Wrong Information
Since I am just by nature someone who cries foul when others are in error, I feel compelled to apologize to The Sun and to its readers about an error that appeared in my Opinion * Commentary piece July 15.
My opinion remains the same, of course: that the Cloisters is what it is because of where it is. Moving it downtown will not enhance its value and, in all probability, will denigrate it.
But one of the facts I used to support that opinion was wrong. I wrote that the Cloisters was a free museum. It is not.
I can only say that it has been true, it used to be true, it was true the last time I went.
A lot of things have changed since then. The museum is now a private entity no longer owned by the city, though the building still is.
Lynda Case Lambert
Baltimore
Roots of Violence
Richard Seid's commentary makes several assertions regarding gun violence (Opinion * Commentary, July 26).
As proof for his arguments, he cites a political assassination and the killing of a police chief. He admits that Tijuana is "crime-ridden," yet he does not link these unfortunate murders to anything except the proximity of evil, gun-toting gringos.
In truth, there has never been a credible linking of criminal behavior to legal gun ownership.
On the contrary, many communities in the United States have enacted tough, restrictive gun legislation to no avail. Gun violence seems to be most prevalent in areas with the most stringent regulations.
Criminal intent must be present to commit any crime. The police chief was murdered by criminals, not by a firearm. Had another method been employed -- for example, a car bomb -- this murder would not have been mentioned by Mr. Seid.
Political assassinations are another matter entirely. Political figures are targets of attacks by many different methods, not just handguns.
Luis Donaldo Colosio's assassin surely broke several laws by taking a pistol purchased in San Francisco across an international border. He also had to have criminal intent to commit such a heinous act.
Mr. Seid also attempts to implicate the National Rifle Association in the gun violence in Mexico. While I am not a spokesman for this organization, it does not endorse or support criminal activity or illegal use of firearms.
Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is not "permissiveness" as Mr. Seid suggests, but rather an exercise of inalienable rights recognized in the Second Amendment.
To suggest that criminal activity in a bordering country is ancillary to gun ownership here is absurd and unrealistic.
Michael Horst
Baltimore
Separate Kingdoms
This is in response to two separate commentaries on the same day (July 18), namely those of Roger Simon and Mike Littwin.
Both writers in their columns in The Sun, following the newspaper's seemingly constant editorial bashing of Dan Quayle, refer to his pledge of allegiance to the Christian flag, prior to his address in Fort Lauderdale back in January.
My thanks to Mr. Simon for at least quoting the pledge in its entirety. I would encourage both columnists to pay careful attention to the words of the pledge itself.
The allegiance is to the kingdom of God, which, as Jesus himself taught, "is not of this world."
Rather, it is a spiritual kingdom, and not to be confused with the kingdoms of this world, including America.
Speaking of America, let us not forget the context in which the promise of life and liberty was stated in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . ."
That was the promise, and the Constitution was the effort of our forefathers to fulfill that promise. The life and liberty, as well as the pursuit, referred to therein are temporal.
The promise of life and liberty referred to in the pledge of allegiance to the kingdom of God, on the other hand, is spiritual and eternal.
You might argue that, for that very reason, the two must be forever separated, and that is why we have separation of church and state in this nation (or kingdom, if you will permit the analogy).
Isn't it interesting that the more we have kept the two separated, (which principle, by the way, is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or in the First Amendment thereto), and in fact widened that separation down through the years, all the more serious are the problems we are facing, and all the fewer answers to those problems we are able to find.
Please do not misunderstand me (or misquote me should you choose to print this letter). I strongly believe in the principle of separation of church and state, so long as you have man-made religions and/or churches, and man-made kingdoms and/or governments.
However, would you please explain to me, if you can, how it is possible to separate the creation from its Creator? Is it not perhaps time to try it his way?
Richard G. Bartholomee
Pikesville
See Baltimore
I read with great offense on July 21 the editorial, "W(h)ither the CFL?" reprinted from the July 7 Toronto Star.
Among other things, it described Baltimore as a second-rate city.
After living in the Baltimore area all my life, I strongly disagree that Baltimore is second rate.
I would have to wonder if the person who wrote this editorial ever visited or lived in Baltimore.
I am extending to him/her a personal invitation to come and visit this fine American city.
My family and I will give them a first-rate tour of a first-rate city.
Vincent T. Bands
Catonsville
Clinton's Successes
Hell has no fury like a reformer who discovers that the reforms he wants are going to cost him some money and perhaps some pain.
This sad fact is borne out by the poll (reported in The Sun on July 23) showing President Clinton's rating at this moment, more than two years away from the only poll that counts, in November of 1996.
Now, many voters who clamored for change are discovering that the changes are to be partly paid for -- not by vague "others" -- but by themselves: changes in health care, especially.
Another unpleasant discovery about loudly demanded budget cutting is that the services cut back may be their own; in foreign policy, that the issues may require patience, negotiations and compromise to deal with enormously complicated dilemmas instead of the simple, macho, hairy-chested responses to Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf.
How can a president be popular when he is telling voters what they don't want to hear and asking them to behave as responsible grown-ups?
Have the good folks in this meaningless survey noticed that for HTC the third straight year President Clinton's budget reduces the national deficit, and that this had not happened once in the last three Republic administrations?
Have they noticed that the deficit is reduced by $126 billion in fiscal year 1995 alone?
Has it come to their attention that the unemployment rate is down to 6.4 percent in April 1994, job creation is up by nearly a million jobs created in the first four months of 1994; that more jobs have been created in the past 15 months -- 2.853 million -- than in the last four years combined?
Do they know that manufacturing jobs are up for the seventh month, more new businesses are being created, business failures declined by 11.4 percent in 1993 -- and with all this, that the core Consumer Price Index over the past 12 months rose only 2.8 percent, the smallest annual increase in more than 20 years?
Have they observed the demise of gridlock? For two years in a row Congress and the Clinton administration have worked together successfully to put our fiscal house in order, end trickle down economics and create more opportunity for working families in the new global marketplace.
The central accomplishment of this partnership was congressional passage of the president's economic plan that has produced a strong and expanding economy.
The only thing this poll proves beyond question is that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Jack L. Levin
Baltimore