The PG failed to endorse the best candidate

I look forward to reading your editorial endorsements of candidates before each fall's election. I often find myself in agreement with your recommendations and, even when I do not, I find them to be thoughtful. Thus, it was with great surprise that I read your endorsements for the Superior Court for this November's election ("Superior Picks," Oct. 26).

You simply missed the best and most qualified candidate in your discussion. While I know and respect several of the candidates whom you mentioned, I was surprised and disappointed that you missed the clear first choice -- Judge Judy Olson.

Judge Olson has not only served with distinction in her short time on the Court of Common Pleas, but she is the only one of the candidates for Superior Court who received the highest rating from both the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Allegheny County Bar Association. She has more experience as a practicing lawyer than any of the other candidates. She has both the temperament and the intellect to make an outstanding judge.

Beyond her accomplishments as a lawyer and judge, she is an outstanding public citizen. She has served the American Heart Association, both locally and now as a member of the national board of directors. She has given countless hours of time and devotion to Children's Hospital, where she has served on boards and committees. She has been active in church activities and numerous other community activities. She is simply the best-qualified candidate for the Superior Court.

PAUL H. TITUS
Park Place

The writer is a lawyer with Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

The feminist choice

I was disappointed to read your endorsement for Supreme Court ("Supreme Court: In a Duel of Two Top Jurists, It's Judge Melvin," Oct. 25). Although I agree with your editorial that gender balance is very important, I place a higher value on electing feminists regardless of gender.

While I appreciate that Judge Joan Orie Melvin has been active on the issue of domestic violence, she is not supportive of a woman's right to control her reproductive life. A woman's right to choose is a basic feminist issue. Her opponent, Judge Jack A. Panella, is endorsed by a major statewide feminist organization, the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Organization for Women. Judge Panella is involved in a wide range of community activities from United Cerebral Palsy to Easton Hospital to the Turning Point of Lehigh Valley, an agency that supports victims of domestic violence and their children.

Let's not be parochial in our choice (the other reason given for your endorsement) but vote for the best candidate. I urge all Pennsylvanians to vote for Judge Jack A. Panella for Pennsylvania Supreme Court; he is indeed an exceptional candidate, as you pointed out in your editorial.

CAROL McCULLOUGH
Westwood

Marginalized again

On Monday evening I had the pleasure to attend a forum of the candidates for mayor of Pittsburgh. This forum was held in the Elliot section of the city, and all three candidates were invited. Only Kevin Acklin and Franco "Dok" Harris attended. Both spent the next hour-and-a-half giving me and my fellow city residents their view of what the city's future could and should be.

Two things stood out. First is the great love both of these men have for our city, and second was another example of my "fringe" neighborhood being marginalized or completely forgotten by our current mayor. But should I expect anything more? My City Council person obviously did not think it was important enough to show up either.

I would never presume to tell anyone whom to vote for, nor would I tell the city whom I plan to vote for in this venue, but I will tell you, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl does not deserve my or anyone else's vote.

SCOTT A. CRAWFORD
Elliot

A global warning

Regarding "In Denial: A Fog of Misinformation on Warming Confuses Some" (Oct. 26 editorial):

Another study came out last week that should serve as a warning to anyone who is wavering in their belief that global warming is real and already occurring. The UK government released a sobering world map showing the effects of a seven-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase. Sea levels would likely rise, along with an increase in the number and severity of droughts and forest fires.

When the world gathers in Copenhagen in less than 40 days, the United Kingdom will be pushing for the most ambitious deal possible that will help avoid the dangerous impacts that the map illustrates. We hope all other countries do too. The interactive map can be found at www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk.

SIR ALAN COLLINS
UK Consul-General
for Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey
New York, N.Y.

Questions abound

In your editorial "In Denial: A Fog of Misinformation on Warming Confuses Some" (Oct. 26), you indicated that 47 percent of Americans polled do not think evidence of global warming is irrefutable. Later you note that half of the public favors carbon emissions while still being "unsure of many aspects of the debate."

I would definitely say I'm part of both groups, even though you praise one group and criticize the other. PG, am I so ignorant? It's puzzling to me that it's so unbelievable to you that I might question the science that to this point has been anything but irrefutable regarding mankind's effect on the Earth's temperature. A couple of thousand years ago the leading evidence was irrefutable that the Earth was flat.

GEOFF DOBSON
Brookline

Perilous for church

Kudos to columnist Maureen Dowd ("The Nuns' Story," Oct. 26) for speaking out against the disenfranchisement of nuns and women in general in the Catholic Church. A very great many of us practicing Catholics are shocked, ashamed and embarrassed at the audacity of church leadership to continue to treat women so poorly, even as their importance to the survival of the Catholic Church increases.

EVELYN CHRISTIE
Regent Square

Let's maintain the respect our libraries have earned

Andrew Carnegie's requirement for $40,000 to maintain the Pittsburgh library system in 1895 has never been adjusted for inflation. Using Federal Reserve Bank records and calculations, that $40,000 would be equivalent to $1,021,000 in today's currency. How do I know this? The reference librarian at the Oakland library found out in five minutes after I asked him. No other service in our city provides such fast and useful information to the public. If the city of Pittsburgh had maintained its support in light of changing monetary values, the library would be in far better shape today.

Let me add that Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh is an icon in the library profession and is known worldwide as the first urban library system. Carnegie used it as the pattern for producing larger systems in New York, Philadelphia and other cities. The directors of our library have sometimes been notable leaders in the profession. Director Ralph Munn was invited to design the library systems of Australia and New Zealand based on our system. Robert Croneberger spoke persuasively before the Supreme Court on behalf of freedom of expression during the censorship debates in 1991 when the federal government was about to drop funding for the National Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts, and he saw the court vote on behalf of freedom, and helped save the funding. When our library administrators visit other countries they are treated with great respect because they represent our Pittsburgh system.

As we fight to save our branches, we should know that a larger world of librarians will pay attention to our progress.

ROBERT J. GANGEWERE
Shaler

The writer was editor of Carnegie Magazine for 31 years. He is the author of "Palace of Culture: Andrew Carnegie's Institute and Library in Pittsburgh," which is scheduled for publication by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

These veterans understand the value of clean energy

As a veteran, I am very dismayed by the remarks made by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe ("Metcalfe Defends Harsh Talk About Vets on Climate," Oct. 21). He has called Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans coming through Pennsylvania on a bus tour "traitors" and "Benedict Arnolds" for disagreeing with him on energy policy.

Rep. Metcalfe voiced the most egregious insult any veteran could hear: that he or she is a traitor. Free speech is protected under our Constitution. Policy differences about climate-change impacts and solutions are not treasonous and to label them as such is irresponsible. The beliefs and activities of these vets, who are simply speaking out from their direct experience as soldiers in the field, about an issue that all governments agree requires action, most certainly should not impugn their patriotism.

Let's set the record straight -- our veterans are heroes. These veterans are calling for new clean energy policies that will reduce our dependence on oil produced by foreign governments, some of which support terrorists. They are speaking out so citizens who have not seen these battlegrounds in Iraq and Afghanistan firsthand will understand that to end these wars and to prevent future threats to our national security, the United States must commit to reducing carbon emissions and to creating renewable energy solutions here at home.

I welcome these veterans' voices. I join with them in urging Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey to strengthen and pass a climate bill. Our national security will be the stronger for it.

LT. COL. JAMES M. CROWLEY
U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Berwyn, Pa.

Metcalfe provides another embarrassment

Pennsylvania made national news during the last election for ignorant and racist remarks by some of its elected officials. We again made the news for being the last state in the nation to approve a state budget, and now here we are being embarrassed again. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has been quoted calling veterans "traitors" just because they don't agree with him.

Apparently, Metcalfe thinks that if you are forward-thinking enough to promote a responsible energy policy -- which the majority of Americans agree we need -- and to treat climate change as a legitimate issue, that makes you a Benedict Arnold, even if you have served your country honorably in the U.S. military.

And what does that make you, Rep. Metcalfe, besides a petty, narrow-minded name-caller? Do you move intelligent conversation forward? Do you resolve anything? No.

However, that is what we have come to expect from your party and legislators like you: nothing except simplistic buzzwords, name-calling and lack of vision for the future. Congratulations, you join the ranks of those who have embarrassed the good citizens of Pennsylvania yet again.

KATHLEEN MEHOSKY
Harrisburg

In the mayor's race, the crime issue is No. 1

Upon reading the Post-Gazette's endorsement of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl ("For Mayor," Oct. 18), I was struck by how the editors in their critiquing of the mayor conveniently chose to ignore what many voters in Pittsburgh see as the No. 1 issue: crime. This from a newspaper that, in my opinion, never misses an opportunity to slant a crime story in order to paint certain neighborhoods and the residents who live there in a bad light.

In a city where many Democrats not only listen to conservative talk radio but also have bought into the GOP's uneducated base philosophy of ignoring crime in Pittsburgh because the people it affects the most don't matter in their eyes, I found the editors' blatant omission of the crime issue irresponsible. It might come as a surprise to the Post-Gazette, but there are citizens who not only care about police officers but also care about all the innocent citizens who have lost their lives in the last three years. They also care about the safety and rights of students who come to Pittsburgh to attend college, who, by the way, pour thousands of dollars into the local economy.

Many years ago New York City's very existence, its ability to attract and maintain new businesses and city population, was at risk due to crime. The difference was that New York's local media held officials accountable. The Post-Gazette appears to be more interested in ignoring Ravenstahl's weak point in order to influence voters. Voters should not ignore the crime issue come Nov. 3.

WILLIAM FISHER
North Side

An employer mandate could back-fire

Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. criticized Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) for "her opposition to a strong employer mandate" ("Olympia Snowe in Charge," Oct. 15). His criticism is ill-founded. Such a mandate would lead to massive job losses.

A study released earlier this year by the National Federation of Independent Businesses concluded that an employer mandate would cause the economy to shed 1.6 million jobs within the first five years of implementation.

That makes sense. Forcing firms to provide health insurance to their workers will make the cost of employing someone even higher. Many companies will respond by laying off existing workers or refusing to hire new ones, whom they'd immediately have to cover. Perversely, an employer mandate may actually increase the number of people without health insurance.

JANET TRAUTWEIN
Executive Vice President and CEO
National Association of Health Underwriters
Arlington, Va.

They dished out unfairness

This letter is in response to Barbara White of Westmoreland City ("Conservatives Have Had It With Being Labeled as Bigots," Oct. 11). I guess I will have to say, "How does it feel?" I am not minimizing your situation. It certainly isn't fair being called a bigot if you disagree with the president. But, as they say, the shoe is on the other foot now.

Anyone who disagreed with anything the Bush administration said was a traitor, a Benedict Arnold, if you will. It was simply un-American to disagree with any of the administration's policies, and we (progressives) were reminded every minute of every day to either accept it or move to another country. It was constantly "you are either with us or you are against us." And, of course, every word you muttered against the war was "hating the troops."

This sentiment is nothing new, Ms. White. I guess it has all boiled down to the new politics of this country. A big old game of "Nanna-Nanna-Boo-Boo." At least that's what it feels like!

JULIE RHINE
Zelienople

Can't wait to respond to our letter writers? Go to community.post-gazette.com/blogs.

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.

Town Talk, a discussion forum on issues of the day, is featured exclusively in the Opinion section on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.