Perot and Hoover
I read with some concern your recent extensive article on H. Ross Perot, particularly as it dealt with his need to find dirt on the sexual lives of his enemies.
This concerned me and brought back thoughts of J. Edgar Hoover, who kept a dossier on people he no longer trusted or liked.
This type of power and control concerns me and makes me wonder if someone such as Mr. Perot should even have the responsibility of a high office.
Alan H. Peck
Peters on Perot
Shame on Tom Peters. His June 22 article in the Business Weekly section is a travesty, so out of character of the many fine articles he is noted for writing.
The coming presidential campaign has only just begun and Ross Perot has yet to formally announce his candidacy or publish where he stands on the major issues of the day, but Tom Peters sees fit at this time to issue a proclamation, "Say No to Perot."
This seems to violate the tenets of excellence about which Mr. Peters has been preaching for the past 10 years.
I suggest that Mr. Peters spend some time listening, gathering data and keeping an open mind to fresh ideas. It's permissible to talk about concerns, but I don't need someone of Mr. Peters' stature, whom I respect, telling me how to vote. Moreover, knock off the scare tactics of comparing Mr. Perot to Mussolini and implying that he has no regard for the Constitution.
Excellent companies, as it turns out, spend a lot of time listening to their employees and acting accordingly. Mr. Perot says he wants to see an excellent America, and he says he will spend a lot of time listening to the American people and acting accordingly.
Havre de Grace
Your fine article (June 23) on shrinking paychecks overlooked one additional income tax bite that will be a shock to many couples.
The "married filing combined separate" status has been eliminated retroactive to January 1992.
For Baltimore County couples who have filed this type state income tax return, it will mean an additional $93 when they file their 1992 tax returns.
Across the state, any couple that has filed this type return in the past will be assessed an additional $90. In the counties with an increase in the local piggyback income tax rate, the additional tax goes up slightly.
Taxpayers need to prepare for this surprise.
Robert W. Gifford
Bentley and Serbia
My experience with Rep. Helen Delich Bentley does not confirm the view of your June 10 editorial that she is the "voice on Capitol Hill" of the Milosevic regime.
It is true that Representative Bentley has spoken up for the rights of Serbs and that her views and those of the U.S. government sometimes differ. However, I can attest from
personal experience that she has worked hard to dissuade Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic from the course he has chosen.
Because of her standing in the Serbian-American community, she has unique access to the Serbian leadership. She has been active in a variety of humanitarian objectives, most recently the effort to reunite an American woman, Shayna Lazarevich, with her children who were kidnapped by their Serbian father.
During my time in Belgrade, I have found Mrs. Bentley's visits extremely useful and have encouraged them.
The writer is U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia.
I was disappointed to note that on June 22 you printed a letter from Jacqueline Butler, an English teacher at Carver Vocational-Technical High School. As the individual to whom she refers throughout the letter, I feel compelled to respond both on my behalf and on the part of the entire school family.
The false charges she makes against me represent the single opinion of an obviously disgruntled employee, one who had been seeking a transfer long before I assumed the acting principalship.
My record of over 19 years of service, including the last seven as an administrator at Carver, speaks for itself. My superiors, colleagues, teachers I have supervised and supported, parents I have dealt with and young people I have served can attest to my skills as a caring, dedicated administrator.
I am sincerely concerned about the callous acceptance by The Sun of such a personal, pointed, slanderous diatribe which brought no useful purpose to the debate over our schools but merely afforded an individual a platform for personal attack and vindictiveness.
I am further distressed by the writer's inference that she somehow speaks for the entire faculty and, incredibly, the student body. This is patently untrue.
Michael B. Plitt
The writer is managing assistant principal at Carver Vocational-Technical High School.
The Supreme Court has just agreed that it is legal for our Justice Department to try a citizen of a foreign country who was kidnapped in that country and brought to the United States.
Justice John Paul Stevens called that ruling "Monstrous!" It is monstrous. What has happened to our Supreme Court? How can any group within our government, whether they call themselves a legal group or not, condone lawless kidnapping? And especially, how can such a group that condones middle-of-the-night kidnapping pass themselves off as representing justice?
Attorney General William P. Barr actually issued a "legal theory" three years ago (when he was an assistant U.S. attorney general) that it was "legal" to abduct Mexicans. He said it was legal because an extradition treaty we have with Mexico does not state that it is not legal. Attorney General Barr is the highest legal officer in our land. He represents the prosecution of justice. God help us all.
This court ruling arose from a particularly heinous crime of torture by dope smugglers in Mexico against a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration official. The official was tortured and killed. A Mexican doctor is accused of keeping the man alive, ostensibly, they charge, to prolong the torture. This Mexican doctor was kidnapped in the night and brought here to stand trial.
The crime that was done, in Mexico, was an obscenity. But this official twisting of morality and the law to sanction the doctor's kidnapping was also obscene. That it was sanctioned by our highest court of law is, really, unbelievable.
Every American should be shocked.
On June 11, at approximately 6:15 p.m., I was driving home from work in East Baltimore, and stopped at a red light on Harford Road at North Avenue.
A group of young teen-age males carrying long bundles of white rope crossed the street and, unprovoked by me, one of the youths struck with all his strength my open driver's side window.
Luckily, I moved my arm which was hanging out the window and was only grazed on my leg.
The youths ran quickly to the other side of the street and were literally rolling on the ground laughing.
The police were unable to find the youths. They suggested I lock my doors and roll up my windows at all times, even when hot, while driving through the Eastern District. Motorist-whipping is becoming a new fad.
I realize that I was not raped or thrown into the back of a car trunk or even mugged. Yet, now, city motorists must fear hanging their arms out the windows because hoodlums might get their kicks from this random, willful violence.
I do not wish for only people with the ways and means to move to the suburbs, but I fear for the safety and well-being of myself and my family.
At a time when big cities need support, I find it very difficult to convince myself to continue to live and work in the city, pay city taxes and eventually send my pre-schooler to a city school.
Most disturbing to me is the lack of morals and ethics displayed by many of the youth in the city. It is unfathomable to me to commit assault for kicks, much less rape, robbery or murder.
Parents, schools, churches and eventually our society must share the blame.
I do not know when and why this amorality started, nor do I know how to solve it.
I only know that morality is becoming lost in the city.
Mark L. Van Natta