Endorsing McMillan ignores his record of divisive...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

November 03, 2001

Endorsing McMillan ignores his record of divisive behavior

As a former mayoral candidate endorsed by The Sun, I was disappointed in The Sun's endorsement of my successor, Alderman Herbert C. McMillan ("McMillan in Annapolis," editorial, Nov. 1).

In endorsing me in 1997, The Sun wrote, "As an alderman representing the Fifth Ward for 12 years, Mr. Snowden has tackled serious issues and demonstrated leadership on economic and fiscal matters." Now, in 2001, The Sun has endorsed a candidate who is frequently referred to as "divisive." In fact, during this year's Republican primary, The Sun called him "extremely" divisive.

Is Mr. McMillan a person who will give our city the fiscal leadership we need or a candidate who will divide people? Let us examine the public record on his divisiveness and his fiscal record.

In his single term as an alderman, he offended and outraged the African-American community by sponsoring legislation with adverse racial applications, then denouncing those who expressed opposition as "demagogues" in a public forum. His "leadership" on this issue cost the city over $200,000 when a federal judge invalidated the law he sponsored.

Aldermen Joe Sachs and Michael Fox, Republican members of the city's committees on finance and economic matters, have endorsed Ellen O. Moyer for mayor, citing Mr. McMillan's lack of financial understanding and divisiveness.

If Sept. 11 taught us anything, it is that we need leaders who bring people together. And, clearly, Annapolis needs a mayor who can work with people and elected officials at all levels of government.

Yet The Sun endorsed a man who is neither fiscally responsible nor one who brings people together.

Fortunately, on Tuesday, it is the voters who will make the final decision. And I am confident that they will do the right thing.

Carl O. Snowden

Annapolis

The writer is a special assistant to Anne Arundel County Executive Janet S. Owens.

Denounce continuing abuse of human rights in Sudan

While the United States praises Sudan for its help in our fight against terrorism ("Russia republic, Sudan seek deals on arms, oil," Oct. 23), we should not forget the horrors it is visiting on its people in the ongoing civil war.

This month, reports suggest that indiscriminate village bombings by the Sudanese Air Force killed 15 children. And while all sides are guilty of human rights abuses, the northern government has routinely used forced starvation, slavery and village destruction as methods of war.

Sadly, recent oil profits only fuel a war that has directly or indirectly led to 2 million deaths. With new weapons and cash, what motivation has Khartoum to enter meaningful negotiations with the rebels? The only hope is international pressure.

Let's thank Sudan for its help, but also speak loudly against the human rights abuses and make every effort to bring the warring parties to the peace table.

Scott A. Michael

Elkton

Simple self-preservation justifies attacks on Afghans

I have an answer to the question posed in a recent letter: "What makes it right for us to kill their innocent civilians?" ("What right do we have to kill innocent civilians?" letters, Oct. 26): self-preservation. The basic choice between us and them.

It is the same decision we as a nation made to drop atomic bombs on Japan to bring World War II to a close and save American lives. It is the same decision we as a state make when we declare murder illegal, but allow the death penalty and the use of lethal force by the police.

It is the same decision we as individuals make when we have cancer cut out of our bodies to stay alive.

Eric Trela

Ruxton

A recent letter asks: "If it's wrong for them [the terrorists] to attack and kill our innocent civilians, what makes it right for us to attack and kill their innocent civilians?"

Do some readers really not see the difference? The terrorists specifically targeted our innocent civilians. The U.S. armed forces do not identify civilian targets with the intent of destroying them.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate ramification of war. But I rest assured that the United States will do everything in its power to keep Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum.

D. Scott Newill

Westminster

Aiding Afghan children offers lesson in compassion

I'm appalled by the letter suggesting that President Bush ask Muslims instead of American children to aid Afghan children and orphans ("Let the world's Muslims aid Afghanistan's children," Oct. 25).

For Mr. Bush to suggest our children aid Afghan children is a wonderful way to educate our citizens (especially children) on compassion and understanding for those who live differently than we do, those in dire need and those whose innocent lives have been turned upside-down.

We are all humans first, and we help each other regardless of anything else.

Ina Patel

Baltimore

All-girl environment still makes Western High dear

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.