Letters To The Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

May 17, 2006

Well-reasoned plan for border control

I believe that Monday's address was the finest speech of President Bush's entire career, and I salute him for seeking a reasoned approach - a rational ground on which all interested parties can and should stand ("Bush pledges `secure, orderly, fair' system," May 16).

Indeed, I plan on framing this speech for my office wall.

That said, I would add that we cannot and should not permit citizens' groups such as the Minutemen to police our frontiers.

That is the job of the U.S. Army, not the National Guard, whose forces should remain at the command of their home states' governors for floods, riot control and other such immediate response actions.

The president wants to commit 6,000 troops to our Southern frontier. These troops should be two Army infantry divisions.

Our Southern frontier should be militarized permanently - and that would undoubtedly be one of the most important homeland security measures we could enact in my lifetime.

Now also is the golden opportunity to re-examine our Canadian frontier, as well as the security of our saltwater sea-lanes.

Finally, we in this nation now also have the chance to reverse the calamitous course our country was prodded into taking by President Theodore Roosevelt and the Hearst newspapers in 1898 when we entered the Spanish-American War - that of rejecting the American Republic for what I call the New American Empire, a path that we've been following ever since.

Let's bring back democracy and let freedom ring.

Blaine Taylor

Towson

President's address wasn't political ploy

I have been getting The Sun for more than 30 years and have come to expect the liberal leanings of its editorial pages. That's OK and is what this country is all about. But I have had it with Julie Hirschfeld Davis' editorializing in what she writes about President Bush and his administration on the front page.

The most recent case was the article "Bush pledges `secure, orderly, fair' system" (May 16).

Ms. Davis argues in her first paragraph that the purpose of the president's plan was to rescue "his party from an election-year stalemate on immigration." How about reporting that the president was trying to get Congress moving on solving the nation's immigration problem?

Ms. Davis goes on in the third paragraph to state that this speech was "a new push by Bush to boost his chance of scoring a much-needed victory on the sensitive topic and to give Republicans cover to back his immigration stance."

But here again, the real motive behind the president's plan is simple: We have to solve the immigration problem in a bipartisan way.

Not everything has a political motive, and most of America understands that this president is sincere and dedicated to helping this country.

If Ms. Davis wants to express her opinions, put them on the editorial pages. If she wants to write news stories, please leave the politics behind.

Paul Gunby

Severna Park

No reason to care about Fox's views

I read that Mexican President Vicente Fox called President Bush to express concerns over the proposed deployment of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border ("Bush assures Fox on plan for border," May 15). But I fail to see how it is any rightful concern of Mr. Fox's how we enforce security on our side of the border.

The Mexican government is an irresponsible entity when it comes to border security. So how can we take the Mexican government seriously in any discourse about immigration?

Mr. Fox should not be pandered to but rebuked.

Drugs are flowing freely into this country mixed in the tide of illegal immigrants, parklands along the border are being trampled and littered, and the ease of criminal activity has turned some Mexican border towns into semi-autonomous zones controlled by drug lords.

It is ludicrous to suggest that we don't have the right to secure the border however we see fit, and it would be even more ludicrous to listen to Mr. Fox.

Jeff Schowinsky

Baltimore

Liability crisis looms as a threat to care

In procedural votes last week, Maryland's two U.S. senators voted once again against a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases ("Malpractice award cap dies in Senate," May 9). What has to happen before our senators realize that malpractice claims are having a real and negative impact on medical care in Maryland?

Throughout the state, many of our obstetricians have stopped delivering babies. Now other specialists have stopped taking emergency room calls. And it has become extremely difficult to recruit young physicians to come to Maryland.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are using both economic and noneconomic damages to escalate awards into the multimillion-dollar range. And we have only one more year before the state subsidies for medical malpractice insurance passed during a special session of the legislature in 2004 will expire, which will bring the lack of tort reform back to the front burner.

It is time for both the Maryland legislature and our congressional delegation to act.

Dr. Andrew A. Greenberg

Fallston

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.