Nothing benign about drinking by teenagers
I was disappointed to see The Sun's recent article about annoyed American teenagers who go on school-sponsored trips to Europe and are not allowed to drink alcohol ("Abroad, students stuck with rules from home," May 6).
The article implied that Europe's lower drinking age teaches youths there to drink responsibly, while America's drinking age of 21 results in high-risk drinking by U.S. teenagers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In comparing drinking patterns by European and American teenagers, the Department of Justice found that European youths were far more likely to be regular drinkers.
Data also show that teens in Europe are far more likely to engage in binge drinking than their American peers. In fact, the rate of binge drinking among 15- and 16-year-old Europeans is often double and in some cases almost three times that of their American peers.
Finally, teenagers in the great majority of European countries reported a higher prevalence of intoxication compared with their American counterparts. Thirteen European countries have a rate of teenage intoxication that is more than double that of American youths.
Would anyone call this drinking pattern responsible?
To publish an article that portrays underage drinking as benign and our laws against it as overzealous is especially irresponsible given the timing - the height of prom and graduation season.
The next time The Sun reports on underage drinking, it should stick to the facts, rather than continuing to perpetuate common myths.
Molly Mitchell
Baltimore
The writer is a former coordinator for the state's efforts to combat underage drinking.
Attack on filibuster just a power grab
Republicans are threatening to break Senate rules to prohibit filibusters for judicial nominations ("Senators look for compromise on filibustering of judicial nominations," May 10).
This unprecedented power grab is designed to ensure Republicans win every time on judicial appointments.
The "nuclear option" would end all civility in government.
No doubt, the Republicans will attempt to deflect blame to Democrats. But the American public had better make it clear that if Republicans choose to pull the "nuclear trigger," President Bush and the Republican Senate will be held responsible for the fallout.
This plan is an illegitimate attempt to pack the courts and end the independence of the federal judiciary.
Richard L. Ottenheimer
Pikesville
GOP `nuclear option' won't serve majority
Sen. Bill Frist and his Republican Senate friends would have us believe it only proper that a majority of senators determine the appropriateness of President Bush's judicial nominees ("Senators look for compromise on filibustering of judicial nominations," May 10).
After all, they have argued, that is the American way.
Well, it might be, but should Republican senators vote to approve those nominees, they will not, in fact, be representing the majority of Americans.
While there are more Republican senators than Democrats, more Americans are represented by Democratic senators than by Republican senators.
So take those Republican arguments that our democracy must honor the beliefs of the majority with a grain of salt - maybe more than a grain.
Stanley L. Rodbell
Columbia
A higher standard for federal judges
Senate Democrats and Republicans are on a filibuster collision course over judicial nominees. Both parties need to abandon their respective "nuclear" options and show some senatorial wisdom ("Senators look for compromise on filibustering of judicial nominations," May 10).
Since federal judges are appointed for life, they should not be appointed from either the right or left margins.
The Senate should guarantee an up-or-down vote to every presidential nominee, but it should require a two-thirds majority vote to approve a judge.
A higher standard for lifetime appointments would encourage presidents, and aspiring judges, to value quality and judicial temperament over political fads and ideology.
Brad Lyman
Forest Hill
New roads a menace to our wild places
When it comes to acting in ways harmful to the environment, the Bush administration takes the cake. Now it eats the cake in revoking President Bill Clinton's rule to protect our national forests from road-building and subsequent commercial exploitation ("U.S. to allow new roads in wild forests," May 6).
If the Bushies get their way - from roads in national forests to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - there will soon be no landscapes left in this country reflecting designs other than humankind's economic designs.
Whatever happened to the Republican Party's true conservatives, such as Theodore Roosevelt, who understood the importance of conserving sublime wild places?
The Bush administration seems concerned only with conserving the sublime streams of money flowing into its party's coffers from business interests such as the oil, mining and lumber industries.
Lisa Greenhouse
Baltimore
