Kelly also claims the federal government "dithered" in construction of berms in the gulf. The delay came while Mr. Obama demanded BP fund the berms, and they eventually provided money in escrow for the project — a project that many scientists believe will not be effective.
Finally, Mr. Kelly's implication that federal regulators' poor response is Mr. Obama's fault ignores history. The agency charged with oversight of oil exploration was gutted by the Bush administration. In 2005 shortly after an energy summit with Dick Cheney at the White House, a provision in a defense appropriations bill allowed off-shore drilling to be regulated, in effect, by the oil companies themselves. This lack of regulatory oversight represents another problem Mr. Obama inherited from a former administration truly "in bed" with big oil.
Mr. Kelly is just as delusional as those who allow deep-water drilling to continue without a reasonable plan to deal with these inevitable disasters.

DDT

2011-03-04T13:20:00.001-05:00

DDT is not safe
Letter writer Don Adler misrepresents the environmental accomplishments of Rachel Carson and misinforms readers about the spread of malaria ("Blame Rachel," July 31). DDT, or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a neurotoxin that has been shown to kill animals and disrupt the food chain (thereby potentially increasing insect populations). It is still in use today but has failed to eradicate malaria in Africa.
One reason is that those who succumb to its effects are often poor and live in small shacks or huts near pools of stagnant water and lack access to sanitation and clean drinking water. The World Health Organization has also linked the malarial spread to "rapidly spreading resistance to antimalarial drugs, climatic changes and population movements."
The "DDT is safe" chorus has unfortunately found its way into some media outlets that choose to rehash the rantings of a few lone bloggers.
To control malaria, policies are needed to lift people out of poverty, provide immunizations and proper childhood nutrition, limit the effects of climate change and provide clean water sources to people regardless of their economic status. These are all causes of the modern environmental movement championed by Rachel Carson.
Thanks, Rachel!

League of Women Voters Rocks

2011-03-04T13:18:00.001-05:00

Thank you, league
I want to show support for The League of Women voters and their continued efforts to allow voters to hear candidates in a public forum prior to casting their votes ("Pledge Incites Peters Debate," Oct. 28). The league is nonpartisan and hosts many debates. It has rules so that the people who come to the debate hear issues and not talking points.
Candidates should respect the rules (which they have agreed upon in advance) and each other even when their positions differ. The audience should do the same. Standing up and shouting that the debate is "un-American" or accusing the moderator of being "agenda-driven" serves no purpose and further shows a lack of knowledge of what the league does. I would suggest that holding a debate is not "unpatriotic," but using a debate in an attempt to create a phony controversy is.
STEVE KARASForest Hills

Jack Kelly is Wrong Again

2011-03-04T13:17:00.000-05:00

Jack Kelly's Feb. 13 column ("Beware the Muslim Brotherhood") is another directly slanted commentary that completely misses the mark. He claims President Barack Obama has been "caught ... by surprise" by the events in Egypt and has given mixed signals. Mr. Kelly must not have heard the president's Cairo speech or his inaugural address, in which he said dictators who "cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" are "on the wrong side of history."
What Mr. Kelly fails to understand is something that President Obama does understand: People in the Middle East can retake their country without the direct intervention of the United States, or the forceable imposition of what Mr. Kelly calls "Western-style democracy." Mr. Kelly was a cheerleader for the Iraq War, in the name of freedom, which left hundreds of thousands dead.
However, it is perplexing that now he seems deeply concerned when a peaceful, intrinsic protest removes a dictator without the cost and lives that were required in Iraq. Mr. Kelly should remember the argument from the prior administration whose military intervention, it was thought, would produce a cascade of democracy in the Middle East. What is happening now, in a mostly peaceful manner, may actually achieve that goal.

Post Gazette LTE

2009-05-13T21:10:00.001-04:00

Braddock progress
Your Monday piece about Braddock Mayor John Fetterman was timely considering the upcoming primary ("Braddock Mayor Has His Critics," May 4). As a council member of a neighboring municipality I would like to report on some changes I have noticed in Braddock since Mayor Fetterman's arrival.
Obvious aesthetic changes include: basketball courts, murals, re-paved roads, trees, an urban garden, UPMC additions, new housing and several revitalized buildings on historic Library Street. Practical additions have included a stronger youth program, a jobs center, a vegetable-based fuel business, a district art show, a farmer's market, creative artists space and the return of the annual street fair.
While it is true that many people have worked to keep Braddock viable since the loss of the steel industry and no one disputes that, Mayor Fetterman's unique character and dedication have created a buzz that has generated grants for the town, politicians' attention and movement on the much-delayed neighboring Carrie Furnace development and Rankin bridge repairs next to the popular Waterfront.
The residents of Braddock would be well-served to embrace the change that their mayor has helped them realize and work with him to continue to move their neighborhood forward.

Too much in our stuff.

2009-01-04T21:32:00.003-05:00

Driving today I noticed that even though a lot of cars look exactly the same, you can only tell what features they have if you take the time to examine the letters after their names. As the letters change you get more stuff. Stuff like better AC, a bigger engine, sun roof, and leather seats. For example, the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Each of them look the same to me, but there are even more combination of letters on those. The i, the ix, and the l. The letters seem to change every year. At some point it was the S, IS, and the M. As the letters change, the prices go up. The BMW's are dependable cars and get you where you are going, exactly what a car is supposed to do. But they also have features such as leather heated or cooled seats, heated steering wheel, navigation systems, DVD screens with headphones, satellite radio, hands free phones, heated and or cooled cup holders, and much more. Their maximum speeds are more than twice the legal limit and they poses enough horse power to merge into any possible traffic scenario. I wondered why people had to advertise what type of car they were driving, and how what was on the outside even mattered when you are inside driving it? Why do you need to drive a race car to work? Does anyone need that much horsepower to pick up some takeout? Are letters on the back of our cars the new status symbol or do we simply buy more car than we need? Do we buy more of everything we need? Only the blind should qualify for an 80 inch plasma TV. Who needs surround sound? Do we really need to be surrounded with anything? Why am I paying for 110 cable channels? I couldn't get it out of my mind...so I came home and pulled out my DELL 6000 computer with Windows XP, game, video, camera, and multiple other programs I have never opened...and used it for word processing. Then hopped on my titanium framed racing bike, which is held up by a stationary trainer and thought some more.

Post Gazette LTE

2009-01-04T21:30:00.001-05:00

Controlling forces

The Dec. 17 editorial "Drilled" falsely claims in the subhead that "Consumers Will Pay for Lack of Oil Exploration." The editorial board is assuming that gas prices are based on supply and demand. They are not. Gas prices are manipulated by multinational oil companies and OPEC.
The economics of oil is not based on a supply-and-demand model. And the true economic, public health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are not included in the price. Unless we move to renewable sources, such as solar, the price of which typically goes down as demand for its use increases, we will continue to see energy and gas prices that are controlled by sources other than the free market.

Post Gazette LTE

2008-09-21T07:34:00.000-04:00

This election must be about addressing the issues

David M. Shribman's Sept. 14 column, "A Wide Open Election," may be factually accurate, but it is not what the voters want or need to hear. Since the nominees of each party have been selected, we continue to hear about strategy and personality and not issues.
Our unemployment rate is now just over 6 percent. Worker productivity continues to rise, but wages are stagnant and the price of food, gasoline and daily essentials are rising. This means that although the average American is working harder, he or she is able to afford less. The economy is not working for many Americans.

The war in Iraq continues, and the war in Afghanistan grinds forward with its deadliest month since its start. The credit crisis continues to grow as Freddie and Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and now potentially AIG have crumbled. The majority of voters do not want our government to bail out large companies or provide the individual with a handout, but they do expect a functioning government to proactively address these issues.

It is not liberal bias to say that during the past eight years the administration has failed to do so. It is certainly more important to remind voters of these facts and speak to the issues than to concentrate on the political spectacle.

It's Joe

2008-08-23T09:54:00.002-04:00

Everyone will have a say on what the meaning of Obama picking Joe Biden is and what the impact will be on the election. How can the change candidate pick a Washington insider? Why didn't he pick Hillary? Is he admitting his foreign policy weakness? Did he cave to the Washington insiders? Is Biden like Cheney? Is he giving up on Virginia? Why didn't he really pick someone unique? And it will go on and on and on and on...

The reality is VP picks just don't matter. They never have swayed any presidential race, ever. What will matter is how Obama uses Biden. He can have Biden respond to the attacks from McCain. He can have Biden do the attacking. Either way the choice of Biden doesn't really matter, but of course, I have to have my say. I think it brings into focus the clear policy choices in this election: the economy, jobs, and Iraq.

Biden's age, Washington experience, and ties to his son's lobbying firms takes all of theose arguments off the table. They did not seem to be allowing Obama to surge ahead of McCain even though his message of change may have secured him the democratic nomination. The age of Biden and McCain may bring Obama some older voters, but it takes McCain's age off the table. Obama's lack of Washington experience can't be used against the ticket, because Biden brings that time. McCain's lobbyist ties can't be used against him because Biden, after so many DC years, no doubt has the same ties. It also will defuse the race card. Biden's off color comment, although not intentional, (clean and neat quote) may be replayed. Obama can show that he can rise above it and even, possibly, attract some white voters who have issue with his race.

Since all of these superficial items are off the table, since those in glass houses should not throw stones, what will we talk about? Issues? I think that is waht Obama is hoping. For in the category of issues important to the American voter, the average voter, the one that has not had the time to consider who they are going to voter for, Obama will win. He will win on the economy: more McCain / Bush trickle down, supply side talking points will be dead in the water. The argument that McCain / Bush have generated that freeing big business increases jobs does not hold water when a voter's job has been sent to Mexico. And finally, people are just tired of Iraq. The majority of Americans think it was a bad idea, think we should get out, and realize we were all fooled into going there in the first place.

Will the trivial be ignored and the issues actually argued? I believe that is Obama's hope and hope is a powerful thing.

How can Obama the "Change" candidate pick Hillary?

2008-06-03T17:35:00.002-04:00

In one day the notion that Hillary Clinton will be Barack's running mate has gone from "a complete inacuracy" from Terry McCauliffe, to a rumor from CNN, to a quote from Hillary that she is "open to it."
But how can Obama bring change and still choose Hillary? How can he not choose Hillary, unite the party, receive the votes of Hillary supporters, and most importantly be elected President? If he chooses Clinton he may loose independents and those Obamicans excited about a new kind of politics. If he chooses someone else, it depends on how Hillary works for his campaign. Her choices are: 1. smile and endorse, but undermine him in private in preparation for 2012 2. endorse and work for his election, then receive her payback, or (the most likely) 3. Arrange her spot as the VP and let Obama steal the show.
No one knows what will happen, least of all the candidates, and it will probably be a combination of the three choices.
Here is how Obama can chooses Hillary Clinton fro the VP slot without loosing the appeal of being the change candidate:
1. BE HUMBLE
Tell the voters, humbly, that although he does not agree with all of Clinton's positions, the race was just too close for her not to be on the ticket. This shows that he respects all of the voters who supported Hillary as well as her campaign supporters. It also MAY make the ticket more exciting to the large number of female voters who routinely stay home.

2. BE REAL
Obama could give a speech, another great one, where he steps outside of the lengthy campaigning, puts aside the rhetoric, and tells voters that if he can unite with Hillary Clinton and bring his party together after 18 months of bickering, he can bring our country together after 8 years of George W Bush. Criticizing W is a huge applause line.

3. BE NOSTALGIC
Tell voters that going back to the Clinton peace, the Clinton economy, and the idea that universal health care can work, and will work, is Change that should have happened and now it will. (Don't forget to bring in Al Gore.)

4. BE POLITICAL
Remind reporters that JFK picked LBP and Reagan picked Bush I and they all were supposed to despise each other. Laugh off the RFK remark, Ferraro, race baiting, and debate criticisms as an unfortunate reality in the political world. Easier said than done, but the media may let it slide as the audience looks for the Obama / McCain bickering to begin.
His campaign will have to assess where she is an asset and where she is a liability. Obama can likely forget Missouri, Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado with Clinton on the ticket. He may compete in Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Not a bad trade off.

5. BE SPECIFIC
Tell the independent voters exactly what you will expect of Senator Clinton, then hope the voters that do not like her aren't too interested in it. Send her to campaign in Appalachia. Send Bill with her.

6. BE OBAMA
Above all people just like Obama. If he runs the campaign and ignores the advisers that will come with the Clintons, they will win...big!

Obama in the primary

2008-05-18T20:56:00.002-04:00

LTE on the Tribune Review's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton:

In your endorsement of Hillary Clinton you state Barack Obama's experience is "no portfolio for president."
I and the majority of Democrat voters disagree.
Obama has written and co-sponsored a variety of successful legislation. This includes: health care for children, securing dangerous nuclear material, and powerful ethics reform. He consistently articulates real solutions for our problems. A brief view of his record proves his effectiveness as a bipartisan legislator.
By claiming "you know where she (Clinton) stands," you reveal the main problem many voters have with Sen. Clinton: We do not know where she stands.
Her political double-speak is unfortunate. I believe Clinton would be a capable president and that we need a change from the current administration, but I believe Obama is the best choice of the three remaining candidates.
I prefer a president who is well removed from the Washington machine and will appoint a Cabinet that contains the most qualified people, not the most connected.

CNN DEBATES SHOW PRO CLINTON BIAS

2007-11-17T09:09:00.000-05:00

In the CNN Democratic debates of November 15, 2007 the CNN should have stood for "Clinton News Network." Hillary was given a chance to "clarify" her positions on illegal immigrants receiving drivers licences, a supposed gaffe (I love that word.) that conservative media has pounced on.
Wolfe Blitzer began his line of questioning to Governor Richardson. Wolfe, of course, knew what the answer would be and received a rationaled approach as to why Richardson, as Governor of New Mexico, adopted the program. Why? Because immigration is a federal issue. Licences are a state issue. The federal government was not controlling immigration and while working immigrants were driving, and crashing. So in the interest of safety, they were taught how to drive and overall motor vehicle accidents decreased.
Then the question went to Obama. He answered that the premise of the question was wrong. Blitzer asked "in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform" would you allow licences for illegals. Obama said as President, he would push for that reform, so the question Blitzer asked required some thought and some overall policy background. It was not a yes / no question.
But Blitzer pushed, clearly looking for a "got you" (Hillary's words) moment for Obama. Because Obama gave a thorough answer the crowd, a strange majority of Hillary supporters, seemed to laugh confusingly. Blitzer retorted he thought it was a "yes or no" answer.
Then Hillary responded rather W-like, preparing for the general election we presume, "NO." She was able to answer after the minority candidates on an issue about minorities and restate a position in one word that she had changed several times in one week based on her audience. When it played poorly in the national media, she needed to change her stance yet again and Blitzer gave her the chance.
Planned? Its hard not believe it wasn't. Successful? The post debate wrap up which included former Clinton advisers Gergen and Carville told us it was. They were all on the same page. Planned? You decide.
StevenAK

Media Coverage LTE

2007-09-08T19:39:00.000-04:00

Note how the Tribune Review dropped the IC off my letter to print that the election, "went Democrat" instead of what I wrote: democratIC. At least they published the LTE.

In response to L. Brent Bozell's piece about the network morning news shows paying more attention to liberal candidates ("Networks bow to 'white-hot' Dems," Sept. 2 and PghTrib.com), I would suggest he link the extended coverage to the polls of the country's voters.
The 2006 midterms went Democrat and a majority of voters consistently say they want a change in the White House, specifically with regard to the Iraq policy, which would involve electing a Democrat.
Polls within the Republican Party show "other" or "someone else" winning the primary, and Barack Obama recently finished third in a Republican straw poll.
The media may be lazy -- implying that John Edwards was against the war in Iraq, when he wrote an op-ed before its launch supporting it -- or reporting Hillary Clinton has more experience than Obama, when he has been in elected office longer.
And the media might prefer to cover the wives of the Republican candidates. But this is what, apparently, leads to higher ratings.
To imply that there is a bias toward the candidates is easily disproved when you look at what is covered and the inability of most of the media to offer anything of substance on the issues. They cover the popular personalities. They cover what is "white-hot."
At this stage in the campaign, those distinctions go to the Democrats.

Steve Karas
Forest Hills

PA Gerrymandering

2007-05-18T19:54:00.000-04:00

In response to Brad Bumsted's news article about a Senate panel shooting down legislation aimed at limiting lawmakers' terms ("Pa. Senate kills term-limit measure," May 9 and PghTrib.com), I would ask that the panel, or any local lawmakers, address the problem of fair redistricting if they are unwilling to impose term limits.
Gerrymandering robs the voters of choices, takes away competition between parties and, in the absence of term limits, creates an unbalanced system.
Pennsylvania should adopt a format similar to the California model, which allows registered voters to assist in establishing fair districts. There is also the model from Iowa, which is consistently noted as having the fairest and most competitive districts in the country.
Each model allows for a bipartisan panel with outside input to create fair and sensible legislative districts. Each state House district in Iowa is usually within a state Senate district and each state Senate district is within a U.S. congressional district.
At a recent hearing in the Pittsburgh area, one freshman lawmaker referred to the gerrymandering practice in Western Pennsylvania as leading to districts "resembling the Florida keys" instead of Iowa's grid.
If the Senate is serious about reform and fairness, it needs to follow Iowa's and California's leads. Otherwise, a major issue will be ignored.

Corporate Media Lazy on Obama

2007-04-11T22:28:00.000-04:00

As easy as it was to find what exact magazine the story of the black man and his skin was in, Brit Hume reported the findings the next day on FOX. No background checking needed, just report the error that had already been reported. No one can say they are lying, they are just letting us know what The Chicago Tribune and The Politico reported about the “facts” in Obama’s Dreams book.
Human events picked up the story headlining, “Obama offers Wild Revision if his own History.” A “wild revision” seems a compelling description. Paul Hollorah compares Obama to a “little head bobbing doll” and refers to him as a “Schlikmeister.” He first tells of the later date of the Selma march versus the Obama’s parents marriage. Obama has said he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole inspiring his parents, not just the march over the bridge. Never mind that the statement had already been released by the Obama coampaign. Speaking in generalities, Obama had stated that his parents heard the call of the Kennedys for Africans to learn in the US. Hollorah states that this too is a wild revision since, “the future senator was not conceived”
Hollrah claims his speech is like Gore claiming to have invented the internet, something Gore never said and has been repeatedly debunked by media watchdog groups, yet continues to be repeated. The author is completing a double play by comparing an exaggeration with a lie. He also links what he sees as Obama’s missteps with those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Unbelievably, the author then quotes “one of my black friends.” This is classic racism. You tell people about your black friend so that they could not possibly believe you are a racist. This piece is truly unique on its fact bending, media twisting inaccuracies and racial caveats. The author lives in Oaklahoma.
Ricahrd Cohen in the Washington Post goes so far as to suggest, “The tendency to manipulate facts may bear watching in Obama.” He also compares Dreams to Profiles in courage as promising politicians who are packing themselves in a “larger cause.” Cohen retells the Ebony story as his evidence to watch Obama for his honesty. Cohen also warns Obama that “Sheer ambition is no longer tolerated in American public life.” He appears to suggest that since Dreams was published when Obama was only 34 years old, he has been planning this moment since then and thus, carefully packaged himself for presentation to the public. Somewhat of a conspiracy theory within himself. An interesting take. I contacted the author to see if he would print a correction.

Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261803,00.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19959
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html

Peduto '09?

2007-03-26T22:27:00.000-04:00

The exit of Bill Peduto in the mayor's race is unfortunate for the city of Pittsburgh. Mr. Peduto is a personable and well-informed individual who would have made a great mayor.
To his credit, he said he withdrew because "running a victorious political campaign would require dividing a city." Mr. Peduto's integrity, ideas and knowledge place him at the top of the Pittsburgh political class.
His continued presence on City Council and as a leader in innovative ideas for Pittsburgh remains an important ingredient in the city's future.

Additional comments:
Why is it that when a candidate challenges the Democratic status quo he is not covered in the local media? Peduto has given the current Mayor several ideas. Some of Peduto's ideas have been mirrored by the current mayor.
He lost the endorsement vote by 4 to 1. This means many of the long time committee people will support the Mayor. This is before any debate on the issues. Presumably, then, he will loose the election. If he stays in and looses big, he may not be a viable candidate in 2009. The people of Pittsburgh loose without a choice. However, by bowing out or "quitting" as the PG noted on the front page, he may have the opportunity to become the "go to man" to scrutinize the mayor.

LTE to Tribune Review: Published but not posted.

2007-01-12T20:05:00.000-05:00

I recently sent the following in response to this letter: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/letters/send/s_484919.html, which compared Vietnam to Iraq and asks that we support continuing in Iraq.

I was told my reply was published, but it is not on their website. I have contacted the paper several time to let them know of the error, but they have not made the correction. Maybe it is because I use the "I" word...Here is the reply I wrote:

In response to Linda Dupill's letter not to, "leave before the job is done" and to "be compassionate", I ask that she look at the facts. 80% of Americans oppose the Iraq war. The generals in Iraq have stated that more troops will make the situation worse. When the generals wanted more troops, via the Powell Doctrine, The President refused. We need a leader who knows their history and the Marshall plan. We need a President who listens to his generals, the American people, and The Iraq Study Group. We need to support the Iraqi people by offering Iraq's employment through reconstruction funds, not giving funds to Haliburton and Blackwater. We need to build and staff hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. This President and this administration have not had the intellectual capacity to succeed in these basic tasks. If we have compassion and want to "win" this war, we should face the facts. We can not win with this President. His negligence is criminal. For the sake of the Iraqi people and our brave military we should impeach George W. Bush and relieve him of his incompetent tenure as commander-in-chief. We should compassionately write our congressman and senators and ask them to give us the leadership our President has failed to offer.

PA General Assembly should follow the rules

2006-12-08T23:24:00.000-05:00

In response to Sen. Jay Costa's commentary "Restore Trust First: It's Time to Change the Way State Legislators Do Business" (Dec. 1), I am in agreement with the proposed rule changes and reforms that have been recommended and hope our Legislature does even more to see that the people's business is done in a moral, ethical, open and honest way.
After gambling lobbyists' contributions have quadrupled, even more must be done to stop their anonymous influence, as well as those of other profit-seeking lobbyists. That influence was observed in the recent lame-duck session in Harrisburg.
The Legislature decided to offer us free drinks at gambling facilities as part of 26 pages of amendments to a bill. This decision was done without public hearings or input, without the constitutionally required waiting period and without giving small business owners who will be affected by this provision the time to contact their representatives and let them know how it may affect them. The people were left out.
This was done even after a bipartisan House group signed on to the reform agenda. Twenty-three of the 53 House members of this group voted for these recent changes.
While Sen. Costa's initiatives should be commended and would be a great service to the commonwealth, a greater service would be done if the members of the General Assembly simply followed the rules and reform proposals that are already in place.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Perspective 11/12/06

2006-11-08T22:01:00.000-05:00

This is the original post. Some editing was done on publication in, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Perspectives Op/Ed.

Knocking on doors, manning information and voter registration tables, and just discussing political issues invariably leads to responses such as, “They’re all the same.” “There’s nothing we can do about it.” “They’re all in it together.” Many voters are just tired of the current political climate, partisan bickering, and gerrymandered districts. Many do not see why their involvement really matters.

In Pennsylvania, this attitude changed after the worst political blunder this state has ever seen, the infamous Two AM legislative pay raise. An ill advised move by the Legislature that was unconstitutional and arguably illegal. In the following election a PA Supreme Court judge was sent packing and in the May primary 47 state legislators, including two leaders, were either defeated or retired--choosing not to run a campaign.

This past Tuesday seven more members (at last count) were sent home. They included one of its most powerful house members, who opted to fly to work apparently more often than he drove. In a legislative body that typically boasts a 98% retention rate, where death and retirement are more common than election defeat, this was remarkable change.

The average voter, choosing to vote about 25% of the time, is also a forgiving voter. We look to our elected officials to “learn a lesson” and change things for the better, because, after all, they work for us. Several Western PA Legislators listened and formed the bipartisan house reform group, which the Post Gazette reported on this past July: House Rebels try to break the iron grip of leadership. Its members include: Paul Costa, Peter Daley, Frank Dermondy, Brian Ellis, David Levdansky, Mark Mustio, John Pallone, Joseph Petrarca, Harry Readshaw, Jess Stairs, Tom Stevenson, and Thomas Tangretti.

This past summer the Reform Initiative met and devised four groups: Rules Revision, House and Caucus Operations, Campaign Finance Reform, and Constitutional Convention Research. The subtitle of this initiative is, “Restoring Faith in Pennsylvania Government, an Agenda for Reform.” Some measure, although not a strong measure, of lobbying reform has already passed in the House. They note that a “myriad” of campaign finance proposals exist and are the members are seeking common ground prior to moving forward. A constitutional convention has been discussed as has making legislative accounts open to the public.

While this is a positive start, several other reforms are screaming to be implemented. Many legislators sign on to bills simply for PR value. Bills should be limited in number to focus on legislative priorities, then be discussed and voted on, which does not always happen. Many bills that are written are never debated on the floor. Our public records should be the most open in the country. The size and cost of the legislature and its perks and expenses should be reduced. Term limits should be instituted and leadership positions rotated. Too often the power in Pennsylvania is held in the leadership’s hands and out of the hands of rank and file members. Discussion and exchange of good ideas may never occur. Perhaps, most importantly, legislative districts must be reflective of the citizens, and should be drawn by a neutral body so all races are competitive, voters have a choice, and legislators records are held to a high level of scrutiny.

We typically don’t have legislators on the news, on the radio, or in the newspapers to congratulate them for a move in the right direction. Listeners don’t call talk shows to heap praise on governmental agencies. We only seem to only pay attention when they stray from public service to self service. The House reform group is a step in the right direction, away from the “iron grip of leadership”, and toward reform for the people.

It should become clear that we are the driving change in this state government. Voters are the leaders and have initiated this change. Voters will also implement change in the future when they are offered an alternative, qualified candidate at the polls. We should have competitive elections, not unopposed candidates. If we want Pennsylvania to rise to its potential, if we want our population to stay here and have opportunities for success, we must stay involved. Contact your legislatures with your ideas and follow up to see where the reform process is headed. More importantly, demand results.

In 2004, 18 of 218 state legislators had primary and general election opponents. In the November 2006 election 168 of the 228 seats available were competitive. This, along with the May turnover of 47 seats, is a clear indication that an energized electorate can and has made a difference in the members of our state government. My current total shows that there will be a change in one quarter of the state legislature when they meet in 2007 in Harrisburg. This is nearly 14 times the typical legislative turnover. This change is truly amazing.

Upcoming elections will ask the voters if judges should be retained and bring the remainder of the PA State Senate to face the voters. The legislative (and judicial) pay raise issue may not have the legs it had in the May primary and my not cross party lines, but it will still be a topic of Pennsylvania’s political discourse for some time to come. It will be an historical reminder of, We the People. Edmund Burk once said, “In all forms of government the people is the true legislator.” After the election this November, the people’s work will begin.

Good Bye Rick Santorum

2006-11-08T21:58:00.000-05:00

Good Bye Rick and … Thanks?

I am glad the majority of voters in PA have rejected Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum is a rigid ideologist whose policies are driven by his beliefs (or politically needed positions) versus objective realities.
He supported regime change in Iran, militarily if needed, even though we have a debacle in next door Iraq. He used divisive issues in a time when we are divided enough. Instead of compromising on civil unions, he tried to use the constitution to discriminate against gay people and has compared their relationships to bestiality. (Note the infamous, “What’s next, man on dog?”) He wanted us to be afraid, very afraid of an intercontinental cabal between Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Venezuela, but refused to even investigate reports of disenfranchised voters in Ohio. And worst of all he used his influence to further his political objectives and career goals. Santorum worked to establish the K Street lobbying system that has sold our federal policy to the highest bidder and routinely allowed lobbyists to write our legislation.
Former Senator Santorum’s election night concession was eloquent and polite, and he is a respectable man, but he was divisive, extreme senator, and frequently misrepresented the facts to fit his beliefs.
Santorum supporters do not have to worry, like all elected rigid ideologists who fail to force their goals on the majority; Santorum will find his way as a lobbyists or right wing think tank “contributor.” He may even run for president with full K Street backing. His platform could include preemptive attacks on sovereign nations and federal legislation preventing your dog from licking your face. Those of us who are tired of these extreme politics will be glad to see him go, but, like all who use public service for self promotion, he will not go quietly.

Recruitment Facts

2006-11-01T21:46:00.000-05:00

Senator John Kerry made comments that were reported to be demeaning to our brave men and women in the armed forces. The quote was not taken in context, and the entire statement was clearly aimed at President Bush. This is a clear example of how a misreporting event can be re-reported throughout the 24 hour news cycle, and eventually taken as fact.
It seems that we should be concerned with issues, positions and actual facts.

Let's look at the following data:
- higher recruitment ratings are found in poorer counties nationwide
- the highest recruitment levels are in Montana and the lowest Rhode Island
- high income areas (household incomes over $60,000) are underrepresented and low and middle income areas are overrepresented
- the average number (per county) of recruits in is 1.6 per 1,000 (males aged 18-24)
- rural area have more recruits
- 86% of army recruits have graduated high school
- the government spends 4 billion dollars per year in its recruitment budget
- I can find no data correlating college degrees and military enlistment. This is not surprising when you consider most high school graduates choose a trade, college, or the military.

From this data we can conclude that military enlistments are much lower in families who have higher income levels. This is not to say that those individuals may not join the military through ROTC or other programs. However our armed forces are staffed, we should respect those who serve, honor their commitment and hold their leaders to a high degree of accountability when calling them into service.

Partially reported quotes taken out of context for partisan attacks hold no one accountable.

Stop Cluster Bombs

2006-09-15T19:48:00.000-04:00

What follows is my reply and Senator's Specter's letter re: requesting he support stopping the sale of cluster bombs by The United States.

MY REPLY:
Honorable Senator Specter,

You say "it is your belief" that this government will work and create a peaceful region. Is "your belief", which I fully respect, worth the lives of thousands of our soldiers, injuries to over 10,000, Iraqi deaths of somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 and a lack of recorded numbers when it comes to their injuries--was all that worth "your belief."
If you are not in favor of a timeline, how much more do you want to see our troops do? 5,000 more dead? 2,500 more amputees? When will we place the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqis? We have done enough and we should transition now. Remember the Marshall plan?
I do not understand "your belief" and why you think more of this occupation is the only answer. Strategic strikes and a UN force, such as what occurred in Kosovo, would have been more practical, and without loss of life, and without collateral or civilian damage. No one knows what the future holds, but you have the influence to begin that change NOW.
Thank You for your reply.
Steve Karas

THE SENATOR'S LETTER:

Dear Mr. Karas:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the ongoing situation in Iraq . I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention.
Although I have many concerns about the situation in Iraq , it is important to note that positive steps towards establishing a lasting Iraqi democracy have been taken. In 2005, Iraqis went to the polls three times. In January, elections were held to select a Transitional National Assembly as well as local assemblies in each of Iraq 's eighteen provinces, and a regional assembly in Kurdistan . In October, the Iraqi people voted to ratify a new national constitution. In December, Iraqis of all sects and ethnic groups voted for representatives in a new National Assembly. Today, Iraq is governed by the first freely elected permanent government in the nation's history.
Iraq is currently the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. It is my belief that a lasting democracy in Iraq will aid in stabilizing the region and show the world, especially Arab nations, that America did not wage war for its own gain, but for the purpose of eliminating the menace of Saddam Hussein.

On the issue of troop withdrawal, it is my opinion that setting a definitive timeline would be a mistake. I believe a withdrawal must be done in consultation with military commanders, and after a thorough assessment of the strength of both the new Iraqi army and the insurgency. However, I believe 2006 should be a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for securing the country. I do not believe U.S. forces should remain in Iraq any longer than necessary. As ever increasing numbers of Iraqi security forces are trained and able to conduct operations on their own, U.S. forces should gradually redeploy.
Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter

Murtha's War II: Edited and Published in The Pittsburgh Tribune Review

2006-01-06T22:21:00.000-05:00

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_401012.html

This is the published and edited letter. The original is entitled, "Which way to an exit strategy?", on this blog. This text is provided for readers to compare the submission with the printed version.

Murtha's war II
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
All we have heard when we as citizens ask for a plan to end the Iraq war is that "we will stay the course."
That is the answer you expect from a 6-year-old when you ask when he will be ready to leave and he answers, "When I am ready to leave."
Many citizens of both political parties who opposed and supported the war should be grateful to Rep. Murtha for his reasonable, and emotional, call for an exit strategy. Instead of welcoming the debate out of respect for our soldiers, the president and his administration immediately Swift-boated the congressman.
We all can agree that even the Democratic Party has not aggressively promoted a specific strategy for leaving Iraq. The president could address the Congress, admit his mistakes, and work toward a quick and safe resolution. Instead he attacked anyone who disagrees with his lack of policy.
We have a leader who will not lead and a Congress that is too divided to force his hand. The public cannot be ignored and we cannot be Swift-boated. We should continue to push the president and the Congress for answers and a quick and reasonable end to this war. This seems appropriate for the safety our soldiers, the concerns of their families and the future of the Iraqi people.
We must be the leaders we do not have.
Steve Karas Forest Hills

Here we go again, and again...

2005-12-22T19:14:00.000-05:00

Just what are our elected officials up to this time? O’Connor and Rendell are happily shaking hands as they use our money to partially finance a thirty story office tower at the initially projected cost of $170 million. That is about six million dollars per floor. It will feature 150 luxury hotel rooms, 30 condominiums, and 360,000 square feet of office space, and the much anticipated down town ground level retail. PNC will invest $122 million, and we will help them with an additional $48 million through state funding and tax incremented financing. (This means you can leech off the taxes of the rest of us for a few years and not pay your share. Then, just ask Lord and Taylor, you can leave if things don’t go your way. The result being no jobs, no tenant, and no ground level retail.)
It would be more beneficial and cost effective if Rendell et al. cleared this area of town for a fourth river. But Reed Smith, the law firm that will occupy 180,000 square feet of this space, and mega-bank PNC, who have together donated nearly $100,000 so far to Mr Rendell, probably don’t like to kayak.
If the pay raise lit a match under you to pay attention to local and state politics, this should lead to spontaneous combustion. The downtown occupancy rate is about 80% and portions of the spaces that are rented are empty, with no business in the space, no workers, and no jobs.
The state politicians, along with mayor Murphy, used public funds to build two large stadiums it was said would spur economic development and create jobs. They also decided on a convention center whose space is unused, but very attractive. The intake for 2006 for the center is about $2.9 million, while the cost to operate, heat, and cool the place is about $3.5 million.
Does anybody remember Parkway center mall? When was the last time you were there? And what happened to US air, and Lazarus?
We are allowing a group of, at best, professional guessers to decide where our tax dollars are spent. The trouble is they have horribly short memories and don’t want to, or don’t care to research what political decisions can stop the loss of population and businesses from this region. Someone please tell them what GOOGLE is for. Maybe it is because they have no business making these decisions and using our tax dollars for these projects.
If this idea is so appealing and profitable, I would trust that a developer would see the profit potential and built it with their own money. That is not to say, that some areas can not be helped with these “political decisions”, but we have been down that road before and it always results in a dead end until the next public official proclaims they have a better way to divert the traffic.
It seems to me that lessening restrictions, taxes, and regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs, would lead to development, jobs, and a return of population to our region. People devote more of their hard work and sweat when they are using their own money and should be allowed to enjoy the rewards.
Its time we invite certain elected officials to join the private sector so they can find this out for themselves, because they surely are not doing an acceptable job spending our money.

WHAT I BELIEVE

2005-11-21T20:41:00.000-05:00

I believe government can be a positive and unifying force in the lives of people. Government can help people build the type of country, or state where they wish to live. Government should work for the interests of the people, they should not ask people to work for their interests. Politicians should be held directly accountable by educated constituents to work hard and make intelligent decisions. Elected officials must demonstrate a high level of integrity and accountability. In turn, people must take an active role in selecting their representation and educating themselves on the issues.

Those that are too sick, too old, too poor, or the victims of unexpected circumstances, should be given some help from the rest of us to have a better life. All of us in The United States, and in Pennsylvania, should be given a chance for an education to work to achieve our goals. Those that pursue a trade or open their own business should be free to achieve success. We should all have a sense that as we move forward in life, we will take care of those in our community who need us, and if needed, they will be there for us.

Government at its best can assist us in obtaining, for example, safe communities, a clean environment, and a quality education. As we work to achieve our personal goals, there can be a sense that despite any of our differences, we are all part of a greater cause.

This is what I believe, and that is why I am involved.

Which way to the exit strategy?

2005-11-20T13:35:00.000-05:00

All we have heard as citizens’ asking for a plan to end the Iraq war is that, “we will stay the course.” That is the answer you expect from a six year old when you ask when he will be ready to leave and he answers, “When I am ready to leave.” The same as if you were to ask Bluto in animal house when he will graduate and he might say, “When I graduate.”
President Bush says he will rely on the generals for an exit strategy. But when General Shinseki warned of the high number of troops needed he was forced to retire, and Paul Wolfowitz said he was, “wildly off the mark.” General Tommy Franks has all but admitted there was no plan past taking Baghdad. General / Secretary Colin Powell has said there was no meeting to discuss the invasion of Iraq. What took days for the media to exploit after hurricane Katrina has taken one member of our elected Congress two years to say; this administration and this president are out of touch with the concerns of the American people. Conservative Republicans, including my Senator, Rick Santorum, are running away from W as fast as they can, without a plan of their own.
Since public opinion often precedes the voice of Congress, many citizens of both political parties who opposed and supported the war, should be grateful to Congressman John Murtha who recently, reasonably, and emotionally, called for an exit strategy. Instead of welcoming the debate out of respect for our soldiers, the president and his administration immediately swift boated the Congressman. Despite Mr. Murtha’s decorated military service we hear accusations like, “he is like Michael Moore”, “he wants to cut and run”, “he is comforting the enemy”, “he is putting our troops in harm’s way”, and “he is not brave.”
Why don’t we ever hear a specific plan from the President? And further, why won’t Congress stop all business until they have one. Instead the President and Mr. Cheney attack Mr. Murtha and for even suggesting the debate. Having said that, we all can agree that the Democratic Party has not aggressively promoted a specific strategy for leaving Iraq. They are too busy using the flawed intelligence argument to set up their 2006 mid-term campaigns. That argument is over. It was revisited by several commissions and you can draw your own conclusions. But the fact remains people are dying, being blinded, dismembered, and displaced, and our government is not working together to bring it to an end. The President could address the Congress, admit his mistakes, and work with them toward an expedient and safe resolution. Instead he has gone to South America and to Asia and attacked anyone who disagrees with his lack of policy. This has been echoed in the administration, by other pundits, loyal Congressman, and right wing talk radio. While members of the left bring up the past to let us know ad nauseam they do not agree with this war or this President.
We have a leader who will not lead, and a Congress that is too divided and self centered to force his hand. Shame on all of them. A victim of injustice once said, “Can’t we all just get along?” Mr. President and members of Congress, CAN YOU?
The public can not be ignored and we can not be swift boated. We should continue to push the president and the congress for answers and a quick and reasonable end to this war. We should call, email, and write Congressman Murtha and thank him for bringing the resolution of this war and the safety of our soldiers to the forefront of our national discussion. We should do the same to push our own elected officials. This seems appropriate for the safety our soldiers, the concerns of their families and the future of the Iraqi people.
We must be the leaders we do not have.

Judges deserve to rejoin the Private Sector

2005-10-21T21:27:00.000-04:00

On the public tab

In response to Michael McGough's Oct. 17 Intellectual Capital column ("The Poor Man's Snobbery: Complaining About Pay Raises for Public Officials Is a Great American Pastime, But Judges Shouldn't Suffer for Our Fun"): Mr. McGough should be aware that the Pennsylvania legislative pay raise is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Pennsylvania Legislature is the nation's largest full-time legislature, second-most expensive and, in my opinion, very ineffective. "Anti-pay raise zealots" are correct to include judges in their rants. Their salaries of $170,000 per year place them among the highest paid. The Associated Press reported that "the state's seven Supreme Court justices last year billed taxpayers ... $164,000 in food, travel and lodging," and "an analysis of expense records [by the Harrisburg Patriot-News] revealed that some expenses were not accompanied by receipts or vouchers, and some receipts were vague in describing the expenses."
Justice Russell Nigro billed us for 115 meals, with some costing as much as $400. Justice Sandra Schultz Newman charged taxpayers for OnStar service on her Cadillac SRX.
As citizens, we must hold all of our elected state officials personally accountable for their decisions. The legislators may have raised our taxes and stolen our money, but the judges who remained silent and left their Pennsylvania Constitutions at home when they dined out on our dime are just as guilty.
Voters must rally so that our state can reach its full potential. Leaving it to the current crop of elected officials is just not an option.

STEVE KARAS
Forest Hills
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05293/591659.stm

Providing Help provides an Exit

2005-10-10T21:54:00.000-04:00

The recent earthquake in Pakistan has provided The United States with more that an opportunity to help a close ally in the "war on terror." It is more than an opportunity to help a predominantly Muslim country where the recent earthquake has left an estimated twenty thousand dead, fifty thousand injured, and two and a half million homeless. It is more than an opportunity to change the minds and opinions of the people of Pakistan who have an overwhelmingly negative opinion of this country. It is an opportunity to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq.
Regardless of your opinion of the war, we have removed the Bath regime and brought the country to a point where they have received the permanent Iraqi constitution for self government. It is time for the people of Iraq to steer their own course. We have done enough. We have lost enough, and we have spent enough. If the ethnic groups that make up Iraq can not agree to a reasonable form of self government through diplomacy and assisted mediation, they surely will not be forced into an agreement through the barrels of our guns. We have done enough and we should not do any more. The President should begin moving a portion of our troops to help the people of Pakistan recover and establish reasonable basic living conditions.
At home, we have experienced the greatest national disaster in our country’s history, in hurricane Katrina. We need to take care of our own. As a country, we must realize our limitations and prioritize our generosity to those who need it most. We are funding the Iraq war by running the largest deficit in our nation history and passing the debt on to our children. The people of Pakistan and New Orleans were devastated by natural disasters of epic proportions. They need our help and are asking for whatever we can give.
This is our exit strategy in Iraq. Simply stated, we must move our resources to those that need them most. How can we be accused of "cutting and running" when our troops have done so much. Begin the exit now, when we can do so much good elsewhere. If our troops do not start leaving , the people of Iraq may never step forward, the people of Pakistan may not recover, and the people of our gulf coast may never return.

PA Government

2005-10-04T21:14:00.000-04:00

Published in , The City Paper; "RANT"
http://www.pacleansweep.com/cgi-bin/library.cgi?action=one&search_for=1128989389

Dude, Where’s my State?

Its getting so bad that people are driving to Harrisburg to inflate big pink pigs on the capitol steps. Elected officials are telling their constituents to, "get a life." Local house and senate members are refusing to return calls and their personal web sites have no information on their recent midnight pay hike. Local state representatives, senators, and state judges called the public’s anger, "A knee jerk reaction" and the result of a "slow news month." Have you tuned it all out? Is this business as usual in our state government? Will democracy prevail? Will it just all go away? What is this guy talking about? Why should I care?
If you have failed to read any local media, listen only to your IPOD and don’t bother with AM radio you may not have heard what has happened with our state legislature (senators and representatives). Around midnight when they though everyone was sleeping and no one would care, they voted themselves a really, really, big fat, super-duper payraise. What a job! You get to decide how much money you make and it doesn’t matter if you suck at it!
What they get: a salary of between $81,050 and $134,00 / $7,800 per year for a car / mileage reimbursement / $129 a day for expenses / full health care (at a premium of $14,000) / fully paid pension / other perks
What we get: tax increases / no property tax reform / the second largest and most expensive legislature in the country / loss of jobs and population / a poor business climate / crumbling schools / but... you can buy a beer on Sunday
Myth one: Our constitution will protect us. It does say the legislature will note vote them selves a payraise while in office. They must first face the voters. The legislature just called it an unvouchered expense (translation: they did whatever they wanted, usually called a crime). Try to ask your employer for an unvouchered 15 grand and see what happens.
Myth two: The courts will stop them. Why would they? They are included in the payraise. To add to it, Judge Cappy (with a salary of $171,800) may hear a law suit against the pay raise after he got a nice big fat raise himself! I wonder if he can give a fair ruling when he remembers why he changed his vacation plans from a weekend at lake Erie to two weeks at Lake Taho.
Myth three: The governor will help us, he’s on our side. WRONG! Mr Rendell initially said he would not allow the payhike unless the legislature also raised the minimum wage for the working stiffs. Then he said he thought the raise was illegal. Then he said, "We need property tax relief." Oh, sorry, he said that four years ago. Current PA minimum wage yearly income: $10, 712. Current minimum salary of our PA legislature: $81,050 (eight times as much!). Maybe we can hire eight minimum wage workers to drag every legislators’ ass out of Harrisburg.
Myth four: Screw it, we can’t do anything about it, they do whatever the hell they want to anyway. WRONG AGAIN! We can vote them out of office. All of them. Vote against retention of judges. Vote against incumbents in the primary. Vote against incumbents in the general election and don’t let them get away with it. They work for us and they are doing a terrible job. They stole our money, ignored the constitution, raised our taxes, and they just don’t give a shit.
Do you?

2005-10-04T21:01:00.001-04:00

Out Sourcing Letter to the Editor

Published in: The Pittsburgh Tribune Review
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_360381.html
Friday, August 5, 2005

In his response to "Creative job destruction," Richard Corwin's Aug. 1 letter replying to Pat Buchanan's July 27 column "Trading away our future," Mr. Corwin correctly points out that (robots) and "microchips will lower prices ... and destroy millions of manufacturing jobs."
Unfortunately, he then offers his Limbaugh-like talking point that somehow the loss of these jobs is "easing our transition out of our industrial age."
We need to realize that engineers and IT people are designing and creating these microchips and computers. Unfortunately, these engineering jobs are being moved to countries such as India and China. A software engineer in India may start at $10,000, while the same position in the U.S. has an average starting salary of $60,000.
Not restricting the outsourcing of these jobs unfairly offers an advantage to our foreign competitors. The government must regulate the outsourcing of these jobs. As a country we must take a stand to keep and respect our blue-collar and white-collar labor before we lose our entire shirt.

Events thst Shape Us

2005-06-06T22:13:00.000-04:00

EVENTS THAT SHAPE US

There is a commercial played on TV that attempts to join a series of completely random events into a predictable chain reaction. Although this may be an effective marketing tool, there are times in our history when seemingly unrelated events are undeniably related. Religious events, social injustices, international conflicts, and the loss of famous, revered, and even unknown individuals have more in common than any of us might have imagined.
We have witnessed such a series of events this spring. The leader of the Catholic Church, the longest standing organization in the world, with over one billion members, has lost his life. A previously unknown woman in Florida gripped the nation and the state and federal governments, as her husband decided she should starve to death amidst disputed facts and unknown wishes regarding her end of life directives. The anniversary of the death of the world's greatest leader for racial equality and social justice has once again passed. And after the second year of a preemptive war, a young child in Radwaniyeh Iraq joined the tens of thousands of Iraqi's classified as collateral damage as he was killed from a misguided missile.
Whether you believe in evolution or creation, Jesus, Allah, or both, it seems possible that these individuals, their souls and their energy, might be together somewhere. Call it heaven, the afterlife, or whatever you want, but imagine what they would contemplate. Imagine the power of the message they could produce. A pontiff who could articulate his defense of the sanctity of life at all levels. A woman who now has a voice could make her wishes known and speak as to what her last fifteen years of life truly were like for her and thousands of others. A man who could articulate the need for equality for all people regardless of race, color, or economic status. And a boy who would wonder why he was taken away in a war he did not want, did not understand, but could not escape.
Could their messages come together? Would the same people that fought against war last November continue to align themselves with pro-choice ideology? Would those that feel so strongly that abortion is murder begin to offer to educate people in contraception to prevent pregnancy for those who are not ready? Would those that feel so strongly that theirs is the only proper religion accept other ways of thinking and philosophies? Would those that support racial equality expand their fight to those that are hated for who they decide to love? Would those that claim God in defense of war look at the violence of the past century and become determined to end it?
I think this is what Pope John Paul II, Terri Shiavo, Martin Luther King JR, and Mohammed Ahmed would discuss. I think they would agree that life is precious and the responsibility needed to start life should be paired with the compassion to understand and promote it. They surely could not understand it all, just as we will never fully put together all the pieces of humanity. But I think they would expand the sanctity of life to include those that are unborn, those that have been born and are different than ourselves, and those that are too weak, sick, or poor to care for themselves. They surely would want those that they love to live in peace, equality, and happiness without fear of oppression, war, or poverty.
Then I think they would ask themselves why they were taken from this earth before the rest of us got it right too.
SK

Post-Inagural Letter to the Editor

2005-06-06T21:49:00.000-04:00

Letters to the editor: 2/5/05
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05036/453131.stm

George W. Bush changes the reason he was elected

During the presidential campaign, George W. Bush repeatedly implied he would enact his "Bush Doctrine" to keep the country safer. This was tested in the build-up to the war in Iraq when we heard words like mushroom cloud, yellow powder, nuclear program, immediate threat and mass graves.
Billions of dollars, nearly 1,500 dead Americans and approximately 50,000 (some say 100,000) dead Iraqis later, the search for this threat -- the WMD -- has been called off. No weapons have been found, and some of them may have been taken to be used against us.
We have, however, elected George W. Bush to keep us safer, and have forgiven him, or at least accepted, what Iraq has become. We can accept that Iraq may eventually be a better place for its people because Saddam Hussein is out of power, but it may be a long time before we can say we are safer because of this war.
In a twist of words the president began his second doctrine during his inauguration speech, standing for freedom and liberty and against tyranny. No one disagrees with this. But do we stand against Iran and trade with Saudi Arabia? Do we work with Pakistan and ignore workers' rights in China? Do we allow oil companies to drill in Libya, while Moammar Gadhafi pulls the strings?
The puzzling notion in the president's speech is why he has changed the policy on which the American people have elected him.
George W. Bush is the president because he raised the bar for our country's safety. He should not be allowed to lower it now.

Pittsburgh Political Signs

2005-06-06T21:17:00.000-04:00

In our recent democratic primary in Pittsburgh, the mass of campaign signs filled the streets. I wonder if those signs do much to help the candidates get any votes. I must confess that I had a few in my yard. The campaign for Judge was great. You can cross file, meaning run as a DEM and a REP, and the top seven are on the ballot in the next general election. Long time DEM Tom Flaherty had signs bragging "good controller, good judge." Wait a second, aren't we in some dire financial straits in these parts? How about, "bad controller, I'll try harder as judge." Maybe all his legal experience will help, call him before your next vote and ask him when he graduated law school. Another candidate had his signs read, "experince matters." Well, do you have any? Apparently not enough people were sure. Many of the winners just had their names and "for judge", just so we voters didn't try to find their names under mayor or council. Robert Downey JR received almost 16,000 votes. Do you think all of those voters new his record, his opinions, and felt comfortable with their decision? Maybe all the time he spent on trial helped his cause. And what are the reccommendations given in the paper? Are we to trust attorney's to rate and judge people? They are all honest...right? But the top vote getter had black and gold signs, "Dwayne Woodruff for Judge", and he won the primary with the most votes. Can anyone say, "name recognition?" How about, "super, super, super, super judge!" I am sure Mr Woodruff could be a great judge, but what do we know about him? Did anyone hear him on talk radio? If you are in his court accused of public intoxication at the stadium will he understand? So, maybe his signs did help. I mean, this is a football town. Lynn Swan...are you taking notes?

Social Security according to GF Will

2005-06-06T21:06:00.000-04:00

In response to the George F. Will article that ran May 5th, I would like to present some numbers that Mr Will curiously misses. He implies that social security, when means tested, is similar to welfare, rather than a social safety net. He writes, "means-testing, however labled, is an attribute of welfare programs." It seems that an economist of his stature should be able to discuss the changes in social security as well as the changes in the federal tax code as they relate to his, "welfare programs."

For the purpose of discussion, assume a fixed salary of a 35 year old worker, who plans to retire at 70. The current social security plan offered by President Bush (sources: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and ssa.gov) would cut all benefits of workers who earn over $36,507 per year. This, according to the president, would "protect: the poor.

Upon retiring, the average US worker earning $36,507, would have their beneftis reduced 14% to $1,425 per month. Of course they have received a tax cut, and if these cuts are permanent, the average worker would save $353 per year (source: ctj.org). Placing this "savings" into an investment, such as an idex fund that averages 8% return per year, will give the average worker an additional $65,694 to retire with. Assuming they save it all.

Any worker who earns $90,000 or above (the current maximum level of social security tax), would have their first year benefits cut 25% and recevie $1,982 per month. An individual at the $90,000 earnings level saves an average of $1,085 per year if the Bush tax cuts become permanent. Given the same investment plan, 8% return over 35 years, they gain an extra $201,921 for retirement.

If you are at the top 1% of earners in the US and earn over $518,000 per year you can stash away your average tax savings of $3582 per year, and have $666,618 at age 70, again assuming you save the entire tax cut and see an 8% return.

However, if you are among the top earners and pull in one million dollars or more per year, while receiving the same social security benefit as anyone below you on the wage scale above $90,000, you will save $35,785 per year if the tax cuts are permanent. Save this cash at an 8% return and at retirement you will see $6,659, 665.

Now, Mr Will, seriously, who is "means testing" who?