Did the Voters or The Sun Throw a Tantrum?
I am writing in reference to the article, "The child-like electorate throws a tantrum" (Nov. 10).
I very much doubt that we would have seen this headline had the Democrats swept both the House and the Senate. The fact that you chose to run this sort of article on the first page reveals The Sun's liberal bias.
In it, you quote politically correct academicians who are actually quite condescending. The last time I checked, I was still living in a democracy, where the electorate has both the right and the obligation to vote for candidates who reflect their views.
The "message of the people who won on Tuesday" was not, as you state, "I'm going to help you take care of yourself. Don't worry about others." Rather, people are tried of having Big Government intrude on all aspects of their lives.
It is too bad that the reality of the election results discomfits the editorial staff of The Sun and those individuals who are quoted in the piece, but that is no reason to insult what is probably a majority of your leaders. And please, next time try to keep the editorials on the editorial page, where they belong.
Susan Z. Tham
Millersville
Why are your front page "analysts" like Susan Baer as arrogant as Speaker Tom Foley, Sen. George Mitchell, President Clinton, and the Democrat legislative and executive leadership? Isn't it time your people recognize that they and the above leadership people are the spoiled children the public just rejected?
Some of the unconscionable abuses the 40 percent of the voters reject based on integrity include:
1. Fast track voting on controversial legislation.
2. Bypassing debate on critical issues.
3. Omnibus legislation that steals from taxpayers.
4. Abusive use of filibuster.
5. Smothering legislative changes that would improve democratic access to governance.
6. Initiation of anti-democratic action like the "Hush Rush" bills, in addition to the above five items.
7. Passage of bills whose contents too often are unknown even to most of those voting on them in Congress.
8. Lack of "truth in legislation" executive summaries on each proposed law.
The significant 40 percent of the voters who vote, or try to vote, based on the probable effect of legislation action on both people and the country are being read out of the debate by all of the above acts of the legislative and administrative actions of the national government and the judicial branch.
This stacks the deck against the people. The result is people with near-criminal records or criminals can end up working for the executive or be in the judicial or legislative chain. The result is a destructive action against the voters.
Please note that Castro, Hitler, Stalin and most other tyrants have also considered the populace to be spoiled children. If your people get their way, and if actual suppression of freedom of the press should result, you will be the last to understand what happened.
It is very dangerous having people that have mental fixations or blocks, like Ms. Baer and too many of your reporters, in these influential positions.
Keats A. Pullen Jr.
Kingsville
This is to thank you for the very excellent analysis of the recent election contained in your front page article by Susan Baer. It is the best, and I believe, the most accurate analysis of the current mood that I've seen or heard this week.
Given the reality that is discussed here, I am increasingly convinced that the answers to the social, emotional and spiritual problems of people at all levels of our society don't lie primarily in governmental programs, but rather in the efforts of individuals and of private humanitarian organizations, and most especially our religious organizations.
When we tackle problems in a more personal way there is not only likely to be more sensitivity to the need and the appropriate means of responding to it, but in addition, not only the receiver of help, but also the giver of help, is transformed in the process.
Governmental programs tend to be very impersonal, very rigid and very bureaucratic. Consequently, neither the giver (taxpayer or staff) nor the recipient feels satisfied or transformed in a positive way. More often cynicism ensues at all levels, which our recent election results clearly demonstrated.
Ours is a frightening world because everything is changing so fast and because we are instantly aware, in living color in our living rooms, of disasters everywhere. But we wouldn't feel so helpless if we were each individually involved in responding to some of these problems in a very personal way.
When we see the positive results, however small, from each of our efforts, we know that we are neither helpless nor impotent.
Louise Meister
Columbia
Hateful Emblem
It is ridiculous that with all our problems we have a controversy raging over the Confederate flag. In his Oct. 6 letter, G. Elliott Cummings defends the Confederate flag flay as "honorable," "patriotic" and a symbol of "brave men," "sacrifice," etc.
In truth, the Confederate flag is a symbol of treason, plantation aristocracy and human slavery. It is a despicable emblem that should never be displayed anywhere in the United States.
I am white, but blacks are right about that.
Walton Windsor
Baltimore
Regulatory Costs
In a Nov. 1 Opinion * Commentary article, "Now and Then Government Works," David Morris failed to recognize many of the incorrect assumptions he used to show that government regulation worked efficiently in mandating energy efficiency standards.
The main piece of statistical evidence that Mr. Morris uses to support his argument is that "while the economy grew by 46 percent from 1973-1990 energy use rose by only 8 percent."
Use of this evidence is statistically flawed and does little to support his claim that government regulation of energy efficiency standards has allowed the economy to grow while controlling energy consumption.
First, while Mr. Morris does admit that government regulation is not solely responsible for these improvements, he does assert they played an "important role."
Here Mr. Morris fails to recognize what is probably the most important determinant in the fact that Gross National Product grew at a faster rate than energy consumption.
This driving factor is the shift from a manufacturing based economy to a more service oriented economy.
Certainly with service businesses using far less energy per revenue dollar, a shift toward a more service oriented economy would increase the GNP faster than energy use.
Secondly, government standards have increased the cost of regulated goods produced over and above the average rate of inflation that is used as a deflator in calculating GNP.
Therefore, with the prices of regulated goods increasing faster than the overall rate of inflation, the real growth rate of the economy is overstated. This would tend to overstate the statistical results used by Mr. Morris.
When using statistical evidence as Mr. Morris does, it is necessary to clearly identify and address any assumptions that might be taken. His rhetoric misrepresents the statistics in favor of his own slanted views.
Mr. Morris should address these assumptions before he lashes out at Republicans for supporting a free market system that has produced the world's most efficient economy.
Timothy R. Yost
Baltimore
Cash or Credit
This is about the Nov. 7 business section column by Lester A. Picker, headlined, "Oil-company arrogance helps teach a lesson."
It is my understanding, which may not be correct, that a purchase of gasoline by credit card costs the gas station 3 percent by the credit card company, in addition to the cost of sending the bill to the credit card company and the consequent delay in receiving the money.
Mr. Picker resented having to pay for these costs of his using a credit card, and he hails the "cash-or-credit-prices-are-the-same" practice that Exxon is now using.
What he does not seem to realize is that those paying cash are paying part of the cost of his use of a credit card.
In other words, when a cash customer buys at a "same price" station, the cash customer is being cheated.
When I came to this realization, I ceased buying gas from any station which showed a same-price sign.
I hope others are doing the same.
Harold Wright
Baltimore
Insulted Daddy
Reading Susan Reimer's columns leads one to the inescapable conclusion that in her eyes all men are helpless, modern-day troglodytes who, beyond providing stud service and paying the bills, are basically useless. Her swipes at children are just as bad, but that would require a separate letter.
As a father who has participated fully in the rearing of my two children, I am highly offended by Ms. Reimer's attitude.
I have changed countless messy diapers, paced the floor all night with a colicky baby (yes, I even woke up on my own), rocked feverish children for hours and been called upon often to play "Barbies" or "Biker Mice From Mars."
I also wash the dishes, cook meals, run the vacuum cleaner, shop for groceries, etc. -- without expecting a medal or undying gratitude from my spouse.
As stressful as being a parent often is, my wife and I recognize that while our children are little they are our primary, joint responsibility. We are attempting to rear them in a home where mutual respect and love are the guiding principles.
I am a professor at a women's college (Hood), and the women I have been surrounded by for the last 20 years have impressed me with their ability to celebrate their own strengths -- as is Ms. Reimer's wont. In this day and age, her attitude is truly appalling.
In the future, I will avoid the indigestion I usually get when I read her column and happily skip over it -- not, incidentally, on my way to the sports section.
Noel Lester
Frederick
Distrustful
As a proactive person I have always been curious about the origins of my activist learnings.
Was I born to question continually or did I once believe those who say, "Just trust me. I'm the professional" -- until my experience taught me otherwise?
My most recent foray into proactivity has been in the area of education, and I am amazed at how poorly it fares under close scrutiny.
I have been attempting to have questions answered about reading curriculum changes, site-based management issues and budget issues in the Baltimore County educational system.
The response from a number of educators, administrators and parents has frequently been, "Professional educators make these decisions. Would you question a team of doctors before undergoing a surgical procedure?"
As a proactive parent my answer is obvious, "You bet. In a heartbeat." In fact, to me that is almost a rhetorical question, and furthermore the analogy between education and medicine is a poor one.
Medicine is based on scientific research.
All medical procedures have been derived from proven data, and the onus is on doctors to share that data with the patient prior to recommending a course of action.
Once that action is undertaken, the doctor is held personally accountable for the success or failure of the procedure.
Not so in education. As the pendulum of educational trends swings one way and then the other, parents are asked to "trust the system" while their children bear the brunt of these ill-conceived trends.
Do I have the audacity to question these professionals? You bet.
Until the concept of malpractice takes hold in education, as it has in every other profession, I consider it both my right and responsibility to do so.
Patricia T. Tanczyn
Timonium