'Monster' BridgeEditor: Concerning your July 14 article on...


August 04, 1991

'Monster' Bridge

Editor: Concerning your July 14 article on the Route 450, Severn River bridge controversy, it would be even more satisfying if Edward Gunts wrote for the Annapolis newspaper. It is galling that such a well-researched and intelligent report was instead in a Baltimore paper that editorialized in favor of the new "monster" bridge.

Perhaps if Baltimoreans took more interest in this controversy, they could persuade their ''favorite son'' and his State Highway Administration to hold out for a reinvestment of federal funds in a more appropriate structure.

A graceful and characteristic bridge is, after all, as important to the historic capital of Maryland as a thriving Harborplace is to Baltimore.

Deborah A. Christhilf.

Severna Park.

Helmet This

Editor: I would like to say that I find your continually biased anti-motorcycle reporting irritating. In your July 29 "In The State" section, there is a piece about the death of a motorcycle rider. Once again, you found it necessary to state the rider killed was not wearing a helmet.

By including that fact you imply that the individual was breaking a law. A motorcycle rider over the age of 18 is not required by law to wear a helmet in our state, yet your paper constantly feels the need to make a point of it when an injured party of legal age is not wearing one.

The accident described in the article was not the fault of the cyclist but through the use of the line "was not wearing a helmet when" you caused the ill-informed to believe that he was somehow to blame. You did not, however, see fit to include whether the driver of the automobile was drunk or sober. Apparently you did not want to cast aspersions on the car driver or insult his driving ability.

If the driver of a convertible were killed in an accident, would you also note to your readers that the top was down? Objective reporting, as I understand it, is supposed to be the goal of a good newspaper, so it would be appreciated if you would keep these anti-motorcycle prejudices in line with what would be considered good reporting.

Steven P. Strohmier.


Proper Context

Editor: John Reid's June 30 Perspective article, ''What Brazil Has, in Addition to Thieves,'' struck a nerve, and I feel the need to respond.

The article disturbs me in that it presents the notion that Brazil is a nation of thieves. Readers will be inclined to think negatively about the nation. Tourists and business people will not consider Brazil as a possible vacation destination or place in which to do business.

Having studied and worked overseas, I always worry when developing nations receive negative publicity. While the supply of news from these areas is sparse at best, negative press, whether justified or not, does have an impact on the image of the socioeconomic and political climates of the country.

I ''survived'' five weeks of Brazil, including Rio, without being mugged. While I agree crime is a problem, it does need to be exposed for what it is -- part of a deeply rooted problem in the economy and educational system. A reform movement is occurring in Brazil as civilian rule evolves after two decades of military rule.

I know first-hand that there are many people in Brazil who are concerned with their nation's image. Problems discussed need to be exposed in their proper context.

J. L. Cox.

Reading, Pa.

Calling 'Foul'

Editor: Your July 5 editorial regarding driving on expired tags, in my opinion, brought unjust censure on the police department. To believe that the four to six weeks' advance notice provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles is inadequate is unconscionable. Your position for such an indiscretion reflects the general attitude of an alarming segment of today's society -- hurrah for me and the hell with you; if it feels good, do it; if it's trash, throw it out.

Whatever happened to the concept of respecting the rights of others? The idea of conforming to the norm and adjusting to the dictates of society within the framework of law and order is being taken over by me-ism. Is this a precursor to anarchy? I don't know.

Ralph S. Taylor.

Glen Burnie.

Wars of Belief

Editor: Hurrah and hats off to Christopher M. Leighton for his July 27 Opinion * Commentary article, ''Onward Christian Soldiers.''

The world is now too interdependent locally, nationally and internationally for attempted isolation or insistence on a single point of view.

We must learn to live together or we shall surely perish together. Mr. Leighton's identification of 26 out of 31 current wars world-wide as rooted in religious or ethnic conflicts is ample evidence.

Robert O. Bonnell Jr.


About Oysters

Editor: ''The region's watermen deserve better'' is the last line William J. Goldsborough's July 19 Opinion * Commentary piece about an oyster ban.

As a resident of Dorchester County, I believe that watermen are getting exactly what they deserve.

Permitted by Maryland law to oyster on anyone's property, watermen completely denuded our shoreline of every oyster available, regardless of size, two years ago. We now have none. I believe this to be the case throughout Hudson Creek.

If the state law were changed to allow residents to protect the oysters on their shores, there would remain a nucleus of breeding stock and immature oysters in the creeks.

This would also result in cleaner creek waters being filtered into the bay and decreased Department of Natural Resources presence -- all at no cost to the taxpayer.

Incidentally, returning shell was tried during the late 1950s and proved to be of little value, according to reports at the time.

Beryl U. Wiley.


Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.