City taxpayers deserve remedies to the violence

In light of the recent tragedy where a 15-year-old girl was killed and two other teens were wounded ("Girl, 15, Dies in Drive-By Shooting," June 16), I have concluded that our local government has failed to bring a sense of safety to some Pittsburgh neighborhoods where our children play.

Just like previous mayors, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has shown little courage when it comes to protecting the young people of Pittsburgh. With a police department approaching 900, one wonders why there hasn't been the political will to get permanent boots on the ground in these communities. Is it politics? Are we trading permanent community foot patrols for FOP votes or what?

One would think that the protection of the city's youth would be a top priority of Mr. Ravenstahl. If fear of a policeman patrolling around the corner is enough to stop one criminal from firing a gun at someone, it's worth it. The citizens in these neighborhoods are taxpayers who deserve no less. Local media outlets have failed to serve as the citizens' watchdog on this issue. Maybe it's time for the citizens/voters of these neighborhoods to take their protest to the mayor's office.

Also, it would not hurt to object to the relicensing of local news outlets (mush media) that appear to be focused more on dog funerals and Steelers football than holding our local officials accountable for the ongoing violence that has shattered so many young lives. Are there any local officials who really give a damn?

WILLIAM FISHER
North Side

---

A thorough defense

Tony Norman's June 13 column contained his reflections on the trial of Devon and Jovon Knox. In the interest of full disclosure, I am chief counsel of the Allegheny County Office of Conflict Counsel, and Veronica Brestensky, the attorney who represented Devon Knox, works for me.

First, Mr. Norman's comments relevant to Devon Knox's defense were both insulting and misinformed. What Mr. Norman referred to as courtroom games was simply the defense's demonstration that no one, including the commonwealth witness, could tell these two defendants apart.

It is not the defense that made a point of that but rather the commonwealth. Throughout the proceedings the commonwealth has always insisted that its witnesses could tell which twin had the gun and which did not. What happened in the courtroom that day was a simple illustration of the ludicrousness of that position. If, in fact, the commonwealth conspiracy case was so strong, then what difference did it make as to who had the gun?

Ms. Brestensky defended an extremely difficult case with great tenacity and skill. If Mr. Norman had been present or if he had taken the time to make any inquiries as to what actually happened in the courtroom, he would have discovered that fact. She gave a complete and thorough effort in defending her client, which is precisely the ethical obligation of a defense attorney.

All my attorneys understand that their job is not an easy one before they begin it, but if there is going to be criticism leveled against them, at least it should be consistent and make some attempt at fairness.

J. RICHARD NARVIN
Chief Counsel
Allegheny County Office of Conflict Counsel
Downtown

---

Courage at trial

I am praying that the heroics of the courageous couple and their two young children who came forward to testify about the senseless murder of Jehru Donaldson will be the beginning of a new movement in the city. A police officer said it is commonplace for witnesses of murder to remain silent in our community. Our children are dying physically, emotionally and spiritually because of this code of silence.

A glimpse of what happens when one speaks out was taught by this wonderful family that made a moral decision to testify against the Knox twins ("Twins Guilty in Slaying of N. Side Teenager," June 10). Their testimony was pivotal in the jury reaching a guilty verdict.

V. HAYNES
Ben Avon

---

This isn't change

Even though I am a registered Republican, I worked very diligently on Barack Obama's primary campaign here in Ohio and then crossed the border to volunteer during his three-week Pennsylvania primary effort. I considered myself to be someone who was committed to his election as president this fall. But after reading who is serving on his "new national security advisory group," I feel like I have been duped ("Obama Convenes Security Panel," June 19).

With so many former, recycled Clinton advisers, I can't help but wonder if I supported the wrong candidate. Perhaps we should have stayed with the Clintons. Are there no new faces in this arena? Is this the best Mr. Obama can do? I understand that many voters credit the Clintons with a peaceful end to the last century, but I blame their lack of an appropriate response to any of the numerous terrorist attacks under their watch for the tragedy that befell us on 9/11. The problem I have is that although we will have a clear choice between two very different options this fall, both approaches have failed us as a nation. Where are the new ideas? Where is the change?

Going back to the 1990s isn't change in my book. I have to reconsider my support of the Obama candidacy. I honestly believe we would be better off with John McCain's promise of a forceful response, over the nonresponse of the last administration. I am extremely disappointed.

TIM WAGNER
Youngstown, Ohio

---

People, not damage

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has been appointed an adviser to the Obama campaign ("Obama Convenes Security Panel," June 19). She is the one who, when questioned about the deaths of about 500,000 children in Iraq due to an embargo, said these deaths were collateral damage.

I may hold my nose, but if Barack Obama can't find better advisers, I'll vote for someone else.

SIDNEY S. POLLACK
Highland Park

---

Election battles

Barack Obama defended his decision to opt out of federal financing by explaining that his opponents have become "masters at gaming this broken system" ("Obama Says No to Public Financing," June 20). Mr. Obama is correct in this statement.

Whether candidates choose to publicly or privately fund their campaigns, the influence of third-party and special-interest groups is impossible to control when holding an election. Knowing this, Mr. Obama has backed John McCain into a corner financially, essentially giving his campaign a more powerful engine to run on from here until November. But Mr. Obama has clearly opened the door to being labeled a "flip-flopper."

The battle over public financing comes down to money and trust. Mr. Obama has won the "money" battle, while Mr. McCain has won the "trust" battle. The problem for Mr. McCain is that losing the "money" battle is a permanent loss. But the "trust" battle could ultimately decide the war. If Mr. McCain can convince voters that Mr. Obama is untrustworthy, he could win the election. If he can't, Mr. McCain will more than likely fall short of the presidency.

PETER HORTON
Squirrel Hill

---

Some clarification regarding our study

We are writing in regard to the June 23 article about coal-to-liquids ("Coal May Hold Solution to Gas Prices," June 23). Our study was referenced in the article and we would like to clarify the results and point out some other issues that caught our attention.

1) Under the best possible conditions, in which coal-to-liquid plants capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide and use low-carbon sources of electricity, life-cycle greenhouse gases with coal-to-liquid fuels would be about the same as today's gasoline. It is much more likely, however, that the use of these fuels would lead to increased emissions. Electrifying our transportation system might result in better emission reductions, so investing in renewables and advanced coal power plants that capture and store CO2 might be a better use of our financial resources.

2) Coal-to-liquids diesel may have lower sulfur emissions during combustion, which is an environmental benefit. Sulfur, however, is not a greenhouse gas, so reducing sulfur emissions is not, as the article states, "a greenhouse advantage."

3) The statement by the National Mining Association's Luke Popovich that "China's greenhouse gas emissions greatly surpass our own" is not accurate. China's emissions are expected to surpass the United States by 2009 but they haven't yet. Additionally, for climate change, it is the amount of historical emissions as well as current emissions that matter, in which case the United States' emissions greatly surpass China's. These do not mean that we should not be concerned about China's growing greenhouse gas emissions. We most definitely should. But China's emissions are not an excuse to ignore our own emissions.

PAULINA JARAMILLO
Post-Doctoral Researcher
COSTA SAMARAS
Doctoral Candidate
Carnegie Mellon University
Oakland

---

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.