The NAACP Summit and Louis Farrakhan
I read with great dismay Carl Rowan's comments, on the June 15 op-ed page of The Sun, on the "overreaction by some Jews" to the recent conference of black leaders held in Baltimore. Mr. Rowan clearly missed the point of the protesters and the outrage felt by Jews and others over Mr. Farrakhan's participation at the conference.
In his commentary, Mr. Rowan likened Louis Farrakhan to Howard Stern. While Mr. Stern may be Jewish, he does not attempt to speak on behalf of the Jewish community as a whole or its leadership.
Mr. Farrakhan, however, does represent a sizable back organization and has attempted through his virulent anti-Semitic, anti-white remarks to spark hatred throughout the black community toward Jews, Catholics and many others.
Mr. Stern is a media personality who may in his effort to shock people of all colors, races and religions make outrageous statements.
Mr. Farrakhan, on the other hand, represents himself to be a leader of the black community. There is a great deal of difference between the two, and their responsibilities are markedly different.
Had Shoshana Cardin or any other Jewish community leader made anti-black remarks of the same tenor that Mr. Farrakhan and his disciples have used in making anti-Semitic remarks, there most certainly would be outrage, anger and disgust in the black community, and rightfully so.
The Jewish community is not asking Mr. Rowan or others within the black community to "give a speech or to write a column disavowing every anti-Jewish tirade by every black demagogue," he suggests, but only to speak out against hate; whatever the race involved, whenever and wherever it arises.
Mr. Rowan also suggests that it is only the Jewish community that is upset by the words of Mr. Farrakhan and his followers. This is not the case. People of all colors and religions have spoken out against the hateful remarks made by the Nation of Islam leaders.
The NAACP, while it has a right to invite anyone it desires to its conferences, must understand that persons like Mr. Farrakhan do not further the cause of blacks in America, but distance them from the rest of Americans of all colors.
The NAACP and its leaders should have spoken out as heatedly against Mr. Farrakhan's anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-white remarks as Mr. Chavis now does in espousing unity of the black community . . .
Richard B. Pazornik
Baltimore
--------
Well it's about time! Way over due for the nation's black civic leaders, clergy, educators and philosophers to convene at the African-American Summit in Baltimore, in what has to be construed as having vast historical importance.
As a young man of African descent, I am pleased to now see the courage, intelligence, new blood, love, commitment and activity projected by Benjamin Chavis, the "new" NAACP and the core participants at the summit.
This is the example that younger generation African-Americans can look to for hope, positive change and a foundation on which we will continue to build on in the future.
Most of us have come to the realization that poverty doesn't have to be a part of the black community . . . drugs, violence and crime doesn't have to be a part of the black community . . . babies having babies and non-supportive fathers doesn't have to be a part of the black community . . . unequal treatment and indifference on the side of the government doesn't have to be a part of the black community . . . disproportionate educational spending, disease and high unemployment rates don't have to be a part of the black community . . . low voter turnout doesn't have to be a part of the black community and certainly despair, lack of love for one another and spiritual deprivation doesn't have to be a part of the black community.
These diverse leaders have reconciled their past divisiveness, and are now determined to put to rest ideological differences and petty wrangling to come up with viable working solutions to these things that "don't have to be a part of the black community".
For those so-called leaders who optioned their right not to attend . . . a sincere thank you . . . we all know now that you are not leaders, but very effective followers. You've very simply followed in the line with those who sustain themselves off of our many ailments (Alan Keyes, to start).
Our "real" leaders have no hidden agendas, no personal platforms and lots of enemies . . . and they've vowed at the summit to serve the people who need them most. The dialogue must continue and the solutions must ultimately follow.
John Hughes
Baltimore
Tax on Hotels is fair
So you believe a 2 percent increase in the hotel tax to finance the Convention Center expansion will led to the downfall of Baltimore's "hospitality" (hotel) industry? Perhaps we could interest you in a new set of of clothes for the Emperor.
Your June 13 editorial, in opposition to Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke's proposal to tax visitors to Baltimore, rather than residents, for the center expansion could have been written by the hotel industry itself.
Certainly, the reliance on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence, in discussing the tax and its effects, is a distinctive mark of hoteliers, who are also fond of using the "Chicken Little" approach to this public policy question as well.
Before we all buy into their notion that hotel tax increases have led to famine, despair and destruction throughout the Eastern seaboard, there are basic questions that need answering:
1. Was it the hotel tax that hurt the hospitality industry in New York and Prince George's County, or was it a glut of new, unneeded hotel rooms?
2. If hotel taxes are passed on to customers, and if convention groups get discounts on room rates, isn't the issue one of the hotel profits rather than hotel survival?
3. What are the current profit margins of Baltimore hotels? Why were room rates increased 5 percent recently if the industry is so sensitive to price fluctuations?
4. How much do Baltimore City hoteliers receive in current public subsidies from the city? Seems to us your newspaper ran an expose on some $60 million in development loans that hotels gobbled up from the city a few years ago that still remain unpaid, not to mention the usual police, fire, transportation, public infrastructure that the public sector provides.)
5. What has the hotel industry given back to the citizens of Baltimore except low-paying, part-time, no-benefit jobs, cleaning hotel rooms?
More importantly, there is another hospitality industry in Baltimore that your editorial neglected to mention, one based on the principles of the Good Samaritan rather than those of Adam Smith.
This hospitality industry, a collection of churches, synagogues, nonprofits and others who provide services and housing for Baltimore's homeless citizens, exists on only a fraction of the public subsidy the city provides hotels.
(At the current rate of subsidies, it would take almost 60 years for the compassion-driven hospitality industry to catch up to the profit-driven one.)
The justification for Baltimore taxpayers picking up the bill for subsidies for private business lies in the notion that what's good for business is good for everyone in Baltimore.
The same principle operates in the converse: Destitute, disabled people without shelter, substance abuse treatment services and supportive housing have an effect on Baltimore's "hospitality," and on the rest of us as well.
In 1991, the City Council pledged to divert a portion of hotel tax revenue to homeless services and housing. To the best of our knowledge, this still has not been done.
The time has come to honor the pledge, and pay for the Convention Center by increasing the hotel tax.
Everyone wanted a Convention Center, now nobody wants to pay for it. The hotels profit from it the most, they should foot the bill. It's their public subsidy.
Perhaps some hotels will be hurt by the tax and will fail. But the free market system (even one adjusted for some "social" cost) offers little mercy, yet (we're told) produces the greatest common "good."
After watching the hotelier's panhandling-like pandering before the City Council, and reading your editorial sophistry, it appears that the conservatives are right: Public subsidies do create a culture of dependency, and encourage irresponsible behavior.
Laurel Siegel
Baltimore
The letter was also signed by four other members of City Advocates in Solidarity with the Homeless (CASH).
Unsweet Parting?
Do I detect a note of bitterness in Denton Watson's commentary (Opinion * Commentary, June 21) on the NAACP and its leader Benjamin Chavis?
As the former public relations director for the aforementioned organization, evidently, his parting was more sorrowful than sweet.
The NAACP, under the direction of Reverend Chavis, has at least taken the initiative to address the many ills that have plagued the African-American community since the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, and it has steadfastly not given into the enormous pressure by special interest groups and individuals, who have consistently attempted to stagnate the process by creating an atmosphere of divisiveness.
This being so, the real deal is that real changes will undoubtedly come from the bottom up. This means that the community leaders, pastors, mothers, fathers, nurses and paper boys must somehow unite to develop a bridge over troubled waters.
The true and lasting changes will not come by "trickling down" from the educated elite to the mis-educated impoverished, but from those individuals who are directly affected.
Being a member of the so-called Generation X, I, a 28-year-old, African-American woman, have invested interest in the educational and socioeconomic development of all African-Americans.
Dr. Chavis, the NAACP and the other participants in the recent African-American Leadership Summit have dug the foundation. It up to us to build the building of hope and tear down the edifice of despair.
Lea A. Gilmore
Baltimore
Caricatures
It is distressing to note that Cal Thomas (column, June 15) has elevated himself to the throne of justice, and has already judged between the sheep and the goats.
His caricatures of the left as pagans and the extreme right as religious has ignored the major issues in the current political problem.
The left position, as I read it, is neither anti-religion nor anti-democracy but is calling attention both to the dangers inherent in bloc-voting and to the extremes of intolerance and hatred that have, alas, been expressed by religious extremists through the ages.
He correctly identifies many of the benefits to society brought about through religious worship of God, but fails to note that false prophets -- and political demagogues -- in the service of Satan, the old deluder, have been known to cloak perfidy with the mantle of religious faith.
Although Mr. Thomas has judged with superior wisdom, we, mere mortals, must judge with our earthly senses and stay ever alert for candidates and columnists who smell of brimstone.
Howard E. Long
York, Pa.
Gingrich's Health
According to the record, Rev. Edward Everett Hale, U.S. Senate chaplain 1903-1909, when asked "Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?" replied, "No, I look at the senators and pray for the country."
When I read the lead article June 17 headlined "Health reform appears to be running out of steam," I felt exactly the way Reverend Hale must have felt then -- especially if you throw in such congressmen as strident Newt Gingrich, representing his wealthy constituents in Cobb County, Georgia.
Representative Gingrich enjoys the very best of health care, and do his congressional fellows, largely at government expense. On the other hand, almost 40 million Americans have no health coverage.
Many of these people have families -- wives and kids. Mr. Gingrich couldn't care less. He calls helping these folks "socialized medicine."
Coming from Representative Gingrich, who has helped enrich one of the richest counties country at the expense of the American taxpayer, this is the height of irony.
On the other hand, if we help our fellow Americans stay well, our health care costs will go down for all of us because our country will be more productive and efficient.
Health care reform is something most Americans need and insist on. We will remember the Republican Party as the party of obstruction and special interests come next election time.
Ernest M. Stolberg
Baltimore
Moving toward Gay Pride
I read with considerable interest Andrew Webb's piece entitled "Gay Pride: Their Own Worst Enemies."
I found it both interesting and more than a little significant that The Sun on June 20 positioned this negative article so prominently at the top of its Opinion * Commentary page while failing to include within the same issue even a mention of the Gay Games currently in progress in New York City.
Gays and lesbians from across the country, and indeed from around the world, are participating in this athletic event, which is clearly an effort on the part of America's gay population to be proactive and affirmative, and to project a positive image of itself.
The fact that Baltimore's major newspaper totally ignores the event -- and did so last year, too -- is a revealing commentary on the media's role in the image of gays.
Even local television newscasters, certainly more limited than The Sun in the amount of news they can report, have found time for at least a mention of these games.
Incidentally, while we have a "Senior Olympics" and a "Special Olympics," America's gay population was prohibited from using the term "Olympics," presumably because its association with gays and lesbians might tarnish the splendor of the term's connotations.
Or am I just presenting further evidence of the gay community's victimization syndrome?
Allan E. Starkey
Baltimore
--------
I am replying to the column by Andrew G. Webb concerning the progress of the gay and lesbian equal rights movement.
Mr. Webb's deriding of our Gay Pride Days shows a lack of understanding the gay and lesbian experience. Many of us grew up isolated and lonely. Society encouraged us to hide who we were as an act of shame.
Gay Pride Day festivities are meant to undo the harmful impact of these life experiences.
These events promote gay and lesbian visibility, stress positive self-esteem and serve as a focal point for community unity.
The bizarre behavior Mr. Webb mentions concerning Gay Pride Day is no more strange than Mardi Gras or Halloween as celebrated in this country.
Mr. Webb also asserts that our movement too often emphasizes the negatives of our experience. Yet he also pushed aside our goal for equal rights, declaring we offer no proof to support our claims.
Sorry, Mr. Webb, but you can only prove discrimination via negative examples. Discrimination, harassment and physical violence aren't pretty things easily pushed aside.
I agree with his overall assessment of the movement as chaotic. It needs to be more proactive than reactive.
The rising political power and activism of fundamentalist Christians and their attacks on our rights as equal citizens makes being proactive difficult. The gay and lesbian equal rights movement, unlike other rights movements, is incredibly young and has a far way to go.
Matthew H. Vadney
Baltimore
HMOs Look at Bottom Line in Treating
In his June 11 letter, Dr. Adrian E. Long discusses how some health care reform proposals currently before Congress will hurt health maintenance organizations.
He claims he is one of the physicians of the non-profit Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program. What he fails to say in his letter is that his concern for medical care delivery in the U.S. is not altogether altruistic.
The Capital-area Kaiser Permanente is a for-profit organization, with a non-profit subdivision called the "Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program" or simply the "Health Plan".
The Capital-area Kaiser Permanente group employs at least 500 physicians through its "Medical Groups." These physicians, after two years of working for Kaiser, have the option to become shareholders in the Kaiser Health Care System.
In addition to income for service, the physicians are entitled to bonuses each year. Kaiser is indeed a for-profit corporation, a fact obfuscated by its undue emphasis on its non-profit subdivision.
It is sheer bombast on the part of Dr. Long to suggest that in coordinating care HMO physicians are driven mainly by noble sentiments like quality of care and the needs of patients. The emphasis of many HMOs is on quantity and not on quality.
Patterns of out-patient scheduling by several HMOs will reveal that patients are scheduled, in some specialties, every 10 minutes. The ethos is, "See as many patients as possible as often as possible." How could this result in quality care?
It is not true that HMOs put the needs of their patients ahead of other considerations. HMOs are currently clamping down ruthlessly on referrals to specialists, and they are also urging specialists to practice squalid medicine.
Medical squalor is not the answer to medical profligacy. Important decisions about the health and welfare of patients are being made increasingly by managers and not by physicians.
Patients are mere commodities to health care managers. While fee-for-service medicine has been riddled with much greed, HMOs are not necessarily free from avarice. Managed care does not essentially lead to healthy market-driven competition. In many parts of the country, the large insurance giants are well ensconced and unchallenged.
By embracing managed care with full force, health care reform may be inadvertently creating "health care trusts" in some parts of the U.S.
Dr. Long should know that Kaiser Permanente has been a huge monopoly in Northern California for a long time.
I am surprised that he protests the "any willing provider" provision before Congress. Qualified doctors are sometimes not chosen by insurance companies as providers purely for demographic reasons.
When this happens in an area of the country where an HMO or an insurance company functions almost as a monopoly, such doctors are left in the cold, holding the short end of the financial stick. They might have to give up their practices or relocate.
The "any willing provider" provision before Congress wil prevent the unjust exclusion of qualified physicians by giant HMOs.
HMOs should indeed be required to contract with hospitals affiliated with medical schools and academic medical centers.
Some academic centers may not offer superior care, but they can be encouraged to improve. If, in the future, all we'll have in the U.S. is managed care, then we have to make sure that hospitals where doctors train are not ostracized by the frugality of the managed care system.
We cannot risk subjecting our academic medical centers to the competitive forces of the marketplace. Would we do that to our public libraries and our museums?
Managed care would have medicine be purely entrepreneurial. But medicine is also about research and training physicians. Managed care should willingly and happily contribute to these areas.
That HMOs may be required to offer point-of-service coverage is not as terrible as Dr. Long makes it out to be.
Patients want choice and some are willing to pay for it. Why shouldn't they have the freedom to do so? After all, HMOs are not meant to be autocracies.
Dr. Long concludes that premium rates for HMOs will jump by 25 percent if the current proposals before Congress are mandated.
Obviously, "managed care with a heart" will be more expensive than a heartless managed care system. But what would the American people rather have? You bet: the former and not the latter.
Usha Nellore, M.D.
Bel Air