Home >  Opinion

Sunday, February 10, 2002

We must say 'no more' to violence that destroys communities

Will we really galvanize? Seven years ago, my son came home from Carnegie Mellon University to look into the barrel of the gun of a gang member, who demanded him to "say his last words" before mercilessly gunning him down. Two weeks later his friend Dorion Reid, a Peabody football star, went to buy a hamburger at a fast food restaurant and instead was robbed of his life.

Now let's fast forward to the hundreds of murders since then (1994) to 2001, when Penny Goldston and her grandchildren watched her son, Wally, being executed as she tried desperately to save his life as the children looked on ("Police Say 2 Killings in Lincoln-Lemington May be Linked," July 8), and now we have the Homewood restaurant massacre, which resulted in the deaths of a friend, a father and an 8-year-old daughter ("Diner Shooting Leaves 3 Dead,'" Jan. 27).

Each time we cry out with reactionary vehemence, "enough is enough," and each time the next murder is even more heinous than the last. The truth is we allow the murderers to live among us, undetected, to kill again. One young man who came into Mr. Tommy's Sandwich Shop the day after the murder -- as the business owner attempted to put some of the pieces together -- brazenly stated to us that murder victim Thomas Mitchell must have "broken the G-code." Horrified at his inane remark, I reminded him that none of this behavior nor the perpetrators deserve any loyalty. Also, there can be no respect for cowards who continually terrorize and devastate their brethren and communities.

But who are the real cowards in all of this? We allow these young people to run amok and wreak havoc in our communities and hold us hostage, to extinguish our dreams and hopes, to live out their deranged fantasies of temporary "fame" and false power. We allow them to utilize our lives as their stage to act out their video nightmares of mayhem! There are but a small group of these ruthless "wanna-be gangsters" and there are thousands of good, solid, productive, strong citizens in our communities. Churches abound on every corner. There are more of us than there are of "them."

Let's not wait for the next heinous murder to react; let's retain this same momentum until we put a screeching halt to this mayhem and murderous spirit that we have allowed to co-exist in our communities. No more acceptance, no more excuses. To those who want the opportunity to change: We will help you. To those who don't: You need to be exposed and exiled by the whole community!

Please don't let any of our children's deaths continue to be in vain, but let 8-year-old Taylor Coles be the galvanizing force to bring together the fragmented efforts of some to mobilize everyone as a powerful force to be reckoned with -- for the very life of all of our communities.

ADRIENNE YOUNG
Executive Director
Tree of Hope
Bloomfield/Garfield

Atrium greatly helped us

I would like to add my perspective on the problems cited in the Feb. 3 article about Atrium I ("Nursing Home Runs Afoul of State"). My father was a patient there from August 1996 to September 2000. I knew Mabel Taylor, and she was a grand lady and lucky to have a very dutiful daughter like Jane Baczewski. Her unfortunate death must be very hard on her family.

Yes, there were times that staffing problems were evident. Turnover was constant. Aides were often asked to work extended shifts to cover gaps in the schedule. The job was tedious, frustrating and emotionally draining. I know that I could never have done it day in and day out. And that is exactly why we had to rely on the Atrium. Without it, we just couldn't have done it.

Despite the occasional problems, I always felt that the staff and the administrators made up for it by treating my father with the utmost respect and kindness. When I had problems or concerns about my father's care Martha Bell and Warren Mason dealt with them in a direct manner.

Until we find a cure for Alzheimer's, a devastating disease, we will continue to need places like the Atrium. I would recommend the Atrium to any family who needs help coping with this disease.

BENJAMIN BONHAM
Moon

Sensible reform

The Feb. 4 editorial "The Right Medicine" is precisely correct in its conclusion that tort reform is a necessary component of any broader medical malpractice bill. We concur with the Post-Gazette sentiment that society is not well served by "making 'pain and suffering' a legal lottery that offers the chance of turning medical misfortune into a bonanza."

Every day, we get more bad news from around the state in regard to increased nursing home liability costs. From a statistical standpoint, liability costs have skyrocketed 250 percent over the past five years, and several of our members with excellent records have received 2002 renewal quotes in excess of 500 percent. This is untenable and merely serves to destabilize and undermine those who care for our elderly.

After all is said and done, the net result of the undeniable trend toward more litigation is that access to quality nursing home care for Pennsylvania's most vulnerable senior population is put at risk.

ALAN G. ROSENBLOOM
President and CEO
Pennsylvania Health Care Association
Harrisburg

Cut traffic congestion

I disagree with staff writer Joe Grata's idea of returning streetcars to Pittsburgh's streets ("Unlike Pittsburgh, Phila. Makes Use of 'Streetcars,' " Jan. 27). I, too, have ridden and enjoyed the streetcars in San Francisco; however, the streets on which those run are much wider than our Downtown streets. Streetcars would only exacerbate the congestion that mars Downtown Pittsburgh. Indeed during rush hour, Port Authority buses are a primary culprit in the near-gridlock that can almost paralyze Downtown streets.

What this city needs to do is find the money and the gumption to do what it should have done years ago -- put public transportation underground. Rather than run buses within the city limits, we should have a subway system -- I mean a subway system that one could board in Wilkinsburg and go to Oakland, Downtown or to the airport, etc.

Yes, it would cost a lot of money, and, yes, it would be temporarily inconvenient. However, with our wacky topography and crowded streets, subways are the only way to go that makes sense. It also would decrease the need for parking garages and reduce the wear and tear on our streets.

Furthermore, we need to emulate Manhattan. It greatly reduced its traffic problems by enacting a "Don't block the box" law. What this means is that when a motorist pulls into an intersection and blocks traffic when the light is against him, he is ticketed (incurring a fine and two points).

Lastly, the city must again reinforce the jaywalking laws, especially during rush hours. Pedestrians continue brazenly to walk against the light in front of cars, bringing traffic to a halt. We talk about having a world-class city. Let's make it one by providing good public transportation and reducing congestion in our streets.

BILL BUCHANAN
Wilkinsburg

What is normal?

Editor John G. Craig Jr.'s Feb. 3 musings lay reproach on Enron's stockholders for their losses ("Life Goes Enron"). It takes him a while to offer this salt as triage, but there it is in paragraph 14: "Wall Street knew for months . . . that Enron officials . . . were selling large blocks of stock, but it did not react. Sometimes you have to hit investors over the head with a two-by-four before they see trouble."

Perhaps someone took the proverbial two-by-four to Mr. Craig before he concluded that "Wall Street" and "investors" are synonymous, and therefore have identical interests, motivations and access to information (I note in passing that many Enron employees were prevented from selling their shares).

On the other hand, if Mr. Craig did have his wits about him, then those who lost money in Enron were foolish to give credence to the company's fiduciary palaver and Arthur Andersen's fiscal audits.

Mr. Craig is probably correct to say the nation will be back to normal by Labor Day. The question Enron poses -- and that he begs -- is: What's normal?

DAN BEDNARZ
Edgewood

Extra caution a must

I'm writing in response to letter writer Mildred Brumfield, the 73-year-old lady who was subjected to extra security measures at the airport ("If I Look Like a Security Risk, We're in Trouble," Feb. 4).

Although I understand her feelings, I understand the airport's position as well. I think, regardless of age, there are people who would do anything for money, including carrying contraband on the plane. I'm sure Ms. Brumfield is innocent of such thoughts, but the airlines are not in the business of judging by looks or behavior alone.

Is this paranoia? Yes. Is it necessary? Absolutely!

SANDY EGGAR
Avalon

Aviation law wording is a real brow raiser

The recently enacted Aviation Security Act raises important questions that were not part of the general public debate.

Section 109(g) of this legislation grants the U.S. attorney general the authority to make employment decisions regarding airline screening personnel "notwithstanding any other provision of law." This remarkable provision allows the attorney general to ignore the entire body of labor and employment law, which Congress has enacted over the last century.

The attorney general could permit racial and gender discrimination, allow sexual harassment, punish "whistle-blowers" who report violations of aviation safety laws, and fire employees who belong to unions.

THOMAS M. KERR
Squirrel Hill