What has recently transpired and is continuing shows the NFL and its elitist ownership for what they really are; a collection of exceptionally lucky, morally decadent, ignorant, money-grabbing snobs. Boogie Weinglass should be proud to have been snubbed by this group of ''winners.''
I have at times been at odds with our governor, over certain issues. But this man has sincerely tried to recover our rightful position as a premiere city in the NFL. Lest we forget, it was fellows such as Unitas, Parker, Lipscomb, Berry, Donovan and others who made the NFL what it was in its glory years (now long gone!).
Isn't it a little strange that Jack Kent Cooke just happens to have an interest in moving to Laurel? Of course, that fact would not have motivated his opposition to a team in Baltimore! I don't want one red cent of my tax money used to build a road to Mr. Cooke's stadium, so he can add to his fortune at Maryland taxpayers' expense.
As for Rep. Helen Bentley, the Redskins in Laurel will not ''be an investment for all Maryland taxpayers.'' I don't see it saving me any money, nor will it put one extra penny in my pocket; quite the converse, where's the benefit?
Joe De Francis stands to profit twice from such a deal; once on the sale of the land, and once again on the increase in business for his track.
If Mr. Cooke likes Maryland so much, let him build his stadium and all of the necessary infrastructure to support its operation, and let him maintain it all also. He has demonstrated he is no friend of ours, because a team in Baltimore would have benefited the state, too. Why should he profit at our expense?
Finally, it's just about time for someone with the means to challenge the monopoly status of the NFL. To say what city is ''worthy'' of a franchise is bad enough; but to say who may own one is outrageous. We hear about discrimination all the time, and it is wrong. What's more important, it's illegal. But once again, I wouldn't blame the governor, Boogie Weinglass or Malcolm Glazer if they just didn't want to sink to the level that is necessary in dealing with the NFL and its elitist ownership.
Robert L. DiStefano
Your Dec. 1 editorial poses the question: "Are State Contracts Fixed?"
No, you say.
The answer might have been in the affirmative, had you asked, "Are State Contracts Arranged?"
Semantics aside, this seems to be a distinction with very little difference.
On Nov. 30 there appeared an article -- not written by a Sun staff writer -- about a ''self-described political gay journalist,'' Dell Richards, whose recent book, ''Superstars: Twelve Lesbian Women Who Changed The World,'' claims that several well-known women of an earlier era were lesbians.
She admits that she does not know this for a fact, but she ''looked at the evidence and came up with my own conclusions.''
In the case of Edith Hamilton, the evidence is flimsy indeed: Miss Hamilton lived and traveled with another woman!
I attended the Bryn Mawr School (where Miss Hamilton had been a much-respected headmistress) for 12 years, and I taught here for more than 20; and during those years I knew a number of unmarried female teachers who shared living quarters with a colleague or some other woman for the sake of balancing the budget. Does this prove that they were lesbians?
In the case of Miss Hamilton, who did not have to worry about the budget, I am sure she was delighted to turn over the running of the household to her younger friend, giving Miss Hamilton the freedom to pursue her writing.
Many women travel with other women, be they unmarried women (of all ages), widows, or married women whose husbands prefer to remain home.
Just because a woman enjoys the friendship of another woman, or of women in general rather than men, does not prove that she is a lesbian.
Ms. Richards obviously does not know it, but some women, and I am sure Miss Hamilton was one, are far more interested in intellectual companionship than in sexual pursuits.
Mary W. Griepenkerl
Complaining about the Brady Bill
Your correspondent (Dec. 3) who attacked Brady Bill backers stated that only legitimate gun purchasers will be penalized by its waiting period. This is fallacious since every handgun used by criminals is purchased legally the first time or stolen from a gun dealer. Many are purchased by an ostensibly law-abiding citizen, i.e., one without a criminal record, and immediately resold to a criminal for profit, and many others are stolen from law abiding owners.