The media are having a field day pouring scorn on Ross Perot for his hesitation in entering the race for the presidency.
He had good reason for his reluctance to run. A third party candidate doesn't stand much of a chance in this country.
No matter how dissatisfied the voters are with the choices given to them by the Republicans and the Democrats, they feel a vote for an independent is a vote thrown away.
This fixation about the two-party system has probably deterred many able and conscientious men and women from trying.
Ross Perot may or may not make a good president, but he has the boldness to challenge the system. How many of his fellow citizens have that kind of courage?
When people say it's time for a change, perhaps it should be a change in the system rather than a change in politicians.
Strike 3, You're under Arrest!
I must take this opportunity to applaud The Sun's front page article Sept. 29 on the growing menace posed by baseball bats.
I can only presume that the true gravity of this problem has been suppressed by the nefarious lobbying effort of the American and National leagues.
Defining instruments of such deadly potential as weapons will not end the carnage but, is certainly a "rational first step."
The ultimate eradication of this problem obviously lies only in the eventual removal of these weapons from society.
Until that time, perhaps a system of controls consisting of the pre-purchase waiting periods, bat registration and confinement of bats under lock and key at approved baseball facilities would prove advantageous. This treatment is certainly in order for the overly durable aluminum or "assault bats."
I can only hope our legislature will have the courage to confront this issue quickly and stand up to the bat nuts, as it appears that the average family member has a greater chance of being "batted" than using the bat for recreational purposes.
William E. Clarke Jr.
Misinformation About Question 6
In his letter to the editor (Oct. 15), Vincent Perticone repeats misinformation about Question 6, Maryland's referendum on abortion. As a former counselor in a family planning clinic, I believe he is wrong to encourage mental health workers to oppose a law that will keep abortion safe and accessible for the women of Maryland.
In 1991, uncertainty about the future of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling led Maryland legislators to pass Senate Bill 162, the law we will vote on as Question 6.
Mr. Perticone says it is "currently doubtful" that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Ironically, the campaign working to defeat Question 6 has literature that discusses the abortion law in Maryland "as Roe crumbles.'
Make no mistake about it, a woman's freedom to choose is at serious risk. That's why we need a reasonable law on our books in Maryland.
Mr. Perticone says our old laws are good enough. He's dead wrong. Maryland's old laws are restrictive and don't even allow abortion for a victim of incest. In the few situations in which a woman could have a legal abortion she would first have to face a hospital review board -- a group of total strangers.
Mr. Perticone has it all wrong on Question 6 and referral fees. Section 14-404 of the Annotated Code of Maryland explicitly prohibits any referral fee or "kickback" to any group or individual from any physician or any "agent of the physician."
A vote "for" Question 6 encourages parental involvement when a minor has an abortion and does not grant "expanded powers" for a physician, as Mr. Perticone writes. Parental notification is not required in Maryland now. Winning Question 6 will introduce this requirement, with reasonable exceptions to protect minors. Most adolescents already involve at least one parent if they have an abortion; the younger a girl is, the more likely she is to talk with her parents.
Some women face a difficult choice when they are pregnant. Women and teen-agers must continue to have access to safe, legal medical care. Back alleys will never be the answer.
Opponents of Question 6 are asking voters the wrong questions. The question is this: Do you want women in Maryland to have the power to make their own reproductive decisions without interference from the government? If your answer is "yes," join me in voting for Question 6 to protect that freedom.
As the governing board of Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church, we have watched the series of articles and editorials in The Sun about our ministry plans with considerable interest as well as some disappointment and puzzlement.
It's hard to recognize ourselves or the proposed building in the descriptions and pejorative captions that keep appearing in The Sun.
After all, although we have contracted to purchase a 23-acre tract at I-83 and Beaver Dam Road, we have gone to great lengths and expense to comply with all the prescribed regulations, one of which is that we can only build on 10 percent of that land area.
Furthermore, we have engaged traffic and other experts to be sure that the community is not adversely affected by our presence. The county has heard all this testimony as well as that of those in the surrounding area who are not members or attenders of the church but who welcome the prospect of a church with an open face and service orientation to the community.
Surely that is part of the reason the county approved our building permit.
Despite all this, the complaints of a few are constantly highlighted. The building is called "an incongruous cathedral-like building" (editorial, Aug. 31), a word that we have never used and that doesn't do justice to either the nature of the building or the style of community involvement that characterizes our ministry.
Have the writers and editorialists ever seen our building plans for themselves? Besides, the references to a planned steeple make it sound like steeples are a blight on the community. If it is, the whole county and city are in trouble from far more than just our building.
Religious groups are a necessary and vital part of the social fabric and contribute to the life of a community in a way that nothing else does.
As residents of Baltimore County, Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church doesn't just want to erect a building for the self-centered interest of a few. The building is a means for carrying out a positive ministry focused on the needs of the community of which we are a part.
We wish The Sun was more supportive of the efforts of churches to benefit our communities, or at least to insure more balanced and informed coverage.
L The writer is the pastor of Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church.
. . . I was outraged at The Sun's editorial Oct. 9 "Is Shock Trauma Center Overrated?" No, it is not.
As a registered nurse who has worked in other states, I had heard of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center before moving here. The work Dr. R Adam Cowley started is world renowned.
Maryland is the only state that has a trauma unit that cares for the whole state as efficiently as Shock Trauma does. Who ever heard of the Tennessee trauma unit, where Dr. Kimball I. Maull is from?
I think there is a reason Dr. Cowley did not appoint Dr. Maull director of Shock Trauma himself, even though he had the opportunity to do so. It appears to this observer that Dr. Maull is intent on destroying everything Dr. Cowley started.
By why? Were the citizens and taxpayers of Maryland unhappy with the way Dr. Cowley had set up Shock Trauma? I must have missed that article in The Sun.
The doctors and nurses at Shock Trauma are at an all-time emotional low. But no one hears from them. It appears that Dr. Maull has threatened and demoralized them all.
Dr. Cowley worked in the patient care areas with his staff. He knew exactly what his staff was doing in regards to patient care. His methods were sometimes unruly but his staff respected him.
Dr. Maull has yet to spend any time in the patient areas with staff or put on the famous pink scrubs of Shock Trauma. How can he change things or know how things really work?
Why did the University of Maryland Hospital use a helicopter and Shock Trauma in a recent TV ad if the Shock Trauma Center is statistically so poor?
It appears that something in that study was not quite right, or maybe someone is altering or fabricating data to fit his needs. This is supposed to be a medical unit, not an academic political springboard.
If the citizens of Maryland want an overrated emergency room instead of a Shock Trauma Center, then that is being rapidly approached.
If not, now is the time to speak out and defend Shock Trauma so the unit Dr. Cowley and Maryland valiantly started will remain. Otherwise, Shock Trauma as we know it will become a thing of the past.
J. A. Graham