Pot and Kettle
There may be many other reasons to approve or disapprove of Jesse Jackson, but I would only ask members of the Jewish community who profess outrage at Mr. Jackson's remarks about New York in 1984 to swear, before they drive off in their '92 4-door High Dudgeon, that they have never ever used "schwartze" as a derogatory term before, and will never do so again. Fair is fair.
AIDS and Behavior
I feel obligated to respond to Gregory Lewis' April 7 letter regarding Cal Thomas' article -- "AIDS as a Behavior Problem" (Opinion * Commentary, April 1.)
Mr. Thomas' article was not written out of contempt for a certain group of people, as Mr. Lewis would have us believe, but as a statement of the modern world's warped ideology.
Is it not so hard to understand that certain behavior puts people more at risk for contracting AIDS than other behavior? The probability for any one person to contract AIDS is not zero at all times, but the probability is reduced to near zero by eliminating ,, certain behavior from regular activities.
For example, Individual A participates in Behavior A, while Individual B does not. Let's say each individual already has a base probability of contracting AIDS -- which we will call X. Behavior A also increases the probability by a factor of Y. Now, in mathematical terms, Individual B has an X chance to contract AIDS, while Individual A has an X+Y chance to contract AIDS (we know that both X and Y are not zero). Thus, Individual A has a greater chance of contracting AIDS. What should Individual A do to remove this chance? Eliminate Behavior A from his or her behavior, of course. It's as simple as that.
Also, if all high-risk behavior were to be eliminated, then there would be only an infinitesimal chance that anyone would contract the disease. Is this a concept that is so difficult to understand, or is it that we vainly try to hold out for a cure that may never come while relentlessly spreading the disease further? This does not seem like a "doctrine of revenge" or a "catalog of behavior unworthy of human empathy."
The Bible teaches us not to hate people, but to hate sin. In other words, we shouldn't condemn people, but we should condemn their behavior if it puts everyone else at risk. If we show love toward people rather than hate and try to help stop high-risk behavior, then we will succeed in defeating AIDS.
Anthony R. Tolle
Oriole Park at Camden Yards is awesome!
Thank you, William Donald Schaefer. Your tireless efforts paid off. Downtown Baltimore is a place to be and it's all because of you. You deserve a 21-gun salute.
I'm looking forward to a football stadium.
Saw Andrew Ciofalo's short column on the Opinion * Commentary page of The Sun. He has certainly been keeping his light under a bushel. He shows everything from good sense to good writing. Can he be coaxed to write more often?
G. Denmead LeViness
Can't See, Folks
I hate to throw cold water on The Sun's exuberance about "the yard," but I have to agree with Paul Milligan (April 7). After shelling out a measly $12 a ticket ($1,000 for the season) for terrace box seats, I was less than impressed with their location.
While the seats offered a good view of the field (no obstructions), the scoreboard and Diamond Vision screen were completely out of sight. This would appear to be the case for the last few rows of all terrace box seats. Now I don't mind paying the money for the seats, if I'm not being cheated on the view.
My solution would be to offer these seats for $10 or provide a small TV screen in each section to observe the scoreboard and Diamond Vision, as is done for those more fortunate fans when waiting for their food.
My past dealings with the Orioles tend to lead me to believe that nothing will be done to improve the fans' situation. Their rather callous and arrogant attitude is typical of big-time sports, where the fan usually takes it on the chin monetarily.
R. D. Bush
The Environmentalists and BG& E
It's curious that the last rate increase BG& E was granted has received so little attention. It is not the size of the increase that is important, but the manner in which it was instituted. A representative of the Sierra Club, a representative of a consumer advocate group, the Public Service Commission, the people's counsel and BG& E met to determine what the rise in rates should be. There were no public hearings.
The electric bill consists basically of two parts. The fuel charge is never part of public hearings because it is not money BG& E gets to keep for its operations. From 1970 until to this recent rate increase, it represented the monthly charge for clean air.
The rate itself, the cost related directly to the generation and distribution of power, is money BG& E gets to keep for operations expenses, and is therefore subject to public scrutiny.
JTC For the first time in a rate case, the right of the public to voice an opinion was confiscated.