Once again, The Sun comes out against capital punishment (Dec. 6). While it is true that the state of Maryland has had capital punishment on the books for several years, there have been no actual executions in over 30 years, thus we have, de facto, no capital punishment.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the ACLU and others have conspired to thwart the will of the citizens and the Maryland General Assembly and prevent justice from being served by blocking and delaying every single execution for years. This is not justice, this is nothing more than legal dirty tricks preventing the vicious murderers from getting the justice they deserve.
In the past 30 years we have had no executions in the state and the crime rate has gone through the roof. Murderers have grown more brazen and have nothing but contempt for the law and law-abiding citizens. Time and again, criminals are released on parole, only to commit another violent felony. The rule of law has broken down, and the criminals have no fear. The time has come to put fear in the criminals, not the citizens. The answer is capital punishment.
I am sick of hearing about the "root causes" of crime, namely poverty. Poverty does not cause crime. If this were true, all poor people would be criminals, and all criminals would be poor. Crime is caused by evil people who believe that they can get away with their crimes. If they are held in check by fear of the law, and the consequences of their action, you have a low crime rate. In Saudi Arabia, there is little problem with vio
lent crime. The Saudis deliver Islamic justice swiftly, and don't worry about the "root causes" of crime. I only wish that we could practice the same Islamic justice in Maryland, and rid ourselves of the vermin who prey upon the decent citizens.
William A. Kiehl
James Leonhart, professor of journalism at City College in 1937, was always praising Thomas Garrison Morfit for his early '30s stories in the Collegian and predicted his prize pupil would succeed in show business without even trying.
As WBAL's top announcer, Garry sang a jingle, "When you buy better, try Hochschild Kohn's" -- parodied by the public into "When you die better, try William Cook," the leading funeral parlor in those days.
Moore gained national recognition when he co-starred with the legendary Jimmy Durante on the radio in the early '40s. Each show had Jimmy praise his right-hand man with the punch line, "Dat's m' boy."
From 1952 to 1964, he was the host of the most successful television show of its kind, "I've Got a Secret."
Next came his variety show, "The Garry Moore Show," from 1958 to 1964. His chief discovery on this show was Carol Burnett and he developed her into the greatest female comedienne in television history.
With his low-keyed, boyish and puckish humor, Garry never received one word of criticism from the public or critics.
Gov. William Donald Schaefer is not alone among Baltimore and Maryland football fans ticked off at our recent treatment by the NFL owners. But for the state's chief executive to reject Jack Kent Cooke's proposal to move the Redskins to Laurel shows that he should have followed his own rule and waited 24 hours before issuing his angry statement of non-cooperation.
Instead of that, Cooke should be urged to change his team's name to Baltimore or Maryland. After all, some of us are still smarting from the fact that when the NBA Baltimore Bullets were moved to Landover, the name "Baltimore" was replaced by "Washington." Fair is fair.
But more importantly, if the state can save the millions of dollars it will take to finance a second stadium in Camden Yards by having Cooke foot the bill at Laurel, think how that will help pay for other state budgetary needs, not the least of which is the projected Keno shortfall.
Maryland Redskins? Sounds pretty good to me.
Bennard B. Perlman
Let Him Move
Now that Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke has announced plans to move to Laurel, it looks like we are going to be treated to a new chapter in "Baltimore vs. the NFL." And since a Laurel-based team will undoubtedly end Baltimore's chances of ever becoming an NFL town, maybe it is time to examine the benefits of having a team; what would a team provide our lovely town with?
Jobs. That's right. Lots of high-paying, full-time jobs. Oops. I was thinking about the players. The majority of football-created jobs would undoubtedly be low-wage and part-time.
And let's not forget the economic boost a team provides for the local economy. Restaurants, bars, shops and hotels may experience increased business during home games -- all eight of them! If your business' success is dependent on eight football games you're probably doing something wrong.
Wow! Those are some impressive benefits. If state and city officials devoted as much time and energy to Baltimore's more pressing problems, we would be in good shape. Why is it necessary that Baltimore have a team? Why should public money be used to help subsidize a multi-million dollar business? If Cooke wants to move to Laurel at his expense, why should state officials oppose him?
If one is a lover of Canada geese, is it possible to kill them?
And if one gives the ego as little play as possible and eats on the lowest point on the food chain, will this transform one's beliefs and assumptions about the killing of wild life and especially the killing of resident Canada geese?
Do these geese belong to us? Does one receive joy in killing them? Pleasure perhaps -- but joy?
Is it possible to persuade those in authority and the hunters to stop the killing? One doubts it. Or is it only possible to transform one's behavior, beliefs and assumptions by being grasped by something beyond the self?
Roland E. English Jr.
Every year my wife and I have the problem of what gifts to obtain for relatives who live 2,000 miles away.
By today's standards they must be considered well-to-do and certainly do not "need" anything. Through the years, however, we have yielded to the vacuous routine of exchanging gifts, with perhaps little enthusiasm on either side.
I finally suggested that we end the practice and, instead, make a donation to a worthwhile charity.
Our own choice is one or more of the so-called missions or soup kitchens where a full meal is provided daily to the poor. It is my understanding that these charitable institutions can provide a full, nourishing meal for 87 cents.
Imagine, just the postage necessary to send our gifts would pay for five meals. And on Christmas morning, we will know that our gift will provide a daily meal for many days to come.
W. K. Lester