Why is Congress spending time on steroids in baseball?

Why is Congress spending time on steroids in baseball?
EDITOR:
I have to take issue with the congressional hearings into the steroid problems in Major League Baseball. The congressional committee investigating steroid policy has subpoenaed several present and former Major League ballplayers, along with Donald Fehr of the Players Association and executive vice presidents of baseball, Rob Manfried and Sandy Alderson. They convene hearings in Washington Thursday to delve into the steroid problems in the sport.
At a time when we are involved in a military action in Iraq; still hunting for Bin Laden and many other terrorists; dealing with record budget deficits; surrounded by corporate scandal; looking at dealing with a nuclear Iran and North Korea; dealing with sky rocketing health care costs, high fuel prices and problems with Social Security; losing our manufacturing base to foreign countries and seeing record personal and business bankruptcy -- not to mention high unemployment figures and a weak dollar -- our leaders have decided that the steroid problem in Major League Baseball is something they need to spend time dealing with.
What is next? The drug problem in Hollywood? Alcoholism in Alaska? How about investigating why so many congressmen who are being paid so well can possibly manage to accomplish such little good for the people of this great country year after year?
GARY RUSSELL
Youngstown
Looking for logic among the nuclear haves and have-nots
EDITOR:
For the last several months extensive discussions are going on as to why Iran and North Korea should not develop and possess nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction. But it seems absurd when the United States, China, Russia, France and United Kingdom feel that they are entitled to possess nuclear weapons but no other nations should possess them. Is it because that these nations feel that the nuclear weapons are safe only in their possession?
In fact United States is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons -- twice. French Nuclear Safety Institute said that there have been 60 "criticality" nuclear accidents since 1945. The worst among these are in Chernobyl in April 1986 in the former USSR (now Ukraine) and Three Mile Island in March 1979 in the United States and Tokiamura, Japan, in September 1999 -- all in the prosperous industrialized nations. Or is it the requirement to be a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations? Well, Japan, German, India and Brazil are waiting to claim their legitimate right to that position.
One should wonder as to why a tiny, overpopulated, offshore island nation, namely United Kingdom, should possess nuclear weapons. In the 21st century United Kingdom is neither an imperial power, nor a superpower or a world power. At best, it is a second rate European Power. United Kingdom (population 60 million) is a nation the size of Oregon (population 20 million). The depressed economy of the state of California exceeds the healthy economy of the United Kingdom. The position of France is no better. United Kingdom and France do not have the qualifications to be permanent members of the United Nations in the 21st century. These nations should voluntarily destroy their nuclear arsenals, setting a good example for other nations to follow.
Would it not be nice to have a healthy debate as to why any nation should possess nuclear weapons?
YESHAWANT GINDE, M.D.
Youngstown