Political TripThe three-day trip to the Middle East by...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

November 10, 1994

Political Trip

The three-day trip to the Middle East by President Clinton is a blatant example of political shenanigans and detracts significantly from the importance of the peace treaties.

The real participants, the Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis, worked and struggled for years to produce these results.

Mr. Clinton has been in office two years, and his presence has had no real influence on the outcome of these negotiations.

It is shameful for him to try to appear as a major player in order to build up his own image as well as to cause near chaos by his mere presence in the Middle East. His attempt to steal the limelight makes a mockery of the entire process.

S. J. DeMarco III

Towson

Turned Off

Gwinn Owens' Oct. 26 Opinion * Commentary article made some cogent observations about the television industry but came to a disappointingly weak conclusion.

After noting that the industry is driven by the profit motive and that television eats up time that was once used to educate children and relate as families, the article's closing paragraph states that "we cannot dispose of our television or videos," but that, recognizing the dubious motives of the industry, "we can minimize" the problems they cause.

Personally, I can imagine no better way to minimize the problems of television than simply dumping the TV set in the trash. If ever a small percentage of concerned parents took this direct, highly visible course of action, it would send a clear message to the industry.

Faced with the loss of viewers, and subsequent loss of advertising dollars, the industry would have no choice but to change.

Unfortunately, most of the concerned parents in this country aren't willing to give up TV, regardless of the toll it takes on their children's minds and welfare.

They would rather lobby the government for stricter regulation of TV violence and sex, and blame the government when nothing ends up being done about it.

James D. Maloy

Columbia

KAL's 'Unwarranted' Cartoon

I know you allowed the thing to be published, but really, don't you think KAL went a bit too far this time?

That is a rather mean way to retire a guy who gave his whole life to the public, right or wrong.

I am of course speaking of the KAL Adopt-A-Guv. Nasty.

H. Randall Miller Jr.

Baltimore

I noted that once again The Sun fills the void of substance with yet another unwarranted and unnecessary attack on Gov. William Donald Schaefer.

Although it is the duty of the press to be vigilant in scrutinizing our leaders and our government, the endless petty attacks are really disappointing.

At a time when there are so many politicians seeking office and so many divergent views, it would seem to me that there is ample grist for your cartoon mill rather than attacking a governor who has served the citizens of this state so well for more than 30 years.

Your cartoon is particularly upsetting because it gives the message that the governor is egotistical and that there is something wrong with his interest in either an academic career or a position on a corporate board.

Do you mean to suggest that a vibrant, healthy individual with a tremendous amount of experience is supposed to simply fade away?

Do you imply that after 30 years of involvement at the highest levels of our state and this state's major city, there is nothing anyone can learn from him?

Or are you just taking a cheap shot because someone might be willing to fund such an endeavor?

If you knew the governor, you would also know that the last thing on his mind is material possessions and wealth.

Any opportunity he might have would be viewed as a chance to do good for the citizens of this state.

That has always been his creed -- and to his credit Governor Schaefer has followed that creed by action.

William I. Weston

Columbia

No 'Opportunity' Without Responsibility

I am writing to comment on Norris P. West's article "Some families look to MTO as door to better life" (Oct. 4).

The article was a short biography of a 39-year-old father of four. He lives with two of his sons in an East Baltimore project and is trying to qualify for the Moving to Opportunity program, which dTC will pay up to 100 percent of the rent with Section 8 money from the federal government.

The father does not work because of arthritis and high blood pressure. He receives Supplemental Security Income benefits.

He has been a wife abuser and is now an alcoholic under treatment at the VA hospital. But he remains a "social drinker."

He has never earned more than $6 per hour and apparently has no marketable skills, even though he is described as a "certified welder."

He says that "everybody's entitled (my emphasis added) to have a decent house. Nobody's better than anybody else." He wants to move to Owings Mills.

Some might wonder why anyone would be against helping this father, who is an Army veteran, and his two sons escape the projects and forge a new future. Let me explain why I have a problem with the MTO plan by using the above example.

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.