Letters To The Editor


June 01, 2008

Paint makers need to pay part of bill

The Sun's article "Lead tied to criminal behavior" (May 28) summarizes another study that connects lead poisoning to brain damage and an increased risk of criminal behavior.

Parents, policymakers and the lead paint industry itself have known for years about such consequences of lead-paint poisoning.

More than 100 years ago, doctors determined that lead paint was poisonous to children, causing brain damage and even death.

By 1928 many countries had banned lead paint. But in the United States, eight lead-paint manufacturers formed an association that successfully fought for another half-century to stop all attempts to ban lead paint.

Their efforts paid off - to the tune of billions of dollars earned by the paint companies as they marketed their toxic substance as safe for household use.

Even though lead paint was finally banned in 1978 in this country, many homes built prior to this ban - including nearly all the homes in Baltimore - still have a poisonous legacy of lead paint.

Until this paint is removed from our homes, it will continue to plague our children for generations to come.

And lead-poisoned children who have diminished abilities to control impulsive behavior and determine right from wrong will continue to fall behind in class, drop out of school and turn to criminal behaviors.

Lead-pigment producers have a huge responsibility to bear for the poisoning of Maryland children. They must be part of the solution.

We must include the producers of lead paint in the extremely expensive equation for finally ridding our homes of a toxin.

As it stands now, the only people paying the costs for lead-paint poisoning in our state are our children and the Maryland taxpayers who provide care for them - after they are irreversibly ill.

Samuel I. Rosenberg, Baltimore

The writer represents Baltimore County in the House of Delegates.

Book merely hints at Bush's failings

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's book has caused a media frenzy and a furor among Bush loyalists ("Past, present White House aides denounce memoirs," May 29).

While his book is critical of President Bush's Iraq adventure and handling of Hurricane Katrina, it only scratches the surface of the catastrophe that is the Bush administration.

Mr. Bush and his cronies made a disastrous mistake in invading Iraq. The fallout from that fiasco includes today's higher food and fuel costs.

Additionally, Congress and the Bush administration have gone on a spending spree that threatens to bankrupt the nation. They have sold us out to China by exporting jobs and bonds to finance our debts to Asia. Free trade agreements exacerbate such problems.

Mr. Bush's mishandling of Hurricane Katrina speaks for itself.

And today our tax dollars are rebuilding the Iraq we destroyed while much of the damage from Katrina remains unaddressed.

Mr. Bush's legacy may be as one of the worst presidents in our history. Our nation may never fully recover.

Dennis Sirman, Selbyville, Del.

Truth-telling makes McClellan different

I thought it revealing that in The Sun's article "Past, present White House aides denounce memoirs" (May 29), none of the Bush aides cited questioned the truth of statements by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan on the origins of the Iraq war.

Several suggested that they didn't recognize the Mr. McClellan they knew and loved from his book.

But not one person contradicted Mr. McClellan's contention that the president disregarded or discarded intelligence that disputed the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps the reason that they don't recognize Mr. McClellan is that he's finally standing up and telling the truth instead of spouting the party line.

John Oetting, Columbia

Senator's wife is fair game for critics

Sen. Barack Obama must accept the fact that spouses of presidential candidates are legitimate subjects of public discussion and are not exempt from criticism.

Mr. Obama complained and whined on ABC's Good Morning America that campaign criticism of his wife, Michelle Obama, was unacceptable.

Yet Mrs. Obama has been an active speaker on his behalf on the campaign trail.

Her comments have often been harsh and critical of our country, and she should not be immune from criticism.

Al Eisner, Wheaton

How would critics protect families?

Opponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples are decrying the governor for signing two bills extending rights and protections to "domestic partners" in health care and taxation in Maryland.

The arguments against the bills are circular and based on fear-mongering rather than on concern about the difficulties faced by same-sex couples, who have real-life needs that require a legal relationship.

Opponents of the bills argue that the definition of domestic partner is so broad that it can be applied willy-nilly to casual relationships without the significant obligations and responsibilities associated with legal marriage.

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.