Pot and KettleThere may be many other...

Pot and Kettle

There may be many other reasons to approve or disapprove of Jesse Jackson, but I would only ask members of the Jewish community who profess outrage at Mr. Jackson's remarks about New York in 1984 to swear, before they drive off in their '92 4-door High Dudgeon, that they have never ever used "schwartze" as a derogatory term before, and will never do so again. Fair is fair.


Bryon Predika



AIDS and Behavior

I feel obligated to respond to Gregory Lewis' April 7 letter regarding Cal Thomas' article -- "AIDS as a Behavior Problem" (Opinion * Commentary, April 1.)

Mr. Thomas' article was not written out of contempt for a certain group of people, as Mr. Lewis would have us believe, but as a statement of the modern world's warped ideology.

Is it not so hard to understand that certain behavior puts people more at risk for contracting AIDS than other behavior? The probability for any one person to contract AIDS is not zero at all times, but the probability is reduced to near zero by eliminating ,, certain behavior from regular activities.

For example, Individual A participates in Behavior A, while Individual B does not. Let's say each individual already has a base probability of contracting AIDS -- which we will call X. Behavior A also increases the probability by a factor of Y. Now, in mathematical terms, Individual B has an X chance to contract AIDS, while Individual A has an X+Y chance to contract AIDS (we know that both X and Y are not zero). Thus, Individual A has a greater chance of contracting AIDS. What should Individual A do to remove this chance? Eliminate Behavior A from his or her behavior, of course. It's as simple as that.

Also, if all high-risk behavior were to be eliminated, then there would be only an infinitesimal chance that anyone would contract the disease. Is this a concept that is so difficult to understand, or is it that we vainly try to hold out for a cure that may never come while relentlessly spreading the disease further? This does not seem like a "doctrine of revenge" or a "catalog of behavior unworthy of human empathy."

The Bible teaches us not to hate people, but to hate sin. In other words, we shouldn't condemn people, but we should condemn their behavior if it puts everyone else at risk. If we show love toward people rather than hate and try to help stop high-risk behavior, then we will succeed in defeating AIDS.

Anthony R. Tolle



Fan Letter

Oriole Park at Camden Yards is awesome!

Thank you, William Donald Schaefer. Your tireless efforts paid off. Downtown Baltimore is a place to be and it's all because of you. You deserve a 21-gun salute.

I'm looking forward to a football stadium.

Edith Johns



Ciofalo Cheered

Saw Andrew Ciofalo's short column on the Opinion * Commentary page of The Sun. He has certainly been keeping his light under a bushel. He shows everything from good sense to good writing. Can he be coaxed to write more often?

G. Denmead LeViness


Can't See, Folks


I hate to throw cold water on The Sun's exuberance about "the yard," but I have to agree with Paul Milligan (April 7). After shelling out a measly $12 a ticket ($1,000 for the season) for terrace box seats, I was less than impressed with their location.

While the seats offered a good view of the field (no obstructions), the scoreboard and Diamond Vision screen were completely out of sight. This would appear to be the case for the last few rows of all terrace box seats. Now I don't mind paying the money for the seats, if I'm not being cheated on the view.

My solution would be to offer these seats for $10 or provide a small TV screen in each section to observe the scoreboard and Diamond Vision, as is done for those more fortunate fans when waiting for their food.

My past dealings with the Orioles tend to lead me to believe that nothing will be done to improve the fans' situation. Their rather callous and arrogant attitude is typical of big-time sports, where the fan usually takes it on the chin monetarily.

R. D. Bush



The Environmentalists and BG& E

It's curious that the last rate increase BG& E was granted has received so little attention. It is not the size of the increase that is important, but the manner in which it was instituted. A representative of the Sierra Club, a representative of a consumer advocate group, the Public Service Commission, the people's counsel and BG& E met to determine what the rise in rates should be. There were no public hearings.

The electric bill consists basically of two parts. The fuel charge is never part of public hearings because it is not money BG& E gets to keep for its operations. From 1970 until to this recent rate increase, it represented the monthly charge for clean air.

The rate itself, the cost related directly to the generation and distribution of power, is money BG& E gets to keep for operations expenses, and is therefore subject to public scrutiny.

JTC For the first time in a rate case, the right of the public to voice an opinion was confiscated.

In their concern for clean air, environmentalists have picked up on the theme that conservation can successfully delay the construction of new power plants for many years to come. Initially, time of day and summer-winter rates were established. These programs were a failure because they favored a few at the expense of the majority without saving energy.


The environmentalists have not given up on conservation. The latest try is to charge more so the consumer will use less. The parties at the rate hearing determined that the cost the first year would be $42 million. This third effort at conservation will also fail.

The growth in electrical demand is the single most reliable indicator of economic activity. Normally, in this area, growth in demand will vary from 1 percent to 8 percent or better from a deep depression to a period of high economic activity. In 1990, the growth in demand was 4 percent; in 1991 the growth was 4.8 percent.

This would put us in an economy that is not too bad, growing slowly, but plenty of room for improvement. What is surprising, in the residential area where most energy savings are expected demand grew by 8.8 percent over 1990. Under the most optimistic projections, conservation cannot fulfill the growth in demand.

Both the environmentalist and the utility want to achieve clean air, but they are at odds on the methods to achieve this. The environmentalist would do this with conservation and the construction of small generators. The utility would build large, efficient coal plants and retire old, inefficient ones. The environmentalist would treat the fuel, the utility would use less fuel. The method proposed by the environmentalist would cost the consumer $336 million by the year 2000. The method proposed by the utility would save consumers $1.2 billion in that same time span, enough to build another Brandon Shores.

The utility method proposed isn't the hallucination of an old man. Under the leadership of Sol Liss as chairman of the Public Service Commission that was the method followed.

The results are on record. For his leadership, Sol Liss became Judge Liss.


Martin Sanders