P.B. and Mayo
The author of Gallimaufry (May 1) does Rep. Wayne Gilchrest a disservice to characterize his choice of sandwich as eccentric, offbeat and disgusting.
When I attended school in New Hampshire during the 1940s the peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich was a student body favorite.
It was obtained on the fly at the school grill by shouting "plain with!" on entering; it was ready and waiting by the time one reached the counter.
Those who preferred the sandwich sans mayo ordered, of course, "plain without."
Braxton D. Mitchell
Fie on Gallimaufry (and The Sun) and plaudits to Rep. Wayne Gilchrest for his excellent taste in sandwiches (i.e., peanut butter and mayonnaise.)
As another p.b. and mayo aficionado, I have suffered the sneers and jibes of friends and sailing companions over the years, but have persevered in my love for the aforementioned delicacy.
What's worse, these critics won't even try one, preferring to stick with such prosaic fare as ham and cheese on rye (ugh!).
I might add, however, that mine are not complete without lettuce, and to make it a real piece de resistance some bacon bits in the p.b. add a real gourmet touch -- yum, yum!
0 People just don't know what they're missing!
Robert E. Greenfield
While your April 26 editorial was quite right in inferring that Kashmir threatens to become the vortex of a very dangerous confrontation between India and Pakistan, you erred in saying that Kashmir is a "territorial dispute" between the two countries.
It is not, since it involves the question of the acceptance of the principle of self-determination that the Kashmiris have never been allowed because of Indian intransigence.
The exercising of this right was promised to them under United Nations resolutions to which India is committed. That was more than 40 years ago, but the right to be free is not barred by time.
You are less than fair when you bracket India with Pakistan, because Pakistan has never colonized the Kashmiris nor stationed half a million soldiers in their state to keep them in subjection.
On the other hand, Pakistan has stood for a democratic dispensation for the Kashmiris under U.N. and international supervision.
It is strange that you should see no rebellion in Kashmir against Indian rule. The Kashmiris, who have never accepted their annexation, rose in revolt against India in 1990 and have been brutalized with a ruthlessness that the world is increasingly beginning to condemn in the strongest terms.
Almost 30,000 Kashmiris have been massacred since the uprising, 100,000 injured, 4,500 women have been raped by the Indian soldiers, 5,000 houses torched and entire villages burnt. The savagery knows no bounds and continues unabated.
Isn't it time that justice was done to the Kashmiris?
Malik Zahoor Ahmad
The writer is the press attache of the Embassy of Pakistan.
As reported in the April 21 Today section, more consumers are supposedly doing their bit to help the planet by buying recyclables and recycled consumer products. All this consumer awareness (some might call it paranoia) is all well and good as far as it goes.
But how many of these self-proclaimed "true-blue green" consumers are willing to take the ultimate green step and give up the consumer item that is the single biggest contributor to a filthy planet? By now you know I'm talking about cars.
Over this century, the automobile, not plastic milk cartons or disposable diapers, has been responsible for more air pollutants, more toxic petroleum byproducts and industrial pollutants deposited into the biosphere, more smog and more acid rain than anything else in history.
Do people like Barbara Hemmi really think they're saving the planet by buying milk in glass bottles and refusing to buy paper towels?
I want to ask Ms. Hemmi how she got to the store to buy those bottles. I want to ask John Curreri how he got to the paint store to get those oh-so-ecologically sound paints and stains.
It's lovely how these and other people are doing these little things. But what of the big things? How many have the guts to give up your auto?
Rather than micromanaging all these little ineffective details of an ecologically correct lifestyle, take a look at the big picture -- if you can see it through the smog clouds produced by all that
The Sun's April 26 interview with Harvey M. Meyerhoff admirably showed the dignity of human spirit.
I do not know Mr. Meyerhoff. But my family -- past, present and future -- have had the benefits and joys of the Meyerhoff family philanthropy. Our ears have been filled with music, our eyes with theater, our health improved. Even my grandchildren have scampered happily at the zoo.
I could go on and on. No race or religion has been ignored.
The Clinton White House ouster of Mr. Meyerhoff only weeks before the April 22 dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum was indecent. Just as the Holocaust was indecent.
The museum's final message says, "Love and Care for Each Other." Mr. Meyerhoff has done just that.
Joan Weiskittel Denny
R and R
It was with a degree of amused detachment, since I am a teacher in the city rather than Baltimore County, that I read about a group in Perry Hall calling themselves Parents' Rights in Developing Education (PRIDE).
Suffice it to say, as a classroom teacher with 32 years' experience, I would have been much more impressed with their concern and organization if the "R" in the acronym stood for Parents' Responsibilities in Developing Education.
Stuart N. Carlisle
A military intervention by air or land in Bosnia would endanger (if not bring to an immediate end) the U.N.-sponsored relief, which has sustained the lives of thousands in the midst of war.
It is the American Friends Service Committee's belief that any proposed measures which aim to reduce or end the conflict in former Yugoslavia by means of added shipments of arms, aerial bombardments or commitments of troops for offensive purposes must be subjected to the most thoroughgoing examination.
The AFSC, which for 76 years has been aiding victims of warfare, believes that military intervention would be seen as taking sides in the conflict and would in fact constitute acts of war.
Lifting the arms embargo could intensify the fighting and might undercut any neutral role the U.N. and U.S. might play.
No one yet has a formula for ending this tragic war, which sadly does not stand by itself today in its depths of hatred, brutality and resistance to any negotiated outcome. Besides Bosnia, there is the war in Angola, the internal strife in Zaire and Cambodia. . .
It is tempting to believe further acts of violence will lead to peace where negotiations have failed. History has shown how often such reliance on violence has been an illusion and has led only to wider war.
The presence of those who bear food to the hungry and transport the wounded to safer places witnesses to the conscience of the international community.
And the patient negotiations on the ground by U.N. representatives demonstrate the refusal of the world community yield to the logic and imperatives of total war.
Our analysis of the dangers involved leads us to continue to advocate against military intervention and to offer our encouragement and support to all who minister to the needs of the suffering while seeking every possible means of negotiating an end to war.
The writer is executive director of the AFSC Middle Atlantic regional office.
Money Counts in Education
Citing an "enormous body of literature" that purports to show that it is not the amount of money we spend on public education but the socioeconomic background of students that accounts for variations in academic achievement, Professor Douglas Lamdin concludes that we should now seek to improve the system without additional funding (Opinion * Commentary, April 22).
Rather than spending more on teacher salaries and reducing class size, suggests Mr. Lamdin, we should focus on increasing parent involvement, upgrading curricula, improving teacher training and making schools more "competitive" -- all ideas that have been on the table for quite some time. But of socioeconomic background, which Mr. Lamdin identified as the most critical factor of all, he has nothing more to say.
This leaves us to speculate about whether he has simply overlooked something, or whether he really believes his cost-free reforms can somehow compensate for the crippling deficiencies which result from social and economic impoverishment. Granted, money is not the only solution to the problems of public education, but it is rather naive to assume that additional funds would make no difference to a school system with insufficient resources, low morale, troubled students and an often threatened environment.
One wonders how Mr. Lamdin, who teaches at a public university, would fare if his students lacked textbooks or the financial aid that enables them to attend and to pay his own salary.