Cultural Integrity
As an actor and a former newspaper reporter, I was disappointed with Roger Simon's hackneyed argument against the National Endowment for the Arts in his Jan. 16 commentary.
Television is always there for those who desire codified and "sound-bited" coverage of the NEA. I have trusted newspapers for a more thought-provoking and unbiased analysis and was therefore wearied to see the tired "crucifix in urine" photograph resurrected as the linchpin argument against NEA funding.
This photograph was not a unique malicious act of sacrilege, but rather, part of an entire exhibit of photographs using fluids such as breast milk and blood that were to engage the viewer on a visceral level.
The artist was Andres Serrano: an art school graduate, a Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art Fellowship winner, a photographer and conceptual artist for nearly 20 years.
This exhibit could still be deemed offensive, but to single one photograph out of context and to use it for six years -- the exhibit was in 1989 -- to arouse familiar contempt for arts funding in our country is an atrocity with tragic ramifications.
Later this year I will earn my M.F.A. in acting from Carnegie Mellon University and the Moscow Art Theater.
With great sorrow I have watched two administrations progressively beat down and attempt to nullify the importance of artistic creation in this country through sardonic attacks on the NEA.
We are not talking about a great deal of money here, we are talking about our nation's cultural integrity.
David Callahan
Baltimore
PBS Arguments
If Republicans are serious about eliminating federal funds for public broadcasting, they must argue their case on principle.
The principle at stake is the right of the individuals. If the individuals have no right to use their own minds and judgments about how to spend the product of personal efforts, then they have no rights at all.
A moral government protects its citizens from the threat of physical force. Public broadcasting is immoral because it forces individuals to pay for the promotion of ideas and programs whether they agree with them or not.
My advice to Republicans is to put advocates of public broadcasting on the defensive.
"Sesame Street" is supposed to be good for children? Interesting -- but not the point. Make them defend the idea that the producers of "Sesame Street" have a right to force others to pay for it.
"Barney" makes a profit and is a delight to many kids? Interesting -- but not the point. Make them explain what constitutional right allows "Barney's" fans to force others to subsidize him.
Republicans should not be sidetracked by irrelevant disputes over how popular or valuable these shows are. Principles are more powerful than polls.
If the shows are "elitist," then let the elite pay for them. If the shows are popular, then let the masses pay for them in the free marketplace. Do not force anyone to pay for them with tax dollars.
More important, expose the root premise upon which all the public broadcasting subsidies depend. The root premise is the idea that individuals have no rights and that American citizens must work a portion of their day to finance the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
If Republicans argue consistently and passionately on moral principle, they will successfully privatize public broadcasting.
Without it, they do not stand a chance.
Michael J. Hurd
Columbia
Budget Folly
I am writing as a Maryland businessman opposed to the balanced budget amendment.
A balanced budget amendment, in my opinion, would preclude the kind of federal investments that promote long-term growth and productivity, such as transportation and other infrastructure needs, research and development, and training.
These kinds of programs cannot produce revenue returns within a single year, yet they are valuable and necessary to long-term development and economic well-being.
Related to this issue is the clear need for a federal capital budget.
By enshrining one particular economic policy in the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment would limit the federal government's ability to respond to a downturn in the nation's economy, which can sometimes be reversed most effectively by deficit spending.
Finally, I believe that a balanced budget amendment represents gimmickry that allows the Congress and president to evade the kind of leadership and courage which are necessary in making tough financial choices and in setting national priorities.
Jack Kintslinger
Baltimore
In Contempt
The judicial gurus who came up with those new sentencing guidelines obviously don't understand that the public has had it with our lenient courts.
The judges have become part of the problem, not the solution.
Whereas judges used to hold others in contempt of court, now the public rightfully holds the judicial system in contempt of the people.
R. J. Dahl
Catonsville
USF&G;'s Move
After nearly 100 years in business in downtown Baltimore, USF&G; Insurance finally decided that it could no longer survive downtown. Like so many before, it has fled the city center for the suburbs, and the lifeblood of the city thins.
While Baltimore is lucky that USF&G; moved to a suburb within the city's boundary, and thereby preserved its tax base, the loss of nearly 800 jobs in the downtown area is devastating.
In fact, the impact will be the loss of far more than just these 767 workers; there will be the loss of jobs at hotels, restaurants, stores, dry-cleaning shops, garages and other merchants who serviced the USF&G; employees as well as out of town business persons visiting USF&G.;
This leads me to wonder: what is Mayor Kurt Schmoke's vision for Baltimore for the future?
Reports state that he knew of the proposed move up to two years ago and yet did nothing to try to help USF&G; find a way to avoid it. Why didn't he contact the Baltimore Economic Development Corp. to try to craft a plan that would have kept this company downtown?
Further, if Mayor Schmoke is so ready to give up on an existing business in downtown, what is his strategy to attract new or existing out of town business to Baltimore's city center?
Are there any Fortune 500 companies headquartered in downtown Baltimore? If not, why?
It is no wonder that USF&G;, like CSX Corp. (born the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) and the Baltimore Colts before them, might consider leaving Baltimore.
Regardless of the concern that the National Football League is prejudiced against Baltimore, I can understand why a business such as the NFL or the Los Angels Rams might be concerned about starting a business in Baltimore -- the city loses population, and in turn, economic vitality, every year.
Now that Mayor Schmoke has secured a federal empowerment zone grant for Baltimore, he should focus on creating an economic climate that will help preserve existing business as well as attract new business to Baltimore.
Well-paying, middle-class jobs are the only thing that will pull this city out of its economic slump. They provide a tax base, stabilize property values and renew the city's economic vitality.
If Mayor Schmoke can start to address these very real problems, then the people of Baltimore will know that he is more interested in the future of his city than in the future of his political career.
I voted for Mayor Schmoke in the last election because he projected an image of vitality and growth. And now I look at my city and I wonder if my hope for the future has been misplaced.
Andrew W. Gray
Baltimore