Little by little, we are learning more about "slick" Willie Clinton and his running mate, "Prince" Albert Gore, and this does not count the wives there by their sides.
We all know by now that Governor Clinton dodged the draft and Senator Gore was in the service, but just how many knew Senator Gore served in a position of "journalist?" Isn't it great when you know how to pull strings and get a desk job instead of being on the front line and commanding troops?
The widows and wives of our men in uniform do not feel comfortable with either of these men, especially when they would be put in control of calling the shots.
With the state of Tennessee setting beside the state of Arkansas, this would be a team of Southerners. While I have nothing against the South, just remember the last Democrat we had in the White House was once the governor of Georgia.
Barbara H. Phelps
Thanks to Landow
I take exception to your July 23 editorial regarding Democratic Party chairman Nathan Landow. It is both unfair and untrue. While some may find Nate Landow's style overbearing, my experience is that he has served our party well.
Under Nate's leadership, the party has taken major initiatives in voter registration and election law reform.
He has devoted enormous amounts of personal time to try to convince the legislature to modernize Maryland's voter registration laws to make it easier for people to register and to vote.
He has invested party resources in the development of voter lists for Democratic candidates. He has provided voter registration lists to the county central committees to conduct voter registration drives, likely to be helpful to Democrats.
He took these initiatives when Democrats were losing ground around the country. When Republican registration was on the rise, Nate's initiatives kept Democrats in the game.
The chairman of the party does not run a popularity contest. And Nate would never win one.
We Democrats who will seek office in the future owe Nate Landow a "thank you" and a "good luck."
As your editorial suggests, it is hoped his successor will build on his innovations. Nate left a great deal to build on. It's unfortunate that other elected Democrats in senior positions are not as concerned about or committed to the future of the Democratic Party in Maryland as has been Nate Landow.
Leon G. Billings
The writer is a state delegate representing Montgomery County.
Questions of Ethics
In "People vs. Animals," Sara Engram predicts that as the world gets worse as a result of human dominance, a saving grace will be the dwindling of the animal rights movement.
Gross human overpopulation, stepped-up destruction of the other than human members of this planet and proliferation of deadly microbes similar to AIDS will cause debate over the use of animals as spare body parts for humans to seem like luxurious child's play.
However, another possible consequence of the dystopia is that in these dire circumstances concern over the suffering of a single human being with a liver disease will seem absurdly sentimental and "luxurious."
To accept the argument that the suffering of individual animals is inconsequential compared to global nightmare, we must be willing to admit that the suffering of minority groups, raped women, battered wives, abused children and people with liver diseases are, comparatively considered, small potatoes. To worry about any of them is, in effect, to miniaturize the big picture to portraits of dismembered baboons.
The ethical result of Engram's logic is moral abandonment of both human and non-human beings.
The writer is president of United Poultry Concerns.
Singing Up The Wrong Tree
There have been a number of Op-Ed columns in The Sun recently denigrating environmental concerns and activism, many of which were probably generated by the president's spin control folks trying to counter his embarrassing performance at the Earth Summit.
It would be impossible to address all of the deceptive and fallacious claims generated, but when it comes to trees and songbirds, the record must be set straight.
In Hal Piper's commentary on "John the Baptist and the Thrill of Doom" (Opinion * Commentary, June 27), he writes, "more trees and songbirds grow in America than when the first European settlers arrived."
What is the source of this nonsense? It takes a great leap of faith to believe that there are more trees in Maryland today when more than half of the state's original forest lands have been lost to agriculture and development.
If the tree counters are correct, they are being disingenuous in comparing today's seedling/sapling packed, biologically impoverished forest lands with the species rich virgin forests of the 17th Century.
People who subscribe to the theory that there are more trees literally can't see the forest from the trees.