Gov. Ed Rendell is right in proposing an automatic vote-recount provision for Pennsylvania.

With President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry engaged in a close contest, based on some polls, Pennsylvania should eliminate any possibility of a fiasco such as occurred in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

Commendably, Republicans in the state Senate reportedly have embraced the idea after initially reacting coolly to it. The House should not do anything that would scuttle the provision.

According to Rendell, his administration is crafting a bill that would trigger a recount in statewide elections if the margin between the winning and losing candidates were less than 0.5 percentage points. If 5 million votes are cast on Nov. 2, which is approximately the total for presidential elections in the commonwealth dating back to at least 1960, any contest decided by fewer than 25,000 votes would trigger a full recount under the Rendell proposal.

While no statewide recount has ever been held in the Keystone State, it would be hard to embrace the prospect of a total recount under the current 67-year-old state election code. That's because, under the current code, recounts would have to be initiated individually among the 9,412 voting precincts - a lengthy, burdensome legal process.

Rendell's plan follows the lead of at least 19 other states that have shielded themselves from a possible "Florida experience" by putting in place a simple guideline for helping to decide close races correctly.

"Heaven forbid we have a 7,000- or 8,000-vote margin and have to do a recount under the current laws of Pennsylvania," Rendell said.

Once introduced, the proposal deserves fast-track consideration and passage. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore defeated Bush in Pennsylvania by fewer than 205,000 votes, or about 4 percent of the overall vote. Judging from the race to date, it seems within the realm of possibility that whoever wins in Pennsylvania this year will do so by an even closer margin.

An old saying is correct: It's better to be safe than sorry - especially when 21 electoral votes, the nation's fifth-largest prize, are at stake.

Many Butler natives have gone on to important careers in government, business, industry and the military.But few have achieved the level of success of Jonathan Greenert, whose accomplishments, and the confidence that he has inspired, have placed him in a vital role not only for his country but for other nations dependent upon the United States' power and protection.In assuming command of the Navy's 7th Fleet - the Navy's largest fleet - Greenert has been accorded the nation's trust in ensuring the safety of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and other U.S. interests within the realm of patrols over a large expanse of international waters."On any given day out here, you have about 30 ships, 200 aircraft and 20,000 people," Greenert said. "So I would call it a big deal."Actually, Greenert's prior assignment as rear admiral for the U.S. Pacific Fleet also was a big deal.As part of his new assignment, Greenert, who is a 1971 graduate of Butler High School, was promoted to the rank of vice admiral - a three-star ranking. He has a staff of 200 to help him operate the 7th Fleet."Basically, we're the Naval portion of the Southeast Asian war on terror," he said.Greenert said it is an honor and a privilege to take command of the fleet. And, it is an honor and a privilege for Butler to have one of its own entrusted with such a major responsibility.The new 7th Fleet commander is a positive example and inspiration to young people who are contemplating a military career, whether it be Navy or one of the other services.

The police and state Fish and Boat Commission officers who cited a Carlisle area newspaper carrier and her father for making deliveries after the rainy onslaught by the remnants of Hurricane Ivan last weekend don't merit praise for their gung-ho, get-tough attitude.The flooded roadway on which the carrier made her deliveries to six subscribers in a rubber raft obviously wasn't as perilous as the citations indicate - and the carrier didn't disrupt emergency operations by trying to serve her customers.It is to be assumed that the newspaper deliveries wouldn't have been attempted if the lives of the carrier and her father would have been in jeopardy. They weren't on a swollen river.However, the citation projects an opposite picture.The incident doesn't merit the $220 fine that the citation entails. And, when the carrier argued about the delivery citation, she also was arrested for disorderly conduct.The carrier and her father were wearing life vests, and both had signaling whistles. But the officers saw fit to charge them with negligent operation of a water craft.Judging from the scope of the emergency, the officers involved should have had much more to do than waste their time on this show of authority that, by itself, provided no help to any flood victims.Besides, the customers, confined to their homes, expressed delight about getting an information source to the world beyond the floodwaters. The girl's dedication made their situation more bearable.