Letters To The Editor


July 25, 2004

New bus depot puts big burden on transit riders

State Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan is exactly correct that the Haines Street location for the new Greyhound bus station involved "stupid decisions" and that the station is "not located close to the population that wants to use the Greyhound bus service" ("City, state debating MTA access to bus site," July 20).

Thus we have yet another slap in the face to the poor and low-income folks who rely heavily on this bus service.

The bus station issue should have been a top priority. Why didn't the mayor and the local congressional representatives consult the people who travel by bus before allowing this move?

The city should serve the needs of all its citizens and not always fill the desires of the developers.

The Haines Street station is in a wasteland and creates an intolerable expense and burden for those who only have the means to travel by bus.

The Fayette Street location, however, was adjacent to every form of mass transit, buses, subway and the light rail.

Moving the bus station to Haines Street is not only a stupid decision, it is unjust.

Brendan Walsh


The temporary bus terminal is an embarrassment for the city and region.

A proposal for an intermodal terminal next to Pennsylvania Station that had been approved by the city's design review board was killed at the 11th hour by a few people with loud mouths or big money who were functioning under the erroneous assumption that only riffraff ride the bus. Then the Greyhound bus station was shoved as far away as possible.

Now, too late, officials realize that this terminal connects with nothing and people have trouble getting there.

The traveling public has lost, big time, and now it's probably too late.

Theodore Feldmann


Weapons for Iraq will add to toll

The Sun reported on Thursday that "as of yesterday, 900 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations" in Iraq ("Killed in Iraq," July 22).

If this was not enough, the Bush administration has now approved the sale of weapons to Iraq on a "case-by-case basis" in order to "promote democratic reforms, help achieve reconstruction and strengthen the Iraqi government" ("Administration OKs sale of weapons to Iraq," July 22).

So now our country will be making money off the sale of weapons that could eventually wind up in the hands of the same terrorists who have to date killed 900 Americans.

Kathy Brown


Ronstadt ruckus sends sad signal

Linda Ronstadt voiced admiration for filmmaker Michael Moore from a concert stage. As a result, she was ushered from the hotel casino in which she was performing and refused a night's lodging ("Ruckus over Ronstadt comments new for BSO," July 21).

That reaction, coupled with the boos, walk-outs and poster-shredding of an irate audience, speaks volumes about the consistently intolerant and immature antics of those who view blind loyalty to President Bush as a prerequisite to status as a patriot.

Here's to the brave, bright individuals who continue to speak out for change, even in a climate that is terrifyingly reminiscent of the McCarthyism that trampled fundamental rights and made a mockery of our nation's founding principles a half-century ago.

Mark L. Gruber

Rehoboth Beach, Del.

Time to impeach President Bush

It is time for citizens to demand that impeachment proceedings be started against President Bush. After the report of the 9/11 commission and his administration's actions over the last four years, we need answers that could be produced only by this drastic action.

Mr. Bush has consistently misled the American people and the world, costing many of our young people their lives. His war on terror is a gambit to line the pockets of his wealthy friends while keeping the general population in a state of fear and confusion.

He tramples upon the basic principles of law and fairness upon which our country is founded.

Mr. Bush's disrespect for our Constitution is grounds enough for action.

Michael Seipp


Marriage is critical to society's future

A recent letter decried the use of "so much time" to debate the issue of homosexual marriage, listing issues such as health insurance, unemployment and the war in Iraq as being more deserving of the attention of the U.S. Senate ("Gay marriage debate wastes critical time," letters, July 18).

I disagree. Marriage is the fundamental basis of this and all other existing societies.

To redefine marriage is not a light issue, as doing so would impact society tremendously. To debate this issue vigorously helps differentiate between the politician (whose interests are on the next election) and the statesman (whose interests are on succeeding generations).

Health insurance, unemployment and the war are transitory issues compared with redefining marriage.

Economies rise and fall. Wars begin and end. Marriage between one man and one woman ensures the survival of society and provides the ideal environment for raising the next generation.

David P. Gilmore

Glen Burnie

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.