Arts and HumanitiesGlenn McNatt's column "Bleeding Arts...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

March 11, 1995

Arts and Humanities

Glenn McNatt's column "Bleeding Arts" (Feb. 25) should be a "must read" for every Republican member of the House and Senate in Washington, D.C.

Maybe they would realize how pathetic and idiotic their ideas and proposed actions are regarding the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

1% Thank you for saying it as it is.

Ingeborg B. Weinberger

Baltimore

The City Lives

If we are to believe recent columns by Jacques Kelly and Michael Olesker, the city is dead and buried.

Middle-income families, black and white, are fleeing for their lives to the counties. The only people willing to stay are high-income residents in luxury condos with tight security.

My husband and I were born and raised in Baltimore County. In 1992, we sold our home and four acres in Parkton and moved to a town home in the Highlandtown-Canton area.

Why? Because going 20 miles round-trip to get groceries or a prescription filled was getting a little old. In our opinion, we were trading serenity and lower taxes for vitality and convenience.

Of course, upon hearing of our move, our friends and family thought we should be committed.

We have no tight security save for one small barking dog. My husband retired on Jan. 1, so this puts us in the middle-to-low income bracket.

The only thing lacking in this wonderful city is vision. William Donald Schaefer had it, and when he left for the governorship, the city was blooming.

Mayor Kurt Schmoke is a truly fine, noble and gentle man. However, he just doesn't have the push-and-get-it-done attitude need to turn our city around.

Is anyone paying attention? We need a major infusion of "Do it now."

Are we the only couple left in the city unwilling to pull the plug on Baltimore City's life-support system?

Stephen and Carol Beard

Baltimore

India's Policy

In reference to Syed Rifaat Hussain's letter (Feb. 17) on "Nuclear Asia": India is not a nuclear weapon state and its commitment to genuine nonproliferation is clear.

India has cooperated intensively with the United States to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a verifiable ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes.

It is ready to cooperate in any additional, effective measures for genuine nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, provided they are firmly anchored in a time-bound program for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons on a global, non-discriminatory basis.

India has rejected the Five Nation Conference proposal on nonproliferation because it does not address the complexities of the geopolitical region around us, in which there are a number of countries possessing nuclear weapons whose range and reach affect our security.

Also, a nonproliferation regime which does not entail equal and reciprocal obligations on the part of all involved is unacceptable to India.

In regard to Pakistan, India has proposed that the existing agreement on prohibition of attack on nuclear installations and facilities should be extended to include population centers and economic targets and that both countries should enter into an agreement undertaking that neither side will be the first to use or threaten to use its nuclear capability against the other.

Pakistan has yet to agree to these measures.

It is ironic that Pakistan should talk of the "contradiction" in the Indian approach. Pakistan states that it has made a conscious political decision not to make nuclear weapons.

Yet its former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, announced in August 1994 that Pakistan possessed the atomic bomb.

Statements of this sort vindicate the Indian government's stand that it must guard against threats to the country's security.

Nirupama Rao

Washington

The writer is minister for press, information and culture in the Embassy of India.

Iwo Jima

One line in David Dempsey's Feb. 17 Opinion * Commentary piece, "The Iconography of Valor," calls out for comment.

He refers to the 6,821 American lives lost in the capture of Iwo Jima, notes that the campaign's purpose was to secure an emergency landing strip for American B-29 bombers and concludes that ". . . Iwo cost more lives than it saved."

One wonders what Mr. Dempsey's source was for that assertion, since it is almost certainly false.

During the last 5 1/2 months of World War II, 2,251 crippled or fuel-starved B-29s made emergency landings on Iwo Jima while on their way back from bombing Japan.

Each carried a crew of about 11, so some 24,761 lives were saved, minus a small number on board who were already dead.

Of course, we must also subtract the large number who would have been saved by air-sea rescue missions after ditching anyway, if there had not been that emergency strip on Iwo Jima.

But we must add those extra Americans who were saved because air-sea rescue missions had been made more effective by the existence of an American base on Iwo Jima.

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.