Not So 'Cold'
Editor: The excellent, even-handed commentary by Arthur Caplan, "Cold Cash for Warm Transplant Organs," is worthy reading for everyone. He very fairly lays out most of the issues. He concludes that offering money to the estates of deceased people will negatively affect the number of organs available for transplant.
I think his conclusion is in error. His conclusion assumes that if it were legal to pay people's heirs for their consent to use deceased persons' tissues, that the people could not decline payment and donate the tissues. Such options are always available if the law doesn't stand in the way.
A dual system is possible and might substantially increase the supply of tissue. There may of course be some unanticipated undesirable side effects of this, but the only way to find out would be to try it on a small scale.
William A. Mackey Jr.
Forest Hill.
Defining Wetlands
Editor: Regarding the attempts by the Bush administration to change the scientific definition of a wetland: The alteration of objective definitions for subjective reasons is not without precedent. In 1987, after the worst year (from a safety standpoint) in the history of U.S. civil aviation, the definition of a near-miss was changed, from one mile to 500 feet. Problem solved, right?
William Sipple of the Environmental Protection Agency hits the nail on the head when he points out the problems of changing scientific definitions for political reasons. The definition of wetlands is by necessity a scientific issue; if and how the wetlands should be regulated are policy issues and should be addressed separately.
The broader definition of wetland was made as such for sound scientific reasons, including the fact that these lands, though they may not be sopping wet the entire year, serve to filter pollutants, excess nutrients and sediment from runoff entering the Bay. The definition should under no circumstances be changed merely so Mr. Bush can have his wetlands and develop them, too.
Timothy C. Rule.
Baltimore.
Louisiana Voters
Editor: Your editorial of March 17, "The Race From Hell," is yet another uninformed slur against the people of Louisiana, and particularly state Rep. David Duke.
You implored President Bush to help Gov. Buddy Roemer (a recent convert to the Republican Party) in his re-election bid, by using his "newly won popularity by personally campaigning not only for Governor Roemer but against David Duke and all he represents."
All of your simpering, however, will not change the fact that David Duke represents an awful lot of people, including me.
Mr. Duke, who you and the rest of the mainstream press continue to bash, got 44 percent of the vote statewide, or 61 percent of the white vote. As the establishment in Louisiana is finding out, you cannot go around alienating that many people, by ridiculing their candidate, without adverse consequences.
Republicans are soon to discover this. Duke voters see a clear chance of victory, and will be at the party's upcoming convention to nominate him.
I hope they do, and tell Mr. Bush to stuff it.
Stephen M. Kranz
Westminster.
Venture Capital
Editor: I am writing in response to an article that appeared in The Sun Feb. 27, "Maryland Venture Capital Firms Invest 90 Percent Out of State."
We have an outstanding concentration of venture capital talent in the state. That's why I've worked for the last several years with the venture capital and high-tech industries as well as with the Department of Economic and Employment Development and Del. Pete Rawlings to create the Maryland Venture Capital Trust. The trust uses both public and private money to encourage development of "seed" venture capital that will finance new, entrepreneurial businesses in Maryland to further attract investment from venture capital firms from Maryland and elsewhere.
My observation is that Maryland-based venture capital firms such as those mentioned in the article are very interested in investing in Maryland companies. They've done so already, and I'm optimistic they'll do more.
Maryland's venture capital industry is a great resource for the state, and I'm glad they are working cooperatively with government and high tech industry to help develop our economy.
College Park.
The writer represents a Prince George's County district in the House of Delegates.
Cost of Prison
Editor: Your recent editorial "What's Being Done about Crime?" needs to be followed up with "What's being done about repeat criminals?" We taxpayers who want to reduce government waste know little about our expensive prison system that breeds repeat offenders.
I understand that less than 10 percent of ex-offenders are able to find jobs about six months after prison release. Some even have to receive public assistance. Could this low employment rate be blamed on the correction system? Maybe lack of job skills leads to repeat criminal activity.
Gov. William Donald Schaefer's reorganization plan for state agencies would have transferred the education programs in prison to the correction unit. Since when do guards know more about education than the Department of Education? I suspect that any education funds now available for prisoners would have gone to security overtime pay. Have our prisons become schools for learning how to commit crime instead of a place where "drugs, guns, greed and disrespect for life" are erased as personal goals?
What is the real cost of keeping someone in prison? If one divides the total correctional expense by the number of prisoners, the cost per prisoner in Maryland comes to nearly $40,000 per inmate. What is the cost of building a prison cell? Near $70,000 per cell.
I believe that The Sun is giving little attention to the terrible cost of housing criminals without hope of changing their criminal behavior. I would prefer to give some ex-offenders a welfare grant of $15,000 a year for life instead of the current risk of more killing and violence. Is our culture of prisons a high-cost failure for stopping repeat offenders? Why do we learn so little about this costly scandal in The Sun?
Andrew J. O'Brien.
Baltimore.
Beneath Contempt
Editor: Our government's response to the terrible slaughter of the Kurdish people is almost beneath contempt. We are now told that the United States doesn't want to get mixed up in Iraq's internal affairs. Huh? What was that? We bomb the heck out of the country and exhort the people to revolt against Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and when they do we claim to want no part of their struggle?
The fact is the United States has been meddling in Iraqi affairs for years. Also, this is not the first time the Kurds have been left holding the bag.
In 1972 Iraq signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. Typically the Nixon administration saw this as a threat. So Nixon cut a deal with the shah of Iran to arm and support a Kurdish rebellion. The shah allowed his country to serve as a conduit for weapons and other supplies. The Kurds (who have been fighting for autonomy for years) quite naturally jumped at the prospect. Little did they know that neither the U.S. nor Iran wanted them to prevail. They were merely pawns in a grotesque game of harassment.
A couple of years later when relations between Iran and Iraq improved somewhat and a long-standing border dispute was settled to the shah's satisfaction, it was decided the Kurds had served their purpose. The shah fearing as well that the Kurds might carry their fight into his country (where they also claim territory) cut off the arms pipeline and sealed his border with Iraq. The United States gathered up its marbles and went home. The Kurds were left twisting in the wind. Iraqi revenge for their uprising was swift and brutal.
It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same. I often wonder what is really in the minds of our leaders. Are they really that cold and cynical? Do they really think that they're doing the right thing?
We have the firepower and the necessary forces in the gulf right now to help these wretched people. If we really wanted to strike a blow for freedom, we'd stand with them and get rid of Saddam. His downfall would displease no one (except maybe Yasser Arafat), and there would be one less burning fuse at the powder keg that is the Middle East. One less tyrant in the world.
As I write, tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are suffering horribly from the wrath of Saddam. Their only crime was thinking they had a shot at freedom and trusting the United States to back them up. Once again we betrayed them.
When is this country going to defend the principles it supposedly stands for? Why can't we do the honorable thing this time, instead of just pay lip service? It might make for a nice change.
Michael Carlton.
Baltimore.