Sony and Sony Florendo

Editor: I felt nothing but real sorrow for Sony Florendo, the little restaurant owner who lost her battle, a $2.9 million lawsuit, because she chose to use her own name on her restaurants.

How unfair was the Sony Corporation suit against her business, which alleged infringement, unfair competition and deliberate confusion of consumers.

Who, seeing the name "Sony Florendo" on a restaurant, would have any illusions that the intention would be to claim any connection to the great Sony Corporation?

The U.S. District Court cannot be forgiven for bolstering the ego of the Japanese, a powerful, country-consuming monster.

Betty Irving.

Crownsville.

Editor: I have had enough of Japan's behavior here in America. It seems, especially after the gulf war, that all Japan is interested in is itself and the American dollar.

It's quite obvious that Ms. Florendo has no interest in selling CDs or TVs, just food.

You can be rest assured that I will never, ever buy a Sony product again.

Charlie Levine.

Pikesville.

State Costs

Editor: As is characteristic of public office, the governor and delegates are taking a lot of criticism about the cost of operating the state of Maryland. While it can be agreed that there is surely some place where cost reductions can be made, it is certainly not apparent in reading this year's budget.

Critics tend to exaggerate the cost of environment, housing, juvenile services, public works, veterans, National Guard, archives, handicapped and administration but all these services amount to only 13 percent of the whole budget -- roughly 1 percent each. How can one seriously attack these areas of spending?

The major items on the budget are education and health, which total 56 percent of the budget, transportation 14 percent, human resources 8 percent and public safety and judicial 8 percent. Critics should examine these big ticket items and ask where they would cut, but where is surely not apparent.

Most folks think that welfare problems take too much, but not when you compare the 56 percent devoted to education and health.

Before folks get too critical of the cost of state government, it would be prudent to examine where they think real savings can be made, keeping in mind the actual costs or percentage of the total budget that would be affected.

Dave Aland.

Annapolis.

Winning Peace

Editor: We have won the war and it feels good. Are we going to win the peace? To attack our domestic problems with the same commitment with which we were able to win the war? To help form an international community in which armed conflict will no longer be necessary to solve international problems?

Virginia Frederick.

Severna Park.

4-Year Terms

Editor: Rep. Tom McMillen is starting to make sense with his support of a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of office for members of Congress to 12 years. However, he is dead wrong in his support of changing the terms of office for members of the House of Representatives from two to four years. Such a move would be undemocratic and serve the interests solely of ambitious politicians.

It must be understood why senators have six-year terms and representatives have two-year terms. Senators represent entire states with competing interests and concerns. In order for them to make wise decisions, senators must think of the long-term, statewide effects of their actions. Thus, they need long terms of office to insulate themselves from the swiftly changing tides of public opinion.

Representatives, on the other hand, represent the people of smaller districts whose internal interests are usually less in conflict than those of the people of the state as a whole. As agents of the people, not the states, representatives are directly accountable to the public will. While senators are the quasi-nobility of our republic, elected in intervals longer than the president, representatives are the officials closest to the wishes and desires of the electorate. While a vote cast by a senator at the beginning of his term will be forgotten in six years, every vote cast by a representative will be scrutinized if he stands for re-election.

Efforts to lengthen the terms of office for representatives will destroy its reason for existence. For ambitious politicians, however, it is a godsend, allowing representatives to run for higher office without the risk of losing their current one. In this sense, Representative McMillen is supporting an "incumbency protection amendment," not a "citizen-legislator good government amendment."

Gary P. Bunker.

Glen Burnie.

Is Bush Serious About Empowerment?

Editor: According to a Sun article, the Bush administration will be presenting proposals this year for the empowerment of poor people. The president says his programs will mean "freedom from drugs . . . jobs . . . owning your own home and being safe in it . . . social programs to keep families together . . . and health care to keep them strong."

This sounds wonderful. People I've worked with in community programs designed to empower poor people and help them obtain affordable housing, jobs, health care, etc. couldn't agree more with such goals. For decades they've worked long hours for low pay with budgets under-funded because of cuts in government support.

The question an experienced community organizer or social service provider asks when he or she sees statements of such lofty goals is, "How will you succeed in doing this? What's your plan? Are you sure your strategies won't backfire and create even more of the problems you hope they'll solve? How will you ensure, for example, that new homeowners with extremely limited resources for home repair and maintenance will not lose their homes the first time the roof needs repairing or the basement has to be sealed?"

One of the designers of President Bush's proposals claims that the programs will mean the nation's poor and heavily black "underclass" could "evaporate" in 20 years. This makes me extremely doubtful about the basic common sense, not to mention expertise, of the people who President Bush is looking to for guidance.

The true test of the seriousness of President Bush's proposal will be who he involves in mapping out the "New Paradigm." There are people all over the U.S. who have been struggling for decades with the complexities of grass-roots empowerment. Many of the leaders of the most successful groups were themselves victims of lifelong poverty and disenfranchisement.

There are people like Mary Harvin of the People's Homesteading Group, who eight years ago was a mother of six on public assistance without a place to live; now Mary is president of the housing organization that enables low-income families to become homeowners through working together to renovate abandoned houses.

People like Bea Gaddy, who heads the East Baltimore Emergency Food Center, which she began on her own by asking people and businesses to help feed hungry people in her community.

Both of these African-American women know what empowerment of the poor really means. They have experienced it. They have worked for years to empower people like themselves. They don't expect that you can solve all the problems of long-term poverty in 20 years.

They also know the problems could be solved a lot faster with government support for programs that are designed to work rather than fail.

When I see President Bush involving people like Mary Harvin and Bea Gaddy in his planning process, I will believe he is serious about empowering poor people.

When he's looking at the excellent models that already exist instead of weaving fantasies from the glimpses through their car windows, I'll begin to hope.

Then I will apologize for my suspicion that the New Paradigm is just another way to give lip service to helping the poor while producing even more homeless, jobless, uneducated citizens.

Dottye Burt-Markowitz.

Baltimore.