I am very concerned about the limited attention and visibility that leaders and middle-class people in this country lend to the issue of ending world hunger.
The Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee is planning to run child survival activities and basic education programs at the 1992 financial level in 1993.
With over 250,000 children dying every week from preventable causes induced by lack of food, I don't see how we can possibly make a change without an increase in this appropriation.
I know about the "America First" campaign, but should these people be left to starve because they were born in the wrong country?
I believe it would benefit America in a positive economic way if Third World countries were not being swallowed by poverty.
We need to ask our two senators from Marylandto urge Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Robert Kasten, R-Wis., to include $335 million for child survival activities and $175 million for basic education in their foreign operations appropriation bill.
All of us need to be reminded of the promises that were made at the 1990 World Summit for Children. Not only our Congress and Senate, but each individual needs to honor promises made to our children.
A Teacher's Failed Lesson
I bowed in reverence on July 11 to the Bill of Rights, when you published my views on abortion. You give meaning to freedom of speech when you publish views contrary to the official stand of The Sun.
I thank you also for correcting my manners. I referred to one of your columnists as "Olesker" and you made me say "Mr. Olesker." Thank you.
Now will you allow an old, old teacher to give you a lesson in grammar?
A little bitty pronoun got you down and made me a clown. I made an observation in my letter about the "fetus that turned out to be I." You should not have changed the "I" to "me."
As a teacher of English, I had to be bullish about the predicate nominative coming after a verb of being and so your little red-penciling job turned out to be a red flag to my bull.
But please don't regard this as a snorting, head-down charge against you. It is we English teachers who have failed. Otherwise why does practically nobody know this rule? Not even The Sun.
Quayle's Daughter and Abortion
I am thoroughly disgusted with the manner in which the press and the pro-choice movement have jumped on Dan Quayle's back because of his supposedly hypocritical reply regarding his actions if his daughter should face an unwanted pregnancy.
Broadcaster Larry King prefaced his hypothetical scenario with the qualifying clause, "What if your daughter grew up?" To me -- and I assume to the vice president -- those words mean we are dealing with a pregnant woman who is at least 18, a legal adult.
Will one of you Quayle-bashers please explain to me what you would have the man do in this situation? Is he supposed to abduct his daughter until she is at term? Should he scream hellfire and brimstone at her?
Or, perhaps, should he disown his own child? What fun the press would have had with any of those answers.
Abortion is currently legal, and his hypothetically pregnant daughter is a legal adult. What reasonable course of action can he possibly take, except counsel her and then accept her decision?
Indeed, with abortion widely available without parental permission, he might have little recourse but to do just that even if she were still a minor.
There is no inherent, necessary contradiction between the vice president's response and his declared pro-life stance. It is entirely possible that Mr. Quayle could sincerely (albeit reluctantly) accept his daughter's choice of abortion, while at the same time firmly believing that that particular option should not have been legally available -- not for his daughter or for anyone else. His response is simply a pragmatic reflection of current legal reality.
For the record: I am not a Dan Quayle fan, and I have qualified sympathy with both the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Susan Porter Meckel
As a Democrat who has suffered through 12 years of Reagan and Bush, I was glad to see Cal Thomas' plan for a Republican victory in November (Opinion * Commentary, July 23). If The Republicans adopt the Thomas plan, then a Democratic victory in November is as certain as a 3 million draw at Camden Yards this year.
First, Mr. Thomas contends that the Republicans should emphasize the abortion issue. Go ahead, make my day. The polls constantly show that the Democrats are within the mainstream on this issue.
Mr. Thomas makes a reference to people who survive late-term abortions. They are not the issue. A substantial portion of the pro-choice community does not support the right to have an abortion in the final three months.
Mr. Thomas states that Republicans should invite to the convention people who chose not to have an abortion. Fine. They are perfect testimony to the pro-choice movement. They prove that people can freely choose to bring the pregnancy to term in a society with liberal abortion laws. Virtually no one in the pro-choice community would condemn a woman for choosing not to abort.
However, it should be noted that a huge portion of these women have a great need for food stamps, jobs programs and day care, things Democrats love to fund and Republicans love to cut.
For every person that Cal Thomas finds who supports the Republican Party because she brought a child into the world of poverty, I can find 15 such Democrats in a matter of days.
Second, Cal Thomas contends that we should support President Bush because Bill Clinton made an appearance on MTV, and MTV broadcasts music which Mr. Thomas finds objectionable. Did Cal Thomas sleep through the month of June? Bill Clinton was in the headlines for weeks for criticizing such a performer.
Finally Mr. Thomas contends that Democrats believe that the First Amendment protects the broadcast of MTV. I cannot speak for all Democrats, but this Democrat believes that the First Amendment does protect MTV. The First Amendment protects even the most incoherent ramblings. If it did not, Cal Thomas would not have a job.
Dennis George Olver
A Visual Feast
Arnold Lehman, director of the Baltimore Museum of Art, makes a compelling case for the museum's display of the Cone Collection (Opinion * Commentary, July 15).
It is obvious that he is not imposing his will, but is complying with the historic and artistic imperative.
Maryland is fortunate to have a talented museum director who understands and appreciates this collection.
Granted, an art museum can be daunting to those who are unschooled. One wonders what one is supposed to wonder.
The Cone Collection releases you from this burden. There is immediate recognition of the familiar and pure enjoyment of this visual feast. The romance and sentiment of the story behind the collection adds to the excitement.
It's natural to want to re-create the scene in living color: Masterpiece Theater at the Baltimore Museum.
Arnold Lehman's role is to inform so that we will be true to higher principles.
I am sure that the community appreciates his superior knowledge, recognizes his genuine pride in this important collection and is grateful that the museum has a director who is worthy of the art entrusted to him.
Rachel S. Levy
Will the City Council under Mary Pat Clarke change the Baltimore Inner Harbor master plan to the benefit of the Baltimore City Community College?
The master plan of 1971 restricts the college parcels to a six-story height limit and to educational uses. That general Pratt Street area has a height limit of 11 stories. Do these master plan limits have meaning of light and fresh circulating air for harbor area workers and visitors?
Do these master plan limits affect prior investments, office views in downtown Baltimore?
Do easy master plan changes affect your willingness or mine to invest in Baltimore?
Quick benefits need hard scrutiny of long-range cost to the city, cost to all citizens today and costs to tomorrow's jobs and tax base.