Funeral Costs
In a recent article by Melody Simmons (Sept. 21), the plight of family members who have lost a loved one and must arrange for burial was vividly depicted.
As often is the case, however, The Sun has relied on one-sided sensationalism designed to impinge upon the reader's emotions.
Undoubtably, many families suffer a financial burden due to the necessity to bury a loved one unexpectedly.
Miss Simmons states how family and friends "debated with officials of the funeral home and cemetery over funeral and burial contracts laden with itemized costs."
Her article goes on to state that some families are asked to make monthly payments to funeral homes; that some bodies are "turned over to the University of Maryland's anatomy board because the family cannot afford funeral expenses;" that unless one is on welfare, no public funds are available, and those on public assistance are eligible for a $650 grant toward burial costs.
Although her article appears (I use that word generously) well-intended, it is clearly biased reporting.
No mention is made of the 1984 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruling requiring funeral homes to present a "general price list" detailing 17 itemized goods and services available to families. The FTC outlines specifically what language will be used in the price list.
This method of pricing was enacted for the protection of the consumer and, indeed, works.
Most funeral directors, including the funeral home mentioned in the article, work diligently to keep their customers informed and provide a decent service for the deceased.
Frequently, funeral homes will allow families to pay over a period of months. What other businesses will extend credit to individuals during a real time of need without a credit history review?
Often funeral homes in Baltimore City perform a funeral for those on public assistance for $650 when just the casket may cost over $300. This is charitable work.
It is time for federal, state and metropolitan governments to increase the allowance from $650 to a cost-based system where a funeral home will at least cover overhead and break even.
Funeral directors, particularly in the city, are dedicated, caring, professionals who attempt to serve their community with utmost integrity and concern. It is unfair to them and to the public to depict funeral directors in a cynical light. . .
Marc C. Butler
Baltimore
Party Lines
I write in response to William Thompson's and Jack W. Germond's Sept. 24 articles. The former concerns the decision by Baltimore-based Democratic Party regulars not to assist my campaign to unseat my incumbent opponent in the First Congressional District.
In it, the party brass call me "an anomaly" and characterize my views as "extreme." I'm also referred to as "ultraconservative."
The fact is, party leadership has based its decision on hearsay. They've done me the "courtesy" of not having a single conversation with me. As for the characterizations, I'm not ultra anything, unless you consider support for a balanced federal budget as extreme; or my conviction that government should care more about the safety of police officers than the comfort of convicted criminals.
Is it extremist to harbor a deep concern about recent foreign-policy embarrassments, or to oppose health care "reforms" that would bankrupt many small businesses?
Such views are extreme only in the eyes of party liberals, ultraliberals if you will, who by responding more to the screamers in their midst than to the needs of the forgotten middle class have headed my party toward devastating defeats in November.
Which brings me to Mr. Germond's article, citing poll results and professional opinions that point to likely midterm defeats nationwide that "are more severe than the party in the White House normally suffers."
If the mindlessness of party leaders in Baltimore is a fair reflection of party management elsewhere, these predictions should surprise no one.
Loyalty begets loyalty. By rejecting the choice of the First District Democrats, party chiefs have rejected their voice as well.
That may provide short-term gratification to the party's liberal Baltimore leadership. But we'll see how First District voters respond.
Meanwhile, the message sent out across the state and the country cannot help but confirm the growing popular perception of a party bent on self-destruction. What a shame!
Ralph Gies
Gambrills
The writer is Democratic candidate for Congress in the First District.
Margin of Error
The Sun really lived up to its motto "Light for All" in Mark Hyman's story about tough choices for season ticket holders (Sept. 18).
It seems Mr. Hyman polled all of four people, two Pulitzer Prize winning authors, a Maryland state legislator and a Columbia lawyer, about whether to renew season tickets for the 1995 baseball season.
What a cross section of the 27,500 season ticket holders! One can only guess what the plus/minus margin of error must be for this study.
This silly front page article is the culmination of the silliest year that professional baseball has ever seen. Not only the players and owners are to blame, but now we have to suffer the fluff JTC articles such as this.
C. D. Wilmer
Baltimore
Olesker's Law
I am generally a fan of Michael Olesker's political commentary. His bashing Parris Glendening's candidacy, however, based on the Olesker first law of choice, "Thou shalt have proper geographic residence and this address must be Baltimore," is a terrible form of intellectual journalism.
We are taught to fight racism, sexism, classism, but Mr. Olesker concludes that geographic elitism is a most acceptable "ism" on which to judge a candidate for governor.
No matter that what a candidate says about government's proper role in society, no matter that the Republican candidate's position as a hard core conservative that spending programs supporting social needs will deeply feel her cold steel budget knife, we must have more concern that a candidate's residential address be in Baltimore as a litmus test of qualification.
The Olesker Law is bad because it is like other "isms" built on a paranoid fear of "those people," restated as "those people from over there."
Prince George's is a county in Maryland, whose boundary is only about 20 minutes from the city.
The real enemies to Maryland's growth are outside the state, in the form of competitive business advantages. Intra-state regional bashing is dangerous and divisive.
We need leaders to reinvigorate Maryland's business environment now, or our future prosperity will be bleak.
Laura Wiesler
Baltimore
Non-Voters
Now that the political dust has settled some, I wonder what the reaction would be if those individuals who felt that there was no need to vote had their right, privilege and responsibility to vote revoked because (for instance) they hadn't voted in the last two primaries.
Whole populations of Third World countries like Cuba and Haiti are risking their lives by taking unsafe vessels to sea, anything to get away from a form of government that will not allow them to express whom they would like to see in office -- a type of government that for all intents and purposes has a nation of people under its thumb.
And these poor souls can't do a thing about it but risk their lives to escape such a fate.
They can't rise up against their oppressors since most of these individuals don't have enough firepower to rid themselves of these greedy, blood-thirsty leaders.
They have even been robbed of their ability to think for themselves. We aren't too far from that point right now.
Not voting is nothing more than a vote for those incumbents who are not doing the job they were elected to do, but who continue with the business of "politics as usual" that permeates our government at all levels today. . .
At one of the polls, those in charge were completely astonished at the number of those who did come out to vote but didn't have the foggiest idea as to whether they were registered Republicans or Democrats.
One of the people who was running for office told me that he didn't mind losing, but losing because 60 percent of the voting public did not deem it necessary to vote was a bitter pill to swallow.
In my estimation, I couldn't consider myself a winner if I was not chosen by a majority of the registered voting public.
All this last primary election proved to me was that the voting public couldn't care less about who won or lost.
The non-voters don't realize that the losers in this case are themselves.
If you don't vote, don't complain about those who are in office. Those who failed to vote are responsible for what kind of government they have.
John F. Thomas
Catonsville