Drunk drivers should lose their cars, tooAfter reading the...

the Forum

September 01, 1992

Drunk drivers should lose their cars, too

After reading the recent Evening Sun article, "Man gets 90-day term for driving drunk -- again" (Aug. 20), I am both angered and scared.

Angered because this man was given such a light sentence for his fourth driving-while-intoxicated conviction and scared because soon he will be out on the streets again driving a deadly weapon.

Why was the judge so lenient? This man has already shown how dangerous he is by killing someone in 1981. How much more damage does he have to do before he is given the stiff punishment he deserves?

His attorney says the man knows he has a problem and is getting treatment. There is no guarantee that treatment will work. It certainly didn't in the past. So regardless of how sober he was in the 1980s, this man should not be given his license back -- ever.

Another article in your paper mentioned how police are cracking down on rockfish poachers. They may even confiscate poachers' cars. If we can take cars away from poachers, then why shouldn't we take them away from drunk drivers? They are certainly more dangerous on the roads.

Donna Becker

Towson

Economic blame

Ronald L. Dowling (letter, Aug. 21) cites a litany of woes for the country if Bill Clinton is elected, somehow attributing this to Mr. Clinton's connection to the liberalism of the 1960s.

In truth, we only have to go back to the last four years and the failures of the policies of George Bush to assess blame for the economic woes of the country.

Mr. Dowling ignores facts in his attempt to paint the Democrats as the exorbitant spenders. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the budgets submitted by both Presidents Reagan and Bush and those enacted by Congress differed only by the mix of domestic and military spending, not by the amount of taxes or the size of the deficit.

In fact, in some years -- every year between 1983 and 1988 -- Congress's budget actually carried a lower deficit than the president's.

Mr. Dowling also claims that a change to the Democrats would be "the biggest farce ever perpetrated on the American working class." But the biggest farce was the Reagan-Bush "trickle down" economic plan in which the only thing that trickled down to the working class was unemployment.

Fred Davis

Pasadena

Teachers aren't prepared for Tesseract

This week, students in nine Baltimore schools will be returning to a new learning atmosphere -- Tesseract.

While the Tesseract program received mixed reviews -- ranging from uncertainty and nervousness from teachers and parents to slight apprehension shown by Superintendent Walter Amprey -- my problem lies with the way the new program has been presented.

Tesseract has literally been "thrust upon" many teachers, students and parents. Dr. Amprey seems to think that the city's teachers will be able to jump right into this new learning program.

Even more ridiculous is the idea that the city's teachers will be able to absorb all of the intricacies of the Tesseract plan in a few days or a week.

Our children are not guinea pigs, and neither are our city's teachers, who are underpaid and underpraised.

Ask any parent about Tesseract and what it involves and he/she will look just as perplexed as the teachers who are being asked (forced) to learn it a week before school opens.

What outrages everyone most is that Dr. Amprey seems to be dismissing the apparent apprehension of teachers and parents by saying that "anything new will bring a few mistakes." Our city schools can't afford any more mistakes.

I think Dr. Amprey is so desperate for a plan -- any plan -- that would help our seriously lacking school system, that he is willing to try almost anything. Remember his reputation is at risk here.

But what about the teachers, students and parents who don't need untested hypotheses, but theories and laws which have been tried, tested and are true?

elphine Phelps

Baltimore

Clinton's chance

President Bush sounds like a child whining, "Mommy, it's not my fault. Congress did it." It's not a valid argument. Just about everybody's job involves working effectively with others.

Bill Clinton can't "make it all better," but I'm an adult, and I don't expect miracles. However, Mr. Clinton wasn't born wealthy (as I wasn't), and he isn't wealthy (as I'm not) and, for this reason, among others, I feel that he can better represent me.

Mr. Clinton's record (I went to the library and read it) demonstrates that he listens to his constituents and, more importantly, that he cares.

He was raised in a non-traditional family, as was I -- my father died when I was five, and my mother had to raise three children by herself -- and, consequently, I feel that Mr. Clinton provides an excellent example to similarly affected Americans, serving as a logical role model where none may otherwise exist. He deserves a chance.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, can make a thousand promises to get re-elected, but he loses nothing if he breaks them, since he can't serve a third term.

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.