Dear Editor,

I have been unimpressed with the wave of cynicism that has swept over the… Dear Editor,

I have been unimpressed with the wave of cynicism that has swept over the editorial staff at The Pitt News with regard to President Bush. Instead of providing objective evaluations of his actions, The Pitt News makes bombastic comments against Bush in an effort to express disgust with and shame for him.

In the Nov. 12 editorial “Congress finally overrides Bush veto,” The Pitt News claimed that its only “disapproval [with overriding Bush’s vetoes was] that it should happen more often.” Such naive, near-sighted opinions and statements not only reflect a superficial understanding of the issues at hand, but also significantly reduce the effectiveness of the editorial and the reputation and integrity of The Pitt News.

The only factual statements in the latter editorial were that the bill was to “include hurricane recovery endeavors in Louisiana, environmental rejuvenation in the Florida Everglades and flood management in California.” The article said nothing on the conditions of the veto, which include helping to alleviate the debt of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which currently has a $58 billion backlog of projects and only about $2 billion a year to complete those projects, according to the Cincinnati Post.

Furthermore, making the claim that overriding Bush’s vetoes “should happen more often” is absurd. This effectively designates any action he takes as erroneous. How can a generalization like this be made? Last August, President Bush passed an energy bill that now requires most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind power. Should this bill have been overturned?

Samuel E. Kolman Junior Biomedical engineering