No Big Deal
Editor: Considering your Oct. 7 article, "Rating the Motion Picture Assn's NC-17 Rating," I fail to see the uproar over the new NC-17 rating. NC-17 and X are synonymous no matter how the movie industry trys to camouflage it. Therefore, the New York Times can simply choose not to advertise NC-17, The Sun can still refuse photo ads, the theaters can reject NC-17 movies.
The public can still choose whether to attend, but perhaps feel a little less self-conscious standing in line for a ticket. Just remember that famous line spoken by Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront," "A monkey in a silk suit is still a monkey."
Joyce C. Robinson.
Don't Be Shrill
Editor: In The Sun's Oct. 6 lead editorial, "Forlorn Fantisies," challenging a recent vote by three Maryland legislators, it is noteworthy that they are identified as Helen Bentley, Republican of Baltimore County; Kweisi Mfume of Baltimore City; and Mr. Dyson, "a something-or-other who purports to represent Southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore and Harford County."
Would it not be more proper to give Mr. Dyson the factual designation accorded to the other two? He is a Democrat who represents the First District, regardless of how the editorialists feel about the man and the quality of his service.
Lawrence C. Freeny.
Editor: Thomas Goedeke's Oct. 15 letter advocated use of people with liberal arts degrees as teachers, with the requirement of additional training in education specialties.
I agree with this general concept; however, those educated in the liberal arts are normally ill-equipped to teach mathematics and the sciences. What is additionally needed are people educated in those areas to become teachers, with the same requirement for further courses in education.
My experience with technical people is that there are not many who are psychologically attuned to teaching. However, there should be enough qualified to fill a large part of the gap currently existing. A good many such people are taking early retirement; ++ they should be approached with some inducement to enter the new field, at least on a part-time basis.
James V. McCoy.
Go for HDTV
Editor: With today's countries coming toward a more democratic reform, we should turn our attention to technological reform in the United States.
The most prevalent is the new ways television will be transmitted and received. High-definition television (HDTV), the newest technology, will be the vehicle to make this happen. One thing certain is that if we do not make a commitment for progress now, we will lose the advantage of being an active player in this future multi-billion-dollar industry in the start of the 21st century.
A few years from now, we could see a brighter outlook in all areas of the technological arena. However, what we need is legislative help from Congress and cooperation from industry leaders. We have to set standards and guidelines to set technological momentum for the future.
The question to most people is why we should need HDTV. Here are a few answers:
* To compete in the global marketplace, one must be a leader in new technological reforms. If we look at Europe and Japan, we see that they have already begun to change to HDTV, which gives them the head start in the race. For example, if we want to export our television goods, such as studio equipment and entertainment shows, we have to have the standards to compete with competitors.
* To create a manufacturing industry that will employ a vast number of workers.
* To get the U.S. communications process back on a competitive scale where HDTV will be the centerpiece for information transfer.
* To provide quality sound and near-picture clarity as you see in the theater.
* To bring a technological momentum to the U.S. that will reach areas of manufacturing, new services and products and government.
There are many other reasons. However, we most focus our goals on a new age where we have to think on global scale of communications to do business and to make peace.
Daniel Patrick Pomykala.
Feed the Needy
Editor: In response to the Oct. 9 letter, "Move the Meals" by Carole Simon, I find the statement that Our Daily Bread is the regular dining place for an army of young to middle-aged, able-bodied males is completely false and misleading.
I have been a volunteer at Our Daily Bread for the last three years. Women have always been served, with a noticeable increase each year. As for the children, their numbers have multiplied at an alarming rate.
The guests served are young, middle-aged, old, in poor health, handicapped, retarded, mentally ill, in good health -- no one is refused a meal. There is a great difference between an outside observer and an inside volunteer. And, yes, I am a concerned citizen and do go home feeling good about helping the needy.