ShareThis Page
Sounding off: We don’t need self-driving cars |
Letters to the Editor

Sounding off: We don’t need self-driving cars

The Uber self-driving car fleet parked outside their office in the Strip District before a test drive for media on Sept. 20, 2017.

Can someone please tell me why on earth we need self-driving cars? This is one of the biggest wastes of time, money and technology I’ve ever seen. Not only that, but you still need to sit behind the wheel. What’s the advantage, and who gets sued when your so-called self-driving car hurts or kills someone (which has already happened)?

If you like sitting in the driver’s seat of your nice, new self-driving car nervously wondering if it’s going to stop or not, then go for it.

Here’s the deal: If you can’t or don’t know how to drive, you shouldn’t own a car. If you do need to get somewhere, they make taxis, buses, trains and friends for that.

It might be a little different if you could call your self-driving car from your neighborhood bar and it will come and pick you up without any worry of getting a ticket, but you can’t.

What a waste.

Dwayne Buffer, Youngwood

The left and our freedoms

In addition to the “Green New Deal,” the agendas of many of the progressive left’s presidential candidates for 2020 contain social justice programs packaged as rights due all Americans. They include healthcare, living wage, employment, college education, etc. The guarantor of these rights without any cost to the beneficiaries is to be the United States government.

How can we forget that this great country was founded upon the moral principle that all people are created equal and, as such, are entitled to certain basic rights that cannot be surrendered? We should alsoremember the remarkable difference between our method of government and those of totalitarian states, such as Russia, China or North Korea. Ours was founded upon human rights for all its citizens,which were granted by God our Creator. In contrast, the only rights those who live within the totalitarian states have are those granted them by their dictatorial governments.

I can’t help but think that the more of the far left’s platform is implemented, the more our country moves away from those individual freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and closer to acentralized form of governing where those who govern determine the rights of the governed.

Ken Mowl, Hempfield

Advocating for white males

Regarding E. Nicklas’ letter “White American male will stand tall”: Why is it that white males don’t have an advocacy group? Women have NOW, blacks have the NAACP, Muslims have CAIR,but nothing for white men — especially the single (that means unmarried — unburdened) kind. Could it be that the government and society think they need a “whipping boy” and it is OK to discriminateagainst the major contributor to American society’s greatness?

Bill Herald,Venetia

Revoke 17th Amendment

It is nigh upon the hour for the 17th Amendment to be revoked. Passed in 1913, the amendment called for the election of senators by the people, not the state. Despite the good intentions behind the amendment, this is a complete contradiction of what the federal government was supposed to be.

Senators were to be the elite, the voices of the states, and the advocators of government. Today, the Senate is just a smaller House of Representatives. The senators must reflect their constituents’ will, which often goes against the views of the states and elite, or be voted out of office. Where is the elitism there?

That is why there is such a push to punish the wealthy today. No elitist institution in the government exists to fight the advances of populists in the House of Representatives. Hence, the only solution to this problem is to revoke the amendment.

Dominick Cicala,Avonmore

The writer is a senior at Apollo-Ridge High School. He wrote this for an advanced placement U.S. Government and Politics class.

Rest of the world is cleaning up

As reported by the Associated Press Feb. 25, many companies who produce consumer products are now making the effects of climate change a major part of their look ahead to a planet where increasingheat will alter what people buy. But once again, the United States is falling behind in adjusting its product mix to the reality of global warming.

The failure of our leaders to come to terms with climate change will drag our economy down as the rest of the countries, all part of the 2015 Paris accord, will be better prepared to meet the needs ofpeople living in a warmer world.

We must let our politicians know that we want action on global warming. While the debate about the “what” and “when” of the Green New Deal rages, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HouseResolution 763, energyinnovationact .org) is “shovel-ready” now to put a price on carbon and drastically lower fossil fuel emissions in the United States. This legislation is good for the economy, creatingmillions of jobs in the next 10 years; it’s good for our health, saving hundreds of thousands of lives because of cleaner air and water; and it will put money in the pockets of most American families byproviding a monthly dividend to be spent however you choose.

Before it’s too late, call and urge your Congress member to co-sponsor the legislation. Call Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey, letting them know you want the act reintroduced, and passed, in the Senate.

Bruce Cooper,Adams

Legal pot is a Pandora’s box

In January, Gov. Tom Wolf announced he was considering the legalization of marijuana and has sent Lt. Gov. John Fetterman on a listening tour to get input from state residents (“Fetterman’s marijuana tour stop in Greensburg draws large, divided crowd,”).

In a Jan. 24 press release stating his support of the listening tour, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said Pennsylvania could generate $581 million annually by “regulating and taxing” marijuana. He said the funds could, among other purposes, be used to reduce opioid addiction. Great point! LOL.

DePasquale said 8.38 percent of the state’s adults (21 and older) use marijuana at least monthly. He said “the tide of public opinion has turned,” as recreational marijuana has been approved in 10 states and Washington, D.C., with “public support levels more than doubling in less than 20 years.”

Do you think his mind is made up? Is 8.38 percent a majority? I think not.

Do we really want to open another Pandora’s box by legalizing marijuana when we are still struggling with opioid and other forms of drug addiction?

Which vice will be legalized next to feed the state budget pig? Prostitution? Pornography? Your guess is as good as mine.

John A. Waite,South Greensburg

Finish the wall

Now that the new Democrat-controlled Congress has been seated, it is obvious that the circus has moved into the swamp. Led for the time being by ringmaster Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who on the heelsof her recent declaration that the world would end in 12 years due to global warming has put forth a “Green New Deal.” This collection of nutjob ideas, if they were implemented, would truly be the end ofthe world as we know it.

During the most recent government shutdown, the Democrats feigned sympathy for the employees who were not being paid, but they were responsible for the shutdown. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumerhave both voted on prior occasions for more than the $5 billion the president requested. I believe they don’t care about border security, only how many votes they might get from illegal immigrants.

Pelosi called the wall “immoral,” and some members of Congress and the media agree. My bet is that those making such statements live in places surrounded by walls and fences, and maybe have armedguards, so they are not concerned with dangerous illegals encroaching on their space. The rest of us must fend for ourselves. Finish the wall!

August Gatto,Ebensburg

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.