Scholarship Case Splits Minority Communities
The court case attacking the Benjamin Banneker Scholarship Program -- Podberesky vs. University of Maryland -- can only be described as a tactic to create future racial divisiveness between the Latino and African-American communities.
Daniel J. Podberesky's parents stated the court case is a crusade against affirmative action programs that deny their son equal access to financial aid at the University of Maryland.
It is my opinion that the argument for equal access is part of a much larger agenda to bring division among two communities whose legacies have been inextricably tied to two major historical forces -- U.S. colonialism and white supremacy.
The Latino community must analyze this issue from a racial and historical context -- the historically divisive role of the Hispanic-European in the Latino community and how the media creates a reactionary Hispanic image that supposedly represents the political sentiments of all Latinos.
The Podbereskys exemplify the historical pattern of Hispanic-Europeans, who in their quest to seek favor with the European-American status quo, have continually undermined the attempts by Latinos of color to position themselves politically.
This pattern has political roots in the annexation of the west with the signing of the 1848 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, where in the )) territory of New Mexico, Mexicans of color were betrayed by those descendants of Spanish descent.
The Hispanic Europeans dissuaded and duped Mexicans, who are Spanish-speaking people of mixed Indian heritage, from organizing any resistance to the U.S. troops. The Hispanic Europeans were rewarded with political positions in the territorial governments.
Even to this day, those who call themselves "Hispanos" make a clear racial distinction between themselves and those of Mexican-Indian descent.
In another major episode, the establishment of the state constitution of California, the U.S. occupiers only allowed those Spanish-speaking residents of European descent to participate in the political process.
Mexicans of Indian or African descent were not allowed to vote and remained disenfranchised until the establishment of California as a state.
. . . To represent the views and serve as the spokespersons of the so-called "Hispanic" community, the English-language media has repeatedly turned to conservative Hispanic Europeans such the former U.S. Senate candidate and television political analyst Linda Chavez.
Ms. Chavez has publicly stated that she is of Spanish-European descent and her ancestors were in the U.S. before the Europeans aboard the Mayflower.
Her ancestors were part of the "conquistador" class of Spaniards who managed to maintain racial purity and have historically distinguished themselves from the Mexicans and other Latinos of mixed Indian and African descent.
The majority of Latinos in the United States are people of color.
There has been very little effort to present a balanced view of the Latino community's political opinions except for those of the Hispanic-European.
Even in the Spanish-language press you will find that the images shaped are those of the Hispanic-European.
Where are the voices of the Latino community on issues that are irresponsible and divisive?
. . . There will be a backlash which will unjustly accuse Latinos of destroying a program which is designed to provide limited reparations to the African-American community for past racist admissions practices at the University of Maryland.
Latinos of color are in a no-win situation and are again the unwitting pawns of a white supremacist strategy of divide and conquer.
Mr. Podberesky's decision to file suit does not have the interest of the majority of the Latino community at heart. It is only an opportunistic attempt to mock the awkward efforts of the University of Maryland to affirmatively address its past racial problems.
It is a monumental insult to the Latino community for Mr. Podberesky to use his son's partial Latino heritage to attack the affirmative action policies of the university and to create the illusion of discrimination against other "minority groups."
Chris Rodriguez
Baltimore
Tax Change Benefits the Middle Class
I would like to respond to the analysis in William E. Norton's Nov. 19 letter.
* Capital gains tax reduction: As a professional tax preparer, I believe that Mr. Norton would be surprised at the number of middle-class taxpayers who indicate investment activity on their income tax returns.
More numerous middle-class individuals have an interest through their participation in employee stock option plans or pension plans which invest the contributions and earn capital gains.
As far as the point concerning capital losses on homes, the tax laws currently do not allow the deduction of losses on the sale of your residence. Thus any change in capital gains tax rates would moot.
In addition, gains on residences become taxable commonly only once in a taxpayer's lifetime, when they replace their current residence with a less expensive property or move to other forms of housing.
I am certain that individuals who have been rolling forward gains as required by law would appreciate them being taxed at a lower rate.
* Marriage penalty: Family values notwithstanding, there are many circumstances in which dual incomes have absolutely no effect, i.e. empty nesters or otherwise childless couples.
A penalty for a married couple working, with or without children, is an attack on the basic unit of society, the family.
* IRAs: Mr. Norton suggests allowing lower income people to participate in individual retirement accounts. They already can.
* I favor pre-tax spending accounts and the elimination of the 7.5 percent deduction on health costs. Many taxpayers do not have sufficient deductions to warrant itemization.
* "Generous" write-offs for business: Perhaps Mr. Norton should operate a business and learn how "generous" they are. In addition, one should remember that the consumer is the ultimate payer of all taxes. They are part of the price you pay for goods and services.
* Estate tax exemptions: Mr. Norton would be surprised to know how many middle-class estates approach the $600,000 value for federal estate taxes.
In addition, I feel there is something basically wrong with the concept of taxing a person's lifetime accumulation, acquired with already taxed dollars, simply because they had the misfortune to die.
William L. Wilson
Hydes
Mr. Norton attempts to analyze the Republican tax plan. This is where conservatives really get a big laugh.
He agrees with President Bush that most who used capital gains on their tax were middle class.
Mr. Norton makes the false assumption that middle-class
workers don't own stocks and are against lowering capital gains for investment for business.
Where does Mr. Norton think the jobs come from, the government?
He says people who sell their houses within seven years lose money on capital loss. How many people do you know who sold a house within seven years of purchase, let alone selling it for a loss?
He says a family would have to earn the great sum of $27,950 to qualify for the $500 per child income tax credit.
A husband and wife could cover this, if they each averaged $6.72 per hour, about the going rate for a good fast-food or pizza job.
He agrees that the marriage penalty phase-out would benefit most two-income families, but interprets a statement of values. I fail to see the connection in this argument . . .
He is against reinstating IRAs for people earning $50,000 a year. I guess Mr. Norton doesn't approve of banks having large sums of money that can be loaned out at low interest rates.
Low-income thrifty earners do have outlets for investing, but liberals don't know about these things. They really know about entitlement and class envy, though.
Julius G. Angelucci
Severna Park
In response to William E. Norton's letter, I would point out that, contrary to Mr. Norton's belief, a taxpayer may not claim a capital loss on the sale of his or her personal residence under the current Internal Revenue Code.
However, under the "flat tax" proposal advanced by Texas Rep. Dick Armey (not "Bill Archer"), capital gains on the sale of personal residence would not be taxable, while capital losses on such sales would be deductible.
David H. Robinette
Pasadena
Return Streetcars to Baltimore
This letter is in response to the article (The Sun, Nov. 8) about installing a streetcar in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. It is an excellent idea, but one that needs to be expanded.
Being a native of New Orleans, I have been riding streetcars my entire life. Having made Baltimore my home six years ago, I can quite honestly say that the biggest drawback of living here is that it is virtually impossible to get around without a car.
The fact that the Metro and Light Rail have no connection point, and neither connects with Penn Station, only makes things worse.
When friends come to visit from other cities, they ask about how to get around, and I'm forced to tell them that we have a subway and a Light Rail -- but they don't go anywhere you want to go. They were designed for people who can drive to the stations and take the rail system downtown.
Building a streetcar line around only the Inner Harbor won't help solve the difficulty middle class residents of the city face trying to get around town.
It would be of limited benefit to tourists, as it would only bring them to places they could otherwise walk. It would also be another rail system that does not connect with our already existing mass transit lines.
Two months ago, I approached the Mass Transit Administration about the possibility of operating a streetcar line designed for tourists and residents alike.
The initial segment of this line would start in the Canton area, travel through Fells Point, Little Italy and the Inner Harbor to Camden Yards.
From Camden Yards it would wind through Howard and Baltimore Streets, north on Charles Street through Mount Vernon to Penn Station, Johns Hopkins University, the Rotunda, Television Hill and the Zoo.
A dependable rail system that connects our struggling inner-city middle class neighborhoods is vital to their future survival. The streetcar that I have proposed to the MTA operates as an express streetcar with station stops about every quarter-mile to half-mile.
The express streetcar line, when finished, would link together five universities, six hospitals, several restaurant and commercial districts, most of our museums and cultural facilities, and over 20 stable, diverse and historic neighborhoods, from Greektown to Woodberry. It would provide an opportunity for all of us to rediscover our great city and to share it with the world.
It would be a transit link people can use for just about everything -- from going to work, school, out to dinner or shopping.
Perhaps it may encourage businesses that have left the city to return. Although we are a larger city than San Francisco, Boston, Washington or Miami, we do not have even one major department store without our boundaries.
It will enable young adults who are forced to live in the counties because of excessive insurance rates to live in the city. It will provide an incentive for our aging population and middle class families to stay in the city.
It would connect with the Light Rail, the subway and both train stations. That would help increase ridership of those systems. Baltimore would have a complete transit infrastructure that would attract businesses and quality residents.
I would like to add that I fully support the ideas of those involved in the streetcar coalition.
Putting an old-time streetcar around the harbor is a smart move. I'm happy to see that a diverse group of Maryland professionals is working to achieve that goal.
But let's keep in mind that there is so much more to Baltimore than the relatively new Inner Harbor attractions. So while we're talking streetcars, we might as well explore what options are available to us, at what cost and what impact an express streetcar will have on our city and region.
Baltimore was the first city in the western hemisphere to have electric streetcars. Our charming city neighborhoods are just ripe to have them again.
Thomas F. Sunseri Jr.
Baltimore
Ireland
Daniel Berger (column, Nov. 5) provides a list of conditions leading to Ireland's re-unification (a word he does not use) tainted with undemocratic and anti-Catholic sentiments.
Ireland was a country until 1919, when it no longer suited British politics to remain so. Despite substantial majority vote to the contrary in 1918, Britain partitioned and occupied six counties.
Why must Ireland await some European economic osmosis cited by Berger when a 32-county referendum tomorrow would likely put the matter to rest?
The simple reason is Britain can easily control and manipulate economic progress in Ireland. It has proven impossible to justify to the Irish people the benevolence of British rule.
Berger referenced the results of 26 county referendums on abortion and divorce as evidence of how far the Republic must travel the secular road to the Nirvana of Northern Ireland. He neglects to mention that abortion is illegal in the North and the subject of ecumenical protests.
The Catholic church is entitled to freely speak on these fundamental moral questions. The Irish people are free to reject the arguments, but again Britain has an aversion to democracy.
Instead Britain imposes on all its subjects a tax to support the state-run Church of England, whose bishops sit in the unelected House of Lords and vote on all legislation. They also support a budget for a hereditary monarch, who in turn appoints the bishops.
These all-in-good-time stories are part of her Majesty's propaganda offensive during the cease-fire. Their main purpose is to use U.S. journalists to deflect American attention and promote their good intentions.
Just as their military occupation of Ireland has failed, so should this propaganda campaign in the U.S.
Paul Doris
Philadelphia
The writer is national chairman of the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid).
Campaigns
I am writing in response to Neal R. Peirce's "The Antidote for Campaign Distortions" (Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 24).
Mr. Peirce states that political campaigns are becoming "bitterly negative" due to campaign consultants. Mr. Peirce concludes that quite possibly ordinary people could come up with solutions to our problems.
I am in full agreement with this article and its conclusion, which looks to the public for answers to the problems, and I believe that the political consultants managing these campaigns and the politicians listening to their advice need to re-think and re-analyze the political campaign process.
One of the civic journalism efforts which occurred in Illinois involved a diverse group of voters researching, discussing, debating and concluding plausible solutions to important political issues.
Their results were directed to what the politicians and their consultants should focus their campaign efforts upon.
Mr. Peirce makes evident that if a group of diverse individuals are able to develop plausible solutions in response to political problems, then why can't our elected officials develop solutions to the public's political problems when that is their duty as public officials?
Why have politicians turned to political consultants rather than relying on the general public?
Has this situation been caused by the reluctance of the public to interact with politicians due to the stereotyped image politicians have?
Has this situation been caused by the politicians looking for a more professional image and thus turning to the guidance of a professional consultant?
In either case there is an evident communication problem between the people, the campaign consultants and the politicians.
Joshua Tobin
Columbia
Hypocrite Cal
The Cal Thomas column on Nov. 18 ("Newt Won, Get Over It") represents the kind of honey-tongued hypocrisy a la Pat Robertson that we have too often seen in political commentary of late.
Thomas says Rep. Newt Gingrich and other conservative leaders should position themselves as "cultural liberators" who seek to free the needy from a habit-forming dependence on government akin to drug addition.
The argument on its face has at least some plausibility as an expression of traditional American values of self-reliant individualism. (Forget that the model of American self-reliance, the pioneers, were the most government-subsidized group in the nation's history or that our modern model, the Western farmer and rancher, makes millions off farm subsidies and public grazing lands.)
The "cultural liberation" claim loses its gloss, however, when one realizes that nowhere do the Gingriches of the world call for the spending of money "saved" to remove the structural barriers to independence (lack of educational resources, no jobs, lack of emphasis on crime prevention rather than simply punishing the offender after the fact, etc.).
Instead the emphasis is entirely on reducing the tax burden of a people who already bear the lightest tax burden of any major industrialized country in the world.
That translates to sheer greed and selfishness, truly an appeal (in Thomas' own language) to the lower nature of people that they will surrender to if not challenged to the higher good.
If Thomas is truly sincere in his desire for a "higher good," then let him demonstrate it with a positive proposal to cure the nation's ills, not merely a call to a heightened indifference to the sufferings of those about him.
Joseph Ward
Randallstown
Dumb Fans
Ken Rosenthal's Nov. 13 column concerning the increase in Oriole ticket prices leaves no doubt in my mind that he is really out of touch with the average fan.
He just doesn't get the message, probably because he can't remember the day he had to pay for a ticket to an Oriole game.
He actually feels that the increase is justified. The reason -- the owners lost a lot of money as the result of the strike, and the ever-increasing salaries of the players drain the coffers of the owners.
Ken Rosenthal overlooks the fact that poor Peter Angelos has only enough money to buy the Los Angeles Rams. He also ignores the homes, cars and the lifestyles of the "poverty stricken" players.
He should open his eyes and see this as most of the fans see it. To the average working slob who would like to take his kids to see a ball game the message is clear: "Just let the poor dumb fans satisfy the greed of the owners, and the prima-donna ballplayers who make more in one season than the fan makes in a life-time."
The owners and players don't care about the fans. They feel that regardless of how the fans are treated, come Opening Day, they will flock to the park.
If they decide to play next spring, the parasites will take the field and the fans will cheer them. That's just the way it is, so I guess we only get what we deserve.
Ed Fritz
Ocean City