Praise For Public's Child ProtectorsOn Oct. 1, a monster...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

October 31, 1993

Praise For Public's Child Protectors

On Oct. 1, a monster was convicted on four counts of child molestation and abuse. He is now behind bars in the county jail, awaiting sentencing for his crimes against a defenseless 5-year-old girl.

That little girl is my niece, and I am writing this letter on my sister's behalf to protect their identities. While the experience has been tragic for my niece, my sister and all of us who love them, we are indeed aware that we are profoundly fortunate. . . . We are so grateful to and would like to publicly thank the Carroll County Department of Social Service employees, Laura Tomlin and Diane Chaney; Tfc M. D. Cain of the Maryland State Police; and especially, Diane Jackson, director of the Victim Witness Assistant Unit, and Kathi Hill, assistant state's attorney for the Carroll County state's attorney's office.

Throughout the course of the investigation, our family worried not only about what had already happened, but about how my sister and her little girl would stand up to the pressure of a public trial. . . . But with the help of the highly capable prosecutors, police and social workers devoted to protecting children from such acts, they were able to proceed through the turmoil of an administrative hearing, the subsequent grand jury investigation and indictment, and finally, the trial itself.

I have never witnessed anything as traumatic as the testimony of my niece and her mother. Yet the professionals I mentioned above must endure this experience over and over again, remain objective and ascertain truth from fiction. They know that, sometimes, the monsters that children fear are real. The citizens of Carroll County and the taxpayers of Maryland should know that they can count on these people. They are completely dedicated to protecting them and their children.

Elizabeth Guididas

Yardville, N.J.

Rush Limbaugh

Your liberal-Democrat columnist Michael Olesker bemoans the move of Rush Limbaugh to WBAL Radio and, as usual, gets his facts wrong.

Olesker refers to the unauthorized biography of Limbaugh called ". . . Talent On Loan From God," apparently not knowing that Rush addressed every one of the charges on the air months before the book was ever published.

He tried marijuana several times (unlike Clinton, he inhaled), he explained his failure to vote and his military draft status. On abortion, he believes in the right of women to make a choice, but if it were his call, he would choose life. Mr. Limbaugh didn't apologize, kowtow or try to cover up any of the details. In fact, his candor was refreshing.

Rush Limbaugh has many times told his listeners there are no more than probably five "feminazis" in the country, and corrects those callers who attempt to define all feminists with that term.

I have never heard him humiliate anyone, and while the calls are limited the rest of the week, Friday is reserved for nothing but callers. But Olesker wouldn't know that since he has never listened to him. . . . Since Olesker has such a sharp pencil at the ready for details, how about his hypocrisy? When he was at the News-American, he decried those who worked at "the other paper." He also made snide references to those who reported the news on television.

Next thing you know, lo and behold, hypocrite Michael is penning a column at "the other paper." Then, holy cow, his sneer can be seen regularly on one of the television newscasts. . . .

Gee, Michael, shouldn't people who live in glass houses not throw stones?

Marvin E. Edwards

Eldersburg

School Beepers

I am writing to voice my opinion about the recent "beeper incident." This episode began when a high school student was suspended and brought to court for carrying a simple pocket pager to school.

It is absolutely intolerable that an innocent electronic device, perfectly legal for anyone to use, should bring such harsh consequences when used in school. What of the majority of beeper-using students who rely on the device for jobs? . . . I am aware of the reasoning behind the beeper rule, that many high school drug dealers use beepers to keep in contact with their clients. If this is the case, should the school systems not remove all public telephones from school buildings as well? Should they not bar the windows and doors so the drug dealers cannot leave the building to confer with their clients? . . . The beeper rule is not helping the drug problem. It is taking away the rights of the students. It should be revoked without delay.

David A. Fessler

Ellicott City

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.