Focus on al-Qaida, and keep our ties with South Korea
Post-Gazette columnist Jack Kelly wrote an interesting piece for a conservative -- he recommended letting South Korea go its way in the struggle with the North, without the American umbrella ("Yesterday's War," Dec. 29). In effect, he recommended that we walk away from more than a half-century commitment and from 50 million-plus people in the South, all because they had the effrontery to elect a dovish president.
He gives the weak answer why -- South Korea can now defend itself from the North. (The South, however, doesn't have nuclear weapons.) When you have battles going on with al-Qaida, potential battles with Iraq and a highly charged situation with North Korea that calls for diplomacy, tact and forceful discussions, it does your country no good to suggest that a long-term ally be turned loose to its fate. When your diplomacy fails to face reality, then you put yourself in a bind if you are in more than one war at a time.
Don't jettison South Korea. Jettison the mind-set that says Iraq must be attacked (it can be, and has been, contained).
Keep the mind-set that al-Qaida is the No. 1 threat. And use the international community (including Russia, China, Japan and South Korea) to moderate the North Koreans. We can't afford to fight more than one group at a time, especially if our main focus is spread throughout 60-plus countries.
MARTIN J. RESICK
Squirrel Hill
My prayer for peace
Like many of us during the yuletide and at the start of a new year, I find myself looking back, looking forward and looking to God. Today, my singular prayer is for greater wisdom among our country's leaders. Peace is everyone's goal, but where is it written that starting war brings peace?
The writings that reverberate in my mind are the story of David and Goliath (with the United States playing Goliath) and Matthew 26:52: " 'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him. 'For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' "
I find myself fearful of what 2003 will bring, not despite of but because of our country's leadership.
MATTHEW MULDOON
Shadyside
Upstanding character
Thank you, Tony Norman, for demonstrating the character that too few of us can claim to exhibit in this day and age ("They May Not 'Hate,' But They Sure Write Nasty Letters," Dec. 24).
First, Mr. Norman apologized. Regardless of his distaste for so much of what the Sons of Confederate Veterans displays, he admitted he was wrong. And not in the "Correction/Clarification" section buried behind Page One, but rather devoting an entire column to defending the reputation of the group.
Second, he demonstrated the antithesis of prejudice. He refused to let the hateful, distasteful actions of a minority formulate his opinion of this group. He gave the SCV a more than fair judgment.
Thank you. We should all demonstrate such character.
JOE BRILEY
Scott
Solve the problems first
I am an 11-year resident and have defended Pittsburgh as an undiscovered gem. But recently I am becoming depressed -- with the politics, the labor market and the debt of this city.
The article "Regional 'Branding' Effort Down to 45 Words or Less" (Dec. 19) made me even more depressed. I have been through branding processes, and starting with the proposed "brand essence" -- "Just as the steel from which it draws its roots, Pittsburgh has an authenticity and durability that provides a strong foundation, yielding new opportunities to grow and succeed. The amalgamation of our resources draws people together to a place where ideas are invented and transformed" -- is making me highly depressed.
People who don't know Pittsburgh think that it's a boring place, and this brand essence confirms it. Also, is polling 70 people enough to gather the sentiments of a city of more than 300,000?
Steel built this city, but what is going to renew it? We need to pick a brand that is going to inspire and draw people. I don't understand the point of creating a brand if the city has no advertising money to sell it.
Most people are pleasantly surprised when they first visit Pittsburgh. But we have some real problems to overcome -- bridging the racial divide; revitalizing Downtown while preserving our uniqueness; luring and sustaining new businesses; providing incentives for young families to live in the city.
A Band-Aid such as a brand, with no advertising behind it, isn't going to make an impact. This company's polling confirms something I have suspected: Pittsburgh has an identity crisis. We need to begin tackling our problems before picking a brand, and once we do, then we need to sell Pittsburgh to Pittsburghers. Once we believe in ourselves, then we can sell ourselves to the world.
HEIDI MALLOY
Edgewood
About our canon law
A statement in the article about the Rev. David Moyer ("Episcopal Priest Loses Tie to Diocese," Dec. 29) is misleading, and I would like to offer the following in an attempt to bring some clarity to an issue that is admittedly both confusing and unprecedented.
The statement, "In the Episcopal Church, priests who have been suspended or deposed can be approved by another province as priests in good standing" is incorrect.
According to canon law, a priest, once deposed, can be restored only by the bishop who imposed the sentence of deposition, or by his or her successor in office. Knowing this, Father Moyer, in anticipation of his being stripped of his priestly status, sought and received recognition of his orders in the Province of Central Africa prior to the imposition of the sentence of deposition by the bishop of Pennsylvania.
This technicality, however irregular, made it possible for Bishop Robert Duncan to receive Father Moyer from the African province and to add him to the canonical rolls of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Since Bishop Duncan's action had the effect of undoing a deposition imposed by a fellow bishop, the church's House of Bishops expressed its consternation, while at the same time conceding that Bishop Duncan had acted within the parameters of canon law.
REV. DR. HAROLD T. LEWIS
Rector
Calvary Episcopal Church
Shadyside
Libertarians love no tax
Harold Kyriazi's letter on the land value tax and the headline over it ("Even Libertarians Can Love a Land Value Tax," Dec. 31) may have inadvertently left the impression that all libertarians support this tax. This is not the case. Most libertarians emphatically do not love any tax, and the platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States specifically condemns taxes on real estate.
Some libertarians, past and present, have supported a land tax because they believe that the community creates the value of the land. Some others think a land tax is less unjust or less harmful than other types of taxes, but their grudging acceptance of it is hardly "love." Most libertarians believe that all taxes are objectionable, at best necessary evils, and that government should be financed, as far as possible, by less coercive means of funding, such as users' fees.
What all libertarians do agree on is that the government's only legitimate function is protecting our rights; that it takes far more money from us than it needs to do this; and that it uses the rest in ways that are mostly unnecessary, usually biased and often harmful, like building stadiums, subsidizing department stores and raising the pay of politicians and bureaucrats.
THOMAS GILLOOLY
Forest Hills
Pa. lawmakers, we need smoke-free dining
Having recently returned from a holiday visit with my wife's family in the Philadelphia area, during which we dined at a Wilmington, Del., restaurant, I realized anew what an anachronism our provincial commonwealth of Pennsylvania is.
The Delaware restaurant we enjoyed featured no smoking: not in the restaurant or the bar. I learned that smoking is banned throughout Delaware at dining establishments -- such nirvana! I thought I was in cutting-edge California! Hallelujah!
When will our Pennsylvania Legislature discover, as has beloved Delaware, that the "right" of those who sport a stinking, lethal drug addiction does not trump the legitimate interests and concerns of the vast majority who do not smoke and who seek to breathe clean air when they enter a public place, who wish not to ingest smoke in their lungs and take it home on clothing.
Smokers and their pushers, the tobacco barons, like to assert that the issue of smokers' "rights" should be dealt with through consideration, but there is no consideration. The smoker is focused exclusively on his or her drug addiction, not on courtesy or the rights of others not to ingest their deadly smoke.
When there is no consideration and innocent people are being harmed, legislation is needed. California and Delaware have rightfully chosen to protect the interests of those who deserve such protection. How much longer need we beleaguered Pennsylvanians wait for our Legislature and governor to do the right thing?
Smokers have every right in our free society to kill themselves and to bring misery and grief to their families. They have absolutely no right to diminish my comfort and safety and to preclude me from going to any public place.
OREN M. SPIEGLER
Upper St. Clair
E-mail this story 
