Golden Rule
After reading Susan Reimer's column April 21 concerning virtues, I am left with several thoughts.
If she really believes that one learns virtues and values from a book, then I can understand why she is confused.
Values are inculcated from parents, teachers, coaches, religion and society as a whole. Children and adults learn values as they see them practiced by individuals that they respect and admire.
She stated that we finally had a president who preached values and that now we could actively talk about values without being considered a member of the religious right.
If that is what prevented her from speaking the truth about values in the past, then I suspect that it will make little difference to her son at this date. I suspect that she was one of those who remained silent or lambasted then-Vice President Dan Quayle when he spoke out against unwed mothers.
Talking about values is a far cry from living them. Although this president may speak of high virtues, he has been rather lax in practicing them, as evidenced by his record of finally coming clean only after he is cornered.
Rewarding immorality does not reduce it. The sexual revolution ofthe '60s is coming home to roost in teen-age pregnancies and high venereal disease rates.
The government and additional programs are not the answer. Re-establishing standards that are enforced is the answer.
Children need and expect limits. They will constantly check to determine if they are in place.
I suspect that the one key element in working with any group no matter what age is the golden rule -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
D. J. Myers
Sparks
Earth Day
On April 23 you ran a column by Tom Horton, formerly with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Headlined "Smear strategy adds to pollution," the column was an attempt to smear me personally as well as the nationally recognized Fairness to Land Owners Committee.
In fact, Horton's raging anger bore absolutely no resemblance to my Earth Day op ed piece published by the Delmarva Farmer. The same op ed piece was sent to the editor of The Sun almost two weeks before Earth Day.
You, however, chose not to run it and allowed Horton to have your readers think that I had portrayed environmentalists "as the devil incarnate." For the sake of some ex post facto balance, the enlightenment of your readers and as a bare minimum of fairness, I would appreciate your running my op ed piece.
[Editor's note: The article follows.]
In 1970, the environmental community christened April 22 as Earth Day.
In those days, the environmental movement was composed of well-meaning volunteers who viewed Earth Day as a genuine celebration for a better environment.
Back in those days, the environmental volunteers' goal was the noble cause of stopping the pollution of our public resources. Our cities had smog-filled air spewing out of factory smokestacks; sewage from waste water treatment plants flowed into our rivers; the Cuyahoga River caught fire.
The original movement viewed public education and public attention as the solution to the pollution problem. It worked.
Public education resulted in major clean-ups of our public resources -- due to the earnest desire of everyone to protect America's natural resources for future generations. Today, 70 percent of the water in this country meets the stringent goals of the Clean Water Act.
However, during the last two decades the environmental movement has been overtaken by radicals who saw the public resource successes as a springboard to push their agenda and their version of environmentalism on to every inch of private land and into every facet of business and community living.
Today, they are bankrupting our economy with excessive command-and-control restrictions and regulations that are based purely on political ploys and junk science.
Today, through regulating dry land by bureaucratically defining it as a wetland, they are stealing the rights of private landowners to the prudent use of their land -- breaking the nest egg of our senior citizens, bankrupting families and destroying the American Dream.
These people -- through the Endangered Species Act -- want to save every rat, fly, snail, beetle and bug but consider mankind the curse of the Earth.
As Paul wrote to the Romans: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen." Romans 1:22 and 25.
Further, in the last two decades the environmental movement was taken over by environmental hucksters -- seeking power, money and control, and thus Earth Day has become an excuse for extremists in highly visible, well-funded environmental organizations to omit propaganda and raise money. Thus Earth Day has become Pay Day for the environmental community.
As recently reported by the Berlin Daily Sun: "Over 1,200 environmental organizations are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as non-profit organizations. Although these groups have non-profit status, they collectively gross over $2.5 billion in annual income. Much of this is spent in lobbying, lawsuits and high salaries for their top officers."
As reported in the March issue of Outside magazine, the top 12 national environmental organizations have combined annual budgets of almost $570 million.
The president of the National Wildlife Federation is paid $232,640. The presidents of The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund are paid $185,000. The president of the National Audubon Society is paid $178,000. That's some Pay Day!
What can concerned citizens do?
First, remember that Earth Day is every day for those who own and tend the land -- those who provide the food and fiber to feed and clothe this nation: those who provide the natural resources to build homes, schools and churches. Private landowners are ++ the best stewards of the land.
Second, call and write your U.S. representative and both your U.S. senators and tell them to stop the "Earth worship." You might also wish to send each of them a bag of dirt with your personal message and be sure to include -- "Earth Day delivers Pay Dirt to the Green Machine!"
Margaret Ann Reigle
Cambridge
Ms. Reigle is the chairman of the Fairness to Land Owners Committee, a national private property rights group.
Education
Susan Reimer's May 2 column would have us believe we can improve education for all students without challenging them or their teachers. I wish she would tell us how. Maryland and the nation have established education goals for the year 2000 that require a great deal of work -- including inventing new systems for measuring learning and school performance. They cannot be accomplished easily, quickly or without some suffering along the way.
Much of the misunderstanding surrounding the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program falls away when one begins to grasp the radical belief that is at the heart of this major engine of Maryland's education reform effort. That belief is often simply stated but never simply practiced: All children can learn.
This is not to say that all children can be university scholars but rather that all children can learn at a higher level and, in doing so, can acquire the essential skills and understandings they will need to face the future as capable adults.
We know from research on learning that students can learn much more than they are now.
This is really no different than the common wisdom that says we use only a small fraction of our brain power. MSPAP, and the entire education reform program in Maryland, is all about significantly increasing that fraction.
The program calls on children and school to stretch toward their potential for learning and growth.
Ms. Reimer writes of a teacher having to take a different approach to teaching about area and perimeter because many children did not understand the concepts in her first instructional effort.
That second try at teaching third-grade children about area and perimeter and the mathematical calculations to gain their measure is, in fact, the essence of good teaching. If we put aside our commitment to all children's learning, we could avoid challenging material or ignore the children who don't get it the first time.
Those alternatives no longer make sense. As the Governor's Commission on School Performance headed by Walter Sondheim said in 1989, "Far too many schools are simply not educating all of their children to live rewarding and productive lives and to contribute to the nation's well being . . ."
In looking at the MSPAP results, it is important to understand that the tests and their standards are pegged to the future.
They represent what Maryland teachers, other state and local educators and key members of the business community believe is possible to achieve without continued efforts to improve instruction and build stronger support from parents and communities.
I am confident that we can continue to make real progress toward the goals we have set for our schools and for our students -- but not before more widespread, systemic improvement than has yet been possible. It is also important to understand the role of the performance tests in promoting the kinds of changes in instruction that will lead to improved performance.
Ms. Reimer said the MSPAP creates a real public relations problem.
In a sense that is correct, but the problem is created not by test designers' "fiddling" but by the very real change the tests demand from schools. The need for an intensive public education campaign will continue so long as there are teachers, parents and others who do not fully understand the MSPAP and its message of change.
To maintain a high quality of life for most Americans and elevate the standard of living for the poorest of our citizens requires that we give all students the tools they will need for productive work. The time has passed when the person with little more than a strong back and a willingness to work could enter a lifetime
career that is capable of supporting a family.
Baltimore
The writer is Maryland's state superintendent of schools.
Maryland Hospital Regulation Works
The article entitled "Is Maryland Hospital Regulation Outdated?" (April 5) was interesting and pointed out several important facts that make living in Maryland different -- and better -- from living in other states from a health care point-of-view.
One fact is universal coverage. This is a fundamental principle in health care reform that President Clinton has established as non-negotiable.
When it comes to hospital care, Maryland already has universal coverage.
Every citizen has equal access to every hospital regardless of their ability to pay. Our rate regulation system is responsible for this.
When the Health Services Cost Review Commission started regulating hospitals in 1974, Maryland had the second-highest hospital costs in the nation, and they were growing at a faster rate as well.
Today, hospital costs are well below national averages and well below those in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The cumulative savings due to hospital rate regulation is over $8 billion.
There is no cost shifting. In every other state, shortfalls from Medicare, Medicaid, etc., are made up by increasing the charges for those of us who get our coverage through our employer or pay for it out-of-pocket.
In Maryland, everyone pays the same. In spite of all this, Maryland's hospitals are economically healthy and profitable.
But the article gave the wrong impression in certain areas. First, it cites complaints that hospital costs in Maryland continue to rise faster than the rate of inflation and which attribute this to a flaw in the rate regulation system.
While it's true that hospital costs are increasing faster than the consumer price index, they are increasing more slowly than hospital costs nationally and in neighboring states.
A goal should be to bring the hospital inflation rate down to the CPI, and we have not yet achieved that. We have achieved a lower rate of inflation of hospital costs in Maryland than elsewhere.
Second, the article cites criticisms that "there is no incentive to lower prices, since hospitals get back their costs plus a fixed increase for inflation and for expansion or improvements, as long as they improve efficiency."
This is just plain not true. It misrepresents one of the foundation principles of the regulatory system.
In the absence of true competition in health care, the HSCRC determines what a fair charge would be if we had competition and if thehospital were both efficient and effective -- in other words, a successful competitor.
The amount the hospital is allowed to charge is based on the results of that determination. Efficient hospitals can make money on the allowed charges, and inefficient hospitals will lose money.
Over the years, hospitals have learned to operate more efficiently, and that's why they showed record profits in 1993. This is good, not bad. Our hospitals made money while our citizens saved money through lower charges.
Another point made is that a consultant ranked Maryland 20th highest out of 50 states in total health care cost increases over a decade.
This statement mixes apples and oranges. Hospital costs represent less than half of the total health care bill in Maryland, and they are well below national averages.
Non-hospital costs in Maryland are well above national averages, which is why total costs are not ever lower, but the regulatory system is doing its job regarding hospital costs.
Does rate regulation need to be updated and changed? Absolutely. Health care is changing rapidly and the regulatory system needs to keep pace and lead the way.
The commissioners and professional staff of the Cost Review Commission are aware of this and taking action. Health care is very complicated, and the commission must be assured that changes made to solve one problem do not create three others.
Last year, the state legislature passed landmark health care reform legislation. That legislation addressed nearly every aspect health care.
Conspicuous by its absence was any new provision that relates to hospitals and their charges.
The reason is simple. Our legislators, business, labor, insurance companies and others are satisfied that hospital charges in Maryland are under good control and are not nearly as large a problem as the non-hospital charges.
We need to re-double our efforts to assure that the regulation in Maryland does an even better job in the future than it has in the past, but we should keep the regulatory system until something that does a better job of providing affordability and access for all citizens in Maryland comes along.
6* Frankly, no better system is in sight.
Don S. Hillier
Baltimore
The writer is a former member of the Health Services Cost Review Commission.
Liberty and Safety
Neal R. Peirce expressed dismay that "Judge Anderson's rulings have the effect of making the Fourth Amendment, with its guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure, more important than residents' very lives" (Opinion * Commentary, April 18).
That's right. The Fourth Amendment is more important than lives -- my life, Mr. Peirce's life, anyone's life.
It is one of the fundamental liberties for which our ancestors fought long and bitter wars, and for whose sake they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
In the case of Chicago's Robert Taylor Homes project, it is entirely appropriate that the government be required to "develop a constitutionally permissible and effective search policy for public housing."
It is not appropriate -- it is never appropriate -- to permit the government to sidestep the Constitution, in the name of safety or any other cause.
Never have Benjamin Franklin's words rung more true than in today's America: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Don Sakers
Linthicum
Dull Singapore
Robert Benjamin's April 29 article, "Founding Father Rules Singapore like Emperor," set me thinking about 18-year-old Michael Fay and the flaying he has received.
I know that Americans fed up with the horrible violence this country is engulfed in look enviously at clean, efficient and safe Singapore. If it takes lashing of criminals to keep a country safe, the conservatives argue, lashing is a sound route to take. In fact, some have suggested that the anarchy on our city streets threatens to topple our democracy, and that Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore knows something about human nature that the American founding fathers failed to understand.
I have visited Singapore. It is spectacularly clean and, yes, it is safe. But it is also spectacularly dull. Quiet, obedient citizens, afraid to express their opinions, may be able to create materially prosperous nations, but they cannot make the societies in which they live vibrant or interesting.
Is it not possible that among the many citizens of Singapore there are at least some who are profoundly disturbed or repulsed the kind of caning that Michael Fay has received? Where are the voices of these citizens? Why don't they speak up?
Lee Kuan Yew comments derisively about the controversy and debate the matter of caning has stirred up in America. While Mr. Lee is amazed that Americans have gone into a tizzy about the caning of Michael Fay, I am amazed that no one in Singapore has. The Singaporeans have safe streets, clean housing and prosperous businesses. After all of that, what? If they don't wake from their secure slumber and start thinking for themselves, if they don't engage in controversy or intellectual debate, because Mr. Lee won't allow them, I can safely bet that the people of Singapore will explode or die of boredom in the coming century.
Humans have always clashed through ideas. Out of such clashes, great literature, art and drama are born. Cultures that shun contradictions and controversies eventually implode because it is unnatural for humans to stay resigned and submissive forever.
If deterrence of crime is the only factor to determine the nature of the law, then any bizarre or barbaric punishment should be acceptable. Exasperated Americans who are happy to espouse caning should remember that the punishment for vandalism in Singapore could well have been throwing the vandal into boiling oil rather than caning him. Lee Kuan Yew would probably bristle at this suggestion, but isn't that the truth? Why caning? Why not
boiling oil?
Usha Nellore
Bel Air
Rx for Inaccuracy
It was reported in the April 17 Sun that Michael Fay had been prescribed five drugs, two of which were about 10 times stronger than Valium. While the statement is factually correct, it is not clinically correct. This misinformation, half-truth type of reporting is, unfortunately, presented by the media all too often to the listening, reading and viewing public.
In this particular case, a reasonable dose of Valium would be 5 milligrams. A reasonable dose of Alprazolam would be .5 milligrams. This would be known in the medical lingo as an equipotent dose. It is doubtful that young Mr. Fay is being given 5 milligrams of Alprazolam unless he had been taking 50 milligrams of Valium, also doubtful.
Perhaps The Sun should not take all stories from the big wire services without, at least, doing a little checking on the contents.
Phillip Paul Weiner, P.D.
Baltimore
Unhappy Teacher
Here's a quick little "test" for you in response to Tim Baker's April 25 column, "A Test That Gives Teachers the Fantods."
Has he ever actually seen copies of the school performance tests that he writes about with such glowing praise?
Can he possibly give readers some basis for his statement "It's a good test and it's getting better"?
Would he be willing to spend a week with me when I administer this batch of tests to a random group of eighth grade students, half of whom I've never seen before?
I have proctored the test for three years, and I can surely use his help. Perhaps he can advise me on how to conduct a scientific experiment that calls for "window light," when I am in a room with no windows.
Or perhaps he can give the following prompt to a group of fidgety 13-year-olds with a straight face: "Hold up the third finger on your left hand and have your partner examine it for the absence or presence of digital hairs."
Better still, explain to a group of hot and tired adolescents that they need to take this test seriously because "it isn't designed to evaluate individual students at all" but "to evaluate schools" (and teachers).
(Keep in mind that these middle school kids will be moving on to five different high schools in fewer than 30 days and have little motivation to perform well on a test that measures the school but not them).
One other thing: please remember that the school where I teach is not air-conditioned and it will likely be well over 90 degrees in the room we are using one or more of the test days. (Earlier this year, I successfully fried an egg on the radiator next to where six of my students sit -- it was 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
Incidentally, I am not a member of the Maryland State Teachers Association and could care less about what our next governor thinks about this issue. I have been given "outstanding" ratings throughout my career for my teaching competencies, but when it comes to administering this test I'm afraid the cards are stacked against me.
Dorothy Dowling
Ruxton
The writer teaches at Parkville Middle School.
Unfriendly Fire
Why do they call it "friendly fire"?
They should call it "stupid, ignorant fire."
Helane Levine
Baltimore