Bush and Life
I must respond to Paul O'Brien's Mar. 31 rebuttal to Mary Kendal's letter Mar. 25 concerning President Bush as hero. It is pathetically clear to anyone who actually wishes to read, for heaven's sake, that Congress, not the two most recent presidents, is the body which continued to spend and spend in the face of declining revenues.
It is also pathetically obvious that, were it not for the tax cuts of the Reagan years, a lot more folks would have not been eating regularly.
Like it or not, reverse discrimination is a major issue for many people. Particularly, it seems, checkbook liberal parents who have recently discovered they have a child who will one day enter the job market after college. Suddenly, they're not so liberal.
Further, the "sanctity of life" issue has nothing to do with the Desert Storm operation. War is war, and if Mr. O'Brien opposed it, so be it. Desert Storm was about torture, oil and dictators who, however once used by America to balance a (then) worse threat (Iran), simply grew too dangerous.
The sanctity of life issue points out one key fact about George Bush as leader and man of integrity. He has a point of view, predicated upon a principle. You may disagree with him, but he takes a stand and doesn't waffle like a Bill Clinton, whose ''principles'' are predicated only upon the latest public opinion polls.
I can disagree with and yet respect Mr. Bush. I cannot respect all these wimpy, waffling liberals who stand on no long-term principle and display no integrity (the stuff of leaders, like them or not).
Douglas B. Hermann
I am writing in reference to the article pertaining to therapists who become sexually involved with their patients.
The article was well done except no information was provided regarding how to file complaints against the alleged offender. Social workers, psychologists, nurses, psychiatrists and counselors are licensed in Maryland. There are regulatory boards that have been established to protect the public against practitioners who violate ethical principles in treating clients.
As a past chairperson of the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners, I am aware that body would be anxious to receive complaints regarding inappropriate behavior by licensed social workers. The board can be contacted by telephone at (410) 764-4788. the mailing address is 4201 Patterson Ave., Baltimore, 21215.
The Maryland Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers will investigate complaints against its members. The telephone is (410) 788-1066. All complaints to these bodies are conducted confidentially.
I can be reached at (202) 737-2970 during the day and at (410) 664-1699 evenings.
The Sun is to be commended for its editorial of March 25, "Johns Wilkes Booth: RIP."
Nathaniel Orlowek's theory that someone else besides John Wilkes Booth reposes in Booth's grave in Green Mount Cemetery is as intriguing as it is silly and wrong-headed.
As you wisely pointed out in your editorial, "reputable historians overwhelmingly concur" that it is Booth's body buried in Green Mount.
Having spent nearly five years working on my own book on John Wilkes Booth, I have seen all the same so-called documentation on which Mr. Orlowek has based his preposterous theory.
It is apparent to me -- just as it is to nationally revered Lincoln assassination researchers like James O. Hall, John C. Brennan and Michael Kauffman, who are admittedly far more knowledgeable, seasoned and credentialed authorities than either Mr. Orlowek or me -- that what Mr. Orlowek serves up as "evidence" to bolster his theory is merely a garbled concoction of hearsay, distortion and outright fantasy.
He has built his theory on the insignificant microbe of ambiguity that exists within a mountain of irrefutable eyewitness testimony.
But like all hair-brained conspiracy theories, it sure makes for good reading, as does the flat-earth theory or the alleged sightings of Elvis in an Iowa mall. And maybe we should ask Mr. Orlowek just who is that moldering in Green Mount, if not J.W.B.?
Who knows: maybe it's poor old Elvis himself. Now there's a theory.
I'm one of the fans unhappy over how the Orioles handled season ticket relocations, unhappy enough to have canceled my tickets.
In 1989, enticed by promises of guaranteed seats at Oriole Park, I ordered a 13 Sunday terrace box miniplan. I did this even though the Orioles had just finished their worst season ever, the disaster of 1988.
I enjoyed my first base seats through three seasons and looked forward to the "comparable seats" I was promised in the new park.
I was shocked when the Orioles, claiming to have paid "as much attention to [my] needs as possible," moved me to lower reserved seats in left field. These weren't the comparable seats I was promised. Left field isn't comparable to first base by any stretch of the imagination.