Show the Flag
Editor: I watched on TV, with stunned disbelief, U.S. soldiers ripping the American flag off their uniforms; and read in the newspapers, with equal dismay and disgust, that our troops in Saudi Arabia have been ordered not to show the flag.
I remember during the last presidential election, George Bush wrapping himself in the flag, his exhortations about a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration, and his loud proclamations about how we should reserve the American flag not only as a symbol of the nation, but as the idea of America's democracy.
I would imagine that the idea of reverence for the flag includes no hesitation to display it at any time. Yet the president is strongly silent about the flag policy in the Gulf. Just another example of Bush hypocrisy.
I am not the least bit concerned about Saudi sensitivities. I am, however, deeply concerned about the sensitivities of the troops in Saudi Arabia who may have to lay their lives on the line in the cause of democracy and freedom from aggression, as the White House so nobly puts it.
Alfred S. Sharlip.
Editor: I was very upset after reading an article in the Dec. 16 Sunday Sun which detailed John Sununu's attempts to scuttle energy conservation measures and favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of President Bush's national energy policy.
Mr. Sununu is a very intelligent man, which surprises me considering his Stone-Age attitude, an attitude that is symbolic of what is wrong with America.
In response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s, the wisdom of energy conservation became common sense in Europe. By contrast the Reagan-Bush era has brought about a reduction of energy conservation programs and a general leadership vacuum in that area.
Suddenly, in the midst of another energy crisis, we are scrambling on the edge of a recession because we didn't do our homework. it seems incredible that at a time when the need for energy conservation is most obvious Mr. Sununu thinks the solution is more oil.
We are a nation hooked on cheap oil, and until energy conservation becomes a national priority we will continue to exhibit withdrawal symptoms every time the price of oil jumps up.
Timothy W. Eastman.
Editor: I have just read the article by C. Fraser Smith entitled, ''Schaefer's symbols turn against him.'' It is one more in a continuing pattern of articles by this paper attacking the personality and personal quirks of this governor. Who among us does not have personal weakness, temper or bad days?
Yet who among us has devoted so much time, energy, enthusiasm, personality and commitment to the betterment of others? One only has to meet the governor, as I have, to see a man who cares; a man who gives his all to one goal -- a better Maryland than he found when he took office.
Only one person is legally charged with the duty of thinking and acting with the perspective of the whole state both present and future. That man is William Donald Schaefer. For 30 years he has served us. Would that others among us displayed the level of personal sacrifice exhibited by Governor Schaefer.
I am most tired of reading articles about his homes. So what if he likes to have several homes? He buys them; he pays for them and except for the security provided during his term as governor, he will have to maintain them and pay taxes on them just like any other citizen.
I am also tired of reading articles about acts which in the view of some are wrong but are minor in comparison to the incredible number of positive contributions, large and small, which this man has given to the people of this state over 30 years.
It seems as if this paper has set a rigorous course of tearing down the governor at one of the most difficult periods in his career, and in the history of our county. I have no quarrel with fair criticism on the merits of programs, policies and decisions. But, stop the ad hominum attacks of a personal nature against this dedicated and fine public servant.
William T. Weston.
Editor: I write as an American of German descent to express my utter disgust at the Dec. 7 editorial cartoon pertaining to Germany's humanitarian aid to the Soviets.
Using the image of a Stuka bomber affixed with a swastika, the cartoon falsely creates some connection between today's Germany and the ''Hitlerreich'' of 50 years ago.
German-Americans are accustomed to a certain level of bias in the media. However, now it seems that today's Germany cannot even do a good deed for a neighbor without being publicly vilified through unfair association with the aggressive militarism of times long past.
If applied to any other ethnic group, the use of such stereotypes would be roundly denounced for the racism it is.