What's in a name: hits,runs & errors
Your May 8 editorial about the Camden Yards "baseball" stadium was very funny and dumb. It's not a train yard, so what is your point?
There is no doubt in my mind that you are like the other narrow-minded people in town who don't want any name connected with New York for our stadium.
It does not matter that Babe Ruth was baseball's greatest player and was born in center field. You would screw up our field of dreams. It would be a mistake not to have the stadium named after Ruth.
Albert E. Izner
The results of "It's Your Call," indicating Babe Ruth Stadium as the preferred name of the new ball park were surprising. I realize a telephone poll is not the true sampling of the public. However, I believe the surge of calls that pushed Babe Ruth Stadium past Camden Yards was probably the result of The Evening Sun's own John Steadman putting his telephone on automatic redial.
I hope the Orioles do not name the stadium after Babe Ruth. We are proud that he was born in Baltimore, but his name and accomplishments will always be associated with the New York Yankees not the Baltimore Orioles! If we name our stadium for Babe Ruth, we are honoring both him and New York!
As season ticket holders, my husband and I feel the name should reflect the traditional decor of the new stadium. Camden Yards is the obvious choice.
Your editorial, "Call it Camden Yards," is fiction. Your editorial writers must be newcomers to the city. Your effort to influence readers that the name "Camden" has a "mystique" is a joke.
People who grew up in the city have very little recognition of the name Camden. Camden Street? Yes- generally associated with the hustle and bustle of those bygone days of activity around the port. As for the Camden train station and Camden Yards "having plenty of mystique" ` you must have had the Mount Royal or Pennsylvania station in mind.
During the early years of this century Baltimore was an active city, and the railroad was a vital part of this activity. But don't try to tell us that the Camden train station was a busy, luxurious place (with mystique), and that Camden Yards was a vital cog that added a degree of prestige. Camden Yards was the ugly duckling of the railroad operation.
It is remarkable that many who pretend to abhor the concept of "political correctness" nevertheless have the impertinence to call pacifists un-American.
Katharine W. Rylaarsdam
Bush Jr.'s dipping
It has been reported that despite earlier denials by the Pentagon and U.S. officials, we are preparing to establish a base for our armed forces to be permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia.
And if that decision surprised few who have knowledge of our military history, try this one on for surprise:
Our present command headquarters at MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, Fla., will be established as a forward headquarters for the U.S. Central Command in Bahrain, a small island monarchy in the Persian Gulf and connected to Saudi Arabia.
That takes me back to Oct. 7, 1990, when the Houston Post reported that George Bush Jr. is a director, large stockholder and $120,000-a-year consultant to the Harken Energy Corp. in Bahrain.
The Post also reported that the Texas-based company's "potentially lucrative drilling rights in the Persian Gulf are being protected by American troops" sent there to face Iraq.
In a Forbes magazine article Sept. 30, 1990, Houston oil analyst Charles Strain described Harken's bonanza as "an incredible deal, unbelievable for this small company."
The print and electronic media appeared sufficiently responsible exposing the notorious activities of George Bush's son Neil, a director of the Silverado bank in Colorado, who dipped deeply into the till, causing depositors and other taxpayers to foot the $1 billion bill.
Where were the media when George Bush Jr. dipped deeply in Bahrain's oil facilities at $120,000 per?
Leon Peace Ried
Life, not ideology
In her May 5 column, "Fish or Poles," Sara Engram refers to U.S. decisions not to fund the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) and International Planned Parenthood population programs overseas as "ideology winning out over human lives."
Absent from Ms. Engram's piece is any reference to the pro-human-life rationales guiding these decisions: UNFPA supports China's coercive "one child per couple" ` recently documented by Reuters and by the Kennedy Institute's ethics journal. It is a bit late in the game to brand opposition to coercive abortion programs "ideology," since the U.S. helped convict German officials at Nuremberg of "crimes against humanity" for conducting such pogroms. International Planned Parenthood violates U.S. and United Nations policies against promoting abortion as a method of family planning in developing nations.
Ms. Engram implies that unborn human beings and adult Chinese parents are not "human lives." But since the fact of their humanity is not scientifically open to dispute, Ms. Ingram can only mean that there is less value in their lives. The very notion is frightening, as is the idea of federal policies divorced from ethical concerns for human life. Since when is concern for humanity "ideology"?