In his commentary ("Beneath contempt," Oct. 17), columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. of The Miami Herald is very critical of Dr. Ben Carson's recent comparison of Obamacare to slavery.
It is only natural that Mr. Pitts, being of African American ancestry, would jump to the conclusion that Dr. Carson had in mind slavery only as the keeping of slaves as practiced here in early America.
I would suggest slavery has many other connotations such as "estate of subjection like that of a slave" and "compulsory service often such as required by law" (Webster's Dictionary). And the legal definition: "A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another."
Or how about a modern loose usage: "he has become a slave to his iPhone and text messaging."
Anyone familiar with Obamacare and its mandatory requirements together with its penalties could reasonably see a correlation with the above interpretations.
The bottom line is that readers should be very disappointed with the editors of The Sun for even considering printing such a mean and unjustified attacked on one of Maryland's outstanding citizens! Could it be The Sun considers Dr. Carson's popularity a threat to its liberal views?
Benedict Frederick Jr., PasadenaCopyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun