After the Holocaust

In reference to the article about my work in the Today section March 11, I would like to clarify my position regarding the comparison of the Holocaust to the situation in the Balkans.

First, the quote about the movie "Schindler's List" was in fact a composite of two comments, and I am concerned that misunderstandings of my position might occur as a result of this combined quote.

What I said was that I personally could not see the movie and watch people cry about the events of 50 years ago because, psychologically, I was not prepared to handle this due to what I know about the situation in the former Yugoslavia.

Later in the interview, I remarked, "What is the point of remembering the Holocaust, other than to honor the memory of the victims, if we do not learn from it and do something about what is happening now?"

I have spent the past 3 1/2 years working with and on behalf of Holocaust survivors and those persecuted by the Nazi regime, of all backgrounds.

It is precisely because of the terrible suffering by victims of the Holocaust and what I have learned from them that I was moved to do something about the situation in the Balkans -- and for victims on all sides.

My life has changed irrevocably as a result of the inspiration the survivors and other volunteers at the Holocaust and War Victims Tracing Center have given me.

I would never diminish the significance of the Holocaust as a unique and terrible tragedy that should never be repeated, or wish to shed any doubt on the importance of the recognition of the long-term impact upon those whose families and communities were destroyed.

I only want to apply the lessons learned to current tragedies -- and I believe this is owed to the memory of those who perished and suffered due to the ethnic hatreds that resulted in the Holocaust.

Diane Paul

Baltimore

The writer is director of the American Red Cross Holocaust and War Victims Tracing and Information Center.

Men and Women at Work

Susan Reimer's Feb. 28 column ably addressed the folly of young women who seem to think that feminism doesn't matter any more. She points out that sexism is far from dead, that there are still battles to be won, that sex does still matter.

I know that it happens far too often (once is too often) that a woman is hired just because she is a woman and therefore good for the affirmative action statistics, or looks good around the office, or can be hired for less than a man would have to be paid.

And of course it is a fact that workplace sexual harassment is widespread to the point that it will probably happen at least once to virtually every woman who steps into a workplace.

We all know, too, that reprisals against harassed whistle-blowers are a fact of life. All of these things are true, and all are reprehensible and must be fought until they are stamped out.

What is not true, however, is that all the men a young woman encounters in her working life can be expected to act this way in the absence of legal constraints, as Ms. Reimer seems to believe.

Men know, as she says, that ". . . the world is watching how they behave toward [women]." We know it very well. And for some of us, that is the only reason we treat a woman properly at work. But not for all of us.

For many of us it isn't that we're being watched, or that we think we're "too cool" or "too correct." No, believe it or not, there are men out there who treat women with the respect they deserve as human beings just because we think it's the right thing to do.

There are men out there who think that the sexist system in which we were all raised is wrong.

Some of us have to fight against the sexist attitudes we were fed from childhood to do the right thing, but we do it.

In short, some of us do it just because we're decent people, and that's what decent people do.

I realized that the focus of the column was the problems women encounter in a still-sexist world, but these kinds of sweeping generalizations about men take us exactly no distance toward change for the better.

Rick Wright

Baltimore

Pension Money

Reading The Sun's March 6 article, "Pension trustees question McLean plan," left me dumbfounded.

To think that $10 million of what is ultimately taxpayers' money would be invested in a brokerage firm was a bad idea before Jacqueline McLean was indicted and it is a bad idea now.

It seems that the city trustees had approved an investment that did not meet the basic guidelines to invest only in companies with "long and prosperous reputations." This is an investment that could prove to be far costlier than the initial $10 million.

Not only does the Chapman Co. not have "a long and prosperous reputation," but if revenues were extracted that are related to those which were awarded because of their minority ownership, you have what I think to be a dramatically different profit picture.

If this investment is approved, the trustees could potentially be saddled with a situation that in order to ensure future profitability, city agencies would be encouraged to further support the Chapman Co. with awards that are outside the domain of competitive bid.

At that point, the city could be placed in a position of receiving services of questionable quality with consequences of even farther reaching ramifications.

Thank goodness Edward Heckrotte is present. He seems to be the only participant in this pitiful picture that has any idea of his fiduciary responsibility.

I am relieved that the trustees are not making investment decisions regarding my pension fund. Unfortunately, they do make decisions on how millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is spent.

If this is any indication of the quality level of those decisions, it is no wonder that city residents are relocating to the counties. They can take comfort that if the quality of decisions are no better, the property taxes are.

James I. Lewis

Baltimore

Deficit Not Debt

When will you bother to take the time to explain the difference between the deficit and the debt?

Too many of our people believe that when politicians speak about reducing the deficit (code word "Clinton") that the debt is being reduced.

The deficit is the amount of money that the government intends to spend beyond what it collects in any year. Generally, the United States spends about $500 billion in deficit spending each year.

The debt is the accumulation of the deficits over years. Our current president intends to add approximately $1.5 trillion to that debt, and yet he and your newspaper extol the virtues of this wonderful budget process and how he is truly moving us in the proper direction.

I have asked many educated people to explain their understanding of the deficit reduction. All of these individuals were college graduates, and some had graduate degrees.

They all confused the two, and most thought that the debt was being reduced any time that politicians spoke about the deficit. That is done deliberately, and the press contributes to the confusion.

D. J. Myers

Sparks

Old Cars

Joel Sears' letter (Feb. 25) about old cars and smog has the same misconceptions as the vast majority of the public, that old automobiles cause most of the smog simply because they are old.

He asks how much cleaner the air in L.A. would be "if the Big Three had simply given L.A. residents new 49-state cars in exchange for their old-tech smoggers?" The answer is very little if any.

You cannot determine how much a car pollutes just by the age. The amount of smog generated is directly related to how well the car is maintained. A newer car that is not maintained will pollute as much as or more than an old car that is maintained. If a person does not maintain their current vehicle, what makes you think he or she will maintain a new one?

If everyone was given a new car, the smog levels might decrease for a short period of time, but after three or four years the levels would again be on the increase.

The Sun has reported about attempts to adopt the California car standards in Maryland. It was stated that cars account for 40 percent of the smog produced. Why are we not going after the 60 percent? Is it because the 60 percent comes from corporations that buy their way out of their responsibilities?

When you see an old car, don't assume it is polluting more than a newer car and enjoy that trip down memory lane. I do every day as I drive my 1969 model to the train station, where I catch the MARC train to work.

Bob Nist

Glen Burnie