Letters To The Editor


July 06, 2005

Downtown hotel will bring jobs, revenue to city

While I frequently disagree with City Council President Sheila Dixon and most of the self-righteous City Council, it was with disbelief that I read of the reaction by BUILD to the proposed downtown convention hotel ("Council president attacked on city hotel plans," June 28).

BUILD is complaining (in a nutshell) that the city is committing resources to this hotel project while there are unsafe areas of the city for its own residents.

But the city will never be a safe and family-friendly place until a certain amount of financial stability is achieved. And how many people could be employed both during the construction of and running of a large hotel attached to the convention center?

I remember similar arguments when the city discussed building a football stadium. But who in their right mind would dispute the good that the Ravens have brought to the city?

We could devote more resources to handouts or we could help foster an environment where people can earn their own way.

I choose the latter.

Mike Lurz

Perry Hall

Don't let other needs block city's growth

I would really like to see the $305 million convention center hotel happen in our city of Baltimore ("Council president attacked on city hotel plans," June 28).

I grant that there are neighborhoods that could use the city money for improvements. But there are neighborhoods like that in every city in every state, all over the United States. That should not stand in the way of growth and improvement downtown.

Think of the jobs that such a hotel would generate. Think of the attraction such a hotel would be for tourists.

I think the city should go for it.

Marge Griffith


Opponents of Bush also just yell `no'

The Sun ended an editorial concerning Baltimore's proposed convention center hotel by saying, "But simply shouting, `We oppose! We oppose!' is neither compelling nor convincing" ("No way to fight," June 30).

The same can be said to the liberals who oppose the proposals of President Bush.

Bill Appelbaum


Plame case an abuse of journalistic liberty

The Sun's front-page article about Time magazine's decision to release its notes concerning the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative ("`Time' decides to name source who leaked agent's identity," July 1) is focused on the privilege of members of the media to protect its sources.

But the issue in this case, in which Judge Thomas F. Hogan, with the tacit assent of the Supreme Court, is insisting that reporter Matthew Cooper reveal his source, is the possible criminal activity of the source itself.

It seems probable that someone in the White House, in an attempt to discredit Ms. Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, decided to use the press and the promise of journalistic secrecy to pursue his nefarious ends.

The administration may have wished to punish Mr. Wilson for his first-hand report which belittled the administration's claims of an African connection in Saddam Hussein's search for nuclear weapons.

In other words, Mr. Cooper may be aiding and abetting a crime - the intentional exposure of our spy as a vendetta against an administration critic.

That does not seem a proper purpose of journalistic privilege.

Nelson Goodman


Protecting sources protects the public

It occurred to me while reading Paul Moore's column "Journalists fear Supreme Court decision on sources" (July 3) that the police, the FBI and CIA use secret sources who might be criminals (snitches, moles, etc.) with regularity in pursuit of protecting the public welfare without fear of prosecution.

Is not a free press just as important to protect our democracy as law enforcement and intelligence agents?

Our Founding Fathers thought so. And I think it is just as important to allow for possible error in the exercise of freedom of the press as to maintain the presumption of innocence in the courtroom.

Even though there may be abuses, we are, in the long run, much safer in a society in which reporters can protect their sources.

Anne Brooks


Sharing music files is simply stealing

I find it incredible that otherwise law-abiding people think it's OK to steal copyrighted material from the music industry ("Is ruling end to file-sharing?" June 29).

It's about time the courts recognized the "free" downloading of music for what it is - prosecutable theft.

Recently, a friend of mine came over to visit, borrowed a stack of my store-bought CDs and asked if he could copy them onto his flash drive.

I wonder what he'd say if I showed up with a hose to siphon gas out of his car next time I'm at his place?

To me, it amounts to the same thing.

Steven H. Allan


Desecrating the flag tramples on all of us

The writer of the letter "Even hateful speech must be protected"(June 30) declares, "No one is harmed by the burning of a flag."

Since the flag symbolizes freedom for us all, I'm sure the soldiers dying in Iraq to protect it would find that statement as offensive as I do.

Elaine Rosenbloom


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.