In a letter to the editor published Thursday, the name of the author of a previously published letter was spelled incorrectly. It was written by Charles N. Valenti.

* The Sun regrets the error.

Reactionary

The indignities that women have been subjected to throughout history were profoundly obvious in the June 16 letter by Charles N. Valentin of Lewes, Del.

Thanks to Mr. Valentin's unholy ideas, not only women, but all thinking people can see precisely why the Catholic Church is having a worse time of it in this day and age than it did in the Reformation.

Reactionaries who would hustle us back to the time of the Inquisition if they could, have a perfect right in this free society to say their piece. But they resent anyone else who does the same, if it doesn't agree with their fundamentalist ideas and ideals; and they doubly resent it if it is spoken by a woman.

As is usually the case, those who so deftly cast the largest stones should check out their own motives.

Carolyn Watts

Baltimore

Enjoyable Weill

I beg to differ with your music critic in his scathing review (June 10) of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra's recent evening of music by Kurt Weill. I found the program thoroughly enjoyable, and so did the majority of the house, apparently, judging from the enthusiastic standing ovation given the performers at the end of the evening.

All eight people in my party, ranging in age from 42 to 75, found the program to be lively and interesting.

Rather than our minds being turned to "jelly," as was poor Mr. Wigler's, we left enlivened and broadened.

The works were widely representative, and the brief biographical sketches given at the beginning of each section succinctly captured the essence of the man and what he was trying to accomplish with his music.

Critic Stephen Wigler had a few good points. It is true that vocals in the Meyerhoff Hall sound awful.

They always have, and probably always will; it was built as a symphonic concert hall, and we of the pop-music era are having to live with the shortsightedness of the designers who neglected to factor vocal solos into the intricate acoustical system. (The Kennedy Center Concert Hall is worse in this regard.)

True, the program notes neglected to give credit to some of the behind-the-scenes artists. (Who produced the program? Who choreographed?)

True, a very few of the selections could have been omitted, as they didn't differ much from others of the same genre.

True, the orchestra's sound is not as rich during a pops concert as it otherwise might be, and this is a disappointment to those expecting to hear broad bass and sweet strings.

However, we all went into it knowing it was a pops concert, knowing it would be different than a symphonic concert.

Mr. Wigler's comparison of the Weill program to an evening of the better-known Leonard Bernstein works is ill-founded. It is like comparing apples and kiwis placed in the same basket. Most of us know a lot of Bernstein, many of us don't know much Weill.

However, whether or not we were expecting familiar tunes, we were all bound by a desire to hear the BSO's usual fine melodic interpretation.

I think the house reaction showed its satisfaction with that.

Stephanie Panos Link

Hampstead

Non-Violent Protest

Regarding the letter June 12 about Mike Littwin's commentary on the Freedom of Access to Clinics Law, I feel the writer has totally missed Mr. Littwin's point.

The column was written to point out the severity and unfairness of the new law to non-violent protesters at abortion clinics.

All through Mr. Littwin's column he never condoned any violence, intimidation or coercion but merely brought to light the fact that maybe this new law wasn't really necessary and was politically motivated above anything else. He also points out that there are already existing laws to punish violent clinic protesters.

Carrying placards, holding prayer vigils and peacefully blocking doorways are all non-violent ways of protesting that Americans have used for decades (as did Martin Luther King Jr.)

However, now, because of a minority of violent offenders who make the headlines, the majority of peaceful protesters has been silenced. So much for free speech.

#Carolyn Reischl Schwalbe

Columbia

Disaffected Voters in 1994

I was the first Anne Arundel County coordinator of United We Stand, America (UWSA), serving from June 1993 until June 1994. Based on that experience I would like to make a few comments about Susan Baer's article (May 28) concerning the "Perot Voters."

The article's sub-headline said "20% of the electorate remain disaffected." Twenty percent represents only the number of the disaffected voters who voted for Mr. Perot in '92. It does not take into account the many who, for various reasons, did not vote for him.

Furthermore, it is now approaching two years since the election, and one can argue that the ranks of the disaffected have grown. I believe an estimate of 35 percent would not be too high.

There are many reasons why so many people were (and still are) disaffected. Consider a short list of three of those reasons and what has or has not been done about them since the 1992 election.

(1) National debt: President Clinton's 1993 budget, passed by one vote in the Senate, increased taxes, spending and the national debt.

(2) Balanced budget amendment: Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill., introduced a balanced budget amendment which failed when Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced an intentionally deceptive one.

Senator Reid's bill provided cover for seven senators to claim that they voted for a balanced budget amendment.

(3) Term limits: In 1992, the voters of Washington state voted to place term limits on their elected officials. In 1993, House Speaker Tom Foley (from Washington) filed a lawsuit aimed at overturning the people's decision.

Ms. Baer's article raised the question of what role UWSA will play in the fall elections. Most answers to that question are intrinsically speculative. There are, however, two ways that the organization may play a role (based on facts).

First is its substantial membership. In close races those numbers alone may well decide the winner.

A second way UWSA may play a role is by becoming a political yardstick.

Because it grew out of the ranks of that ever-increasing bloc of disaffected voters, to know how its members feel about a candidate is likely to know how the whole bloc feels about the candidate.

With that knowledge, the political parties can advance candidates through the primary process who can "woo" those voters. To do so will be crucial in many races, particularly statewide ones.

Overlooking the disaffected in September, in favor of the "good ole boy" system, could prove to be a bad line-up for the "World Series" -- Nov. 8.

Dan Tewell

Baltimore

McLean's Court Case

Michael Olesker's June 12 interpretation of the events surrounding accused City Comptroller Jacqueline McLean is appalling.

He has consistently failed to take one crucial fact into consideration, that Mrs. McLean is a gravely ill women.

Wally Orlinsky, Jeffrey Levitt and other high profile citizens who betrayed the public trust were not asked to pay for their crimes by giving their lives.

That is what Mrs. McLean is being asked to do because of her fragile emotional state. The trauma of a premature trial could be the one event that could push her over the edge and kill her.

I am not arguing Mrs. McLean's guilt or innocence. Only she and God know the truth. Whatever she did or did not do, she does not deserve to die for it.

I thank God that caring people stepped in, and made arrangements to save that woman's life.

Debbie Wright

Baltimore

May I commend The Sun for the fine editorial in the June 15 edition anent the machinations in the courthouse regarding the McLean case.

It was a sober, level-headed, trenchant and well-merited consideration of sordid behavior by public servants who should know better.

You have rendered a service to the citizens of Baltimore.

Ruth H. Schaffer

Baltimore