Letters To The Editor


October 17, 2002

Wildlife refuge isn't the place for hunting

The Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge has certainly engaged in promising work for endangered animals such as bald eagles and whooping cranes. Why then would the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allow hunting and trapping on the very land that is supposed to protect animals ("Protected wildlife emerge from hiding," Oct. 8)?

Public opinion polls have shown that most Americans oppose the recreational and commercial killing of wildlife on national wildlife refuges.

Unfortunately, the Patuxent refuge is placing the interests of a fringe minority (hunters and trappers comprise only 2 percent of Maryland's population) over those of the vast majority, who believe that wildlife should be protected on public land -- especially on land labeled a "refuge."

Management of wildlife refuges should emphasize wildlife preservation and habitat protection and restoration.

It is time to stop the killing at Patuxent and turn the refuges back into refuges.

Tracey McIntire

Silver Spring

The writer is media coordinator for the Fund for Animals.

Nobel Prize rewards Carter's good works

As a longtime admirer of former President Jimmy Carter, I am delighted that he is the 2002 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize ("Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize for `untiring efforts,'" Oct. 12).

During and since his presidency, Mr. Carter has worked tirelessly for the good of mankind.

Thanks to the Nobel committee for finally recognizing the man and his unflagging efforts to make this world a better place.

Velva Grebe


Criticism of Bush cheapens the prize

The Sun's Oct. 12 headline should have read "Bush wins Nobel Peace Prize for Jimmy Carter" instead of "Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize for `untiring efforts.'"

It was clear from the article that Mr. Carter was awarded the prize to give Mr. Bush a slap in the face. Doesn't that cheapen the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Bill Scanlon

Ellicott City

A prize for peace, a rush toward war

Last week, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to former President Jimmy Carter in recognition of his lifelong commitment to fostering peaceful solutions to international conflict.

On the same day, Congress handed a virtually blank check to our president to wage pre-emptive war on Iraq, a nation with a GDP less than that of Idaho, because we are afraid that country may be developing weapons of mass destruction that it may intend to use against us at some indeterminate date in the future, and that may (or may not) be capable of actually reaching our shores ("Congress OKs Bush's use of force," Oct. 11).

History will determine which event is more reflective of the true meaning of America in the 21st century -- a world view based on hope for a better tomorrow or a world view based solely on fear.

Sheldon H. Laskin


Let's attack Iraq only as a last resort

I was disappointed, although not too surprised, that Congress gave President Bush the go-ahead to use all "necessary and appropriate" force against Iraq ("Congress OKs Bush's use of force," Oct. 11).

While I would certainly like to see someone other than Saddam Hussein in power, I do not think the White House has made a convincing case for attacking Iraq. However, since the resolution has passed, I only hope President Bush will, as he says he will, use the authority given him by Congress only as a last resort.

I also hope that when Mr. Bush executes this resolution, he will have a clearer idea of what he plans to do after he invades Iraq -- and I hope he tells us that plan.

Helen Sullivan


Name-calling column belonged in tabloids

I was disappointed The Sun chose to print Cal Thomas' sophomoric screed on "San Francisco Democrats" and their efforts to thwart President Bush's decision to invade Iraq ("Far left's grip strangling Democratic Party," Opinion Commentary, Oct. 9).

Just what is a "San Francisco Democrat?"

And, as for Mr. Thomas' hyperbolic inference that President Clinton was "the biggest liar in presidential history," may I suggest he examine the records of Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon and Ronald "I had no idea that I violated the Boland Amendment" Reagan.

Mr. Thomas' name-calling rants may be worthy of supermarket journals but not The Sun.

Arthur Laupus


Park School founders broke barriers

While Frederick Rasmussen offers a sunny history of the Park School and a masterful explication of its progressive education philosophy, his article omits a key impetus behind the foundation of the school ("In 1912, Park School started revolution," Oct. 12).

Baltimore's private school culture of the early 20th century featured an anti-Semitism that precluded the sons and daughters of Jewish merchants from attending more "mainstream" private schools. Park School was founded as a response to this disenfranchisement.

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.