I don't understand the declaration of only "war on prostate cancer" by Governor Schaefer.
With Maryland the leading state in deaths from all leading cancers, the least he could do is even up the "war" for men and women. We don't like to die either.
Why not a war on breast and prostrate cancer?
Vivian Adelberg Rudow
I felt a terrible sense of revulsion after reading Kal's cartoon (Sept. 15) "How to avoid a car jacking, four easy ways."
It was the epitome of poor taste, and I'm sure the family of the late Dr. Pamela Basu found no humor in his insensitive drawings and comments.
Georgie Anne Geyer's recent commentary on Yugoslavia ("Serbia's Next Victims: the Albanians and Balkan Peace," Sept. 2) adds more fuel to the interventionist fire and serves as yet another example of the current journalistic fad of Serb-bashing.
Ms. Geyer would have us believe that the contending Serb forces are nothing but bandits, and that they somehow "don't compare" to the vaunted and feared guerrillas of World War II. This is not 1945, the argument goes.
Essentially the same kind of reasoning, as I recall, was set forth immediately after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was the puny, disorganized, mountain guerrillas against Moscow's vast conventional military.
We know that particular conflict ended rather badly for Moscow, but it did teach the Russians a new respect for their neighbor's guerrilla past.
Ms. Geyer would also have us believe that the Western militaries suffer from plain old cowardice, and that all one has to do is bomb a few bridges to do the trick. That would cut off supplies to the gunners, she reasons.
Well, if she knew a little more about very basic post-World War II Yugoslav history, she would understand that the supplies are already there, having been stockpiled over a period of 45 years by Tito and his successors, to handle just such an invasion by a conventional foreign army.
Finally, Ms. Geyer brings up the topic of Kosovo as the next aggressive Serb flashpoint, and she actually recommends invading Serbia to forestall a purge of ethnic Albanians there.
Of course, she does not realize that the Albanian population of that province is so high only because of a decade-long campaign of ethnic cleansing of Serbs that took place there after Tito's death.
The refusal of the Belgrade regime to do anything to protect the Serbs in Kosovo is actually what spurred Slobodan Milosevic and his nationalists to power.
No, I don't think a strikingly uninformed Western journalist like Ms. Geyer, who cavalierly recommends bombings and invasions and uses the term "blood thirst," can be taken seriously on such an issue.
Why should thousands of American lives be sacrificed, just to satisfy the ignorant indignation of her and other Serb-bashers?
Displaying Pictures of Fetuses
Regarding James R. Cook's letter of Sept. 16, I would like to tell him and others of his ilk why I do not want to see graphic images of fetuses on television.
I had to go through two agonizing therapeutic abortions. I have incompetent cervix. Twice my water broke prematurely in my fifth month of pregnancy and infection set in.
The baby had to come out or both of us would die. The doctor induced labor and I suffered through 12 hours of violent contractions only to delivery a tiny, one-pound dead child.
Thanks to wonderful high-risk obstetricians and complete bed rest I now have a healthy daughter. But the trauma of the past and the memory of my tiny babies remain.
The anti-choice faction loves to show gory pictures. They want people to believe that late-term abortion is common when in truth it is very rare.
They want people to believe that women have abortions casually and callously when in truth it is a sad and difficult decision.
When I see anti-choice ministers using five-month fetuses as shock-props at rallies, or when I see the footage of the baby in the bucket, I wonder: Whose baby was that?
It could have been one of my babies, babies I desperately wanted to have, perhaps Katie Rose, whose body we left at the hospital.
The truth is that many on the anti-choice side would rather see me dead today than allow me to have undergone the procedure that saved my life. The truth is they use video to mislead instead of educate. No matter how they attempt to shock and confuse voters in Maryland, I will be voting for Question 6 on Nov. 3.
In response to James R. Cook's letter (Sept. 16), I have to saCook missed the point.
He claims the "public at large has been blinded too long about abortion." Does he believe that showing these "tiny bodies" will stop an unwanted pregnancy from occurring or that it will force men to take responsibility for their actions?
It will only intimidate and hurt women more by distorting the issue of a medical procedure into that of infanticide.