Peace Work
On July 20, 1994, Max Obuszewski, a local peace activist, was arrested at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory after refusing to stop the distribution of leaflets opposing the work of the APL in nuclear weapons research.
On Jan. 9, 1995, facing a charge of trespass before Howard County District Court Judge Louis Becker, Mr. Obuszewski was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in the Howard County Detention Center -- a sentence we consider excessive.
Judge Becker based his decision on the argument that the APL is a private, rather than public, institution. In his opinion, the nuclear weapons contractor can now exclude anyone critical of its research.
Peaceful distribution of flyers had been an accepted practice at the APL for almost 10 years. The APL recognized the right to such protest and accommodated itself accordingly.
The board of directors of Baltimore Jobs with Peace brings this to your attention for several reasons. We remind you that the APL received $239 million in 1993 for weapons research and development. It is one of the top 100 Department of Defense contractors.
Baltimore citizens' tax dollars support this work. All we need to do is to look around us to see the greater need for services which sustain life and revitalize our community.
This is what the Empowerment Zone is all about: ". . . the holistic healing of the patient called Baltimore."
Secondly, this case represents an infringement of our basic freedom of expression. When individual citizens can no longer express their opinions and raise questions in a peaceful manner, the freedom of expression of all Americans is jeopardized.
To add insult to injury, Judge Becker said Mr. Obuszewski was to begin serving his sentence on Sunday, Jan. 15, to honor Martin Luther King Jr.
We are puzzled and offended by his reasoning. Is this any way to "honor" one of the greatest proponents of peace, non-violent protest and freedom of expression?
In our opinion, Judge Becker has misunderstood and violated both the memory and principles of Dr. King, if not the Bill of Rights as well.
Sister Cynthia Nordone
Baltimore
The writer is executive director of Baltimore Jobs with Peace.
Balance It
Ruth Shriver (letter, Feb. 2) warns us that the spineless politicians who love the balanced budget amendment will continue to spend and can always balance the budget by raising taxes.
This is exactly what I want them forced to do -- raise taxes when they want to fund new expenditures. New spending mandates must then stand the test of taxpayer scrutiny regarding the benefit (and who benefits) in relation to the cost (to the taxpayer).
This insures a level of accountability that I suspect would have killed much of the deficit spending legislation over the last 15 years.
Deficit spending is taxation with delayed representation -- it seems painless at the time and is nearly irreversible to those later stuck with the bill. One-third of our tax dollars are now consumed by debt service for programs enacted years ago and of questionable value today.
I'm not suggesting we will have better foresight than our predecessors, but at least spending initiatives will be more seriously evaluated and challenged. Going back to the voters with tax increases has an amazing way of causing politicians to consider the public interest rather than their own.
Balancing the budget raises the bar of accountability for politicians; they clearly understand that tax increases can be fatal unless the freight-paying taxpayer is convinced the expenditure is worth the cost.
To those who insist balanced budget supporters show how they plan to do it, the answer is a simple "who cares?" Actually we all care very much how they do it, but by far the more important thing is that they do it.
We will be watching carefully because the impact of tax increase legislation will be on us now.
It won't be easy, it won't be painless; but it will be openly and thoroughly debated with the specter of potentially enraged taxpayers only one election away.
I am reasonably certain a lot of cutting will occur before my taxes go up -- those who don't have the courage to make cuts won't last long.
W. D. Sauerwein
Phoenix
Use Computers for Traffic Woes
The answer to speeding and traffic-signal running is very simple. Technology is here. Why not use it?
First, we need to eliminate the outdated belief that traffic summonses must be signed by the driver. Nuts! The owner who has the vehicle registered should be held responsible for anything that happens in the use of his vehicle.
With the technology available today (computerized cameras, radar and all types of computers for every purpose), detectors can be set up on highways, major intersections and bridges, and can be moved periodically.
They would be portable units and would not be noticeable to the drivers.
These detectors would record every vehicle that passes that point, giving the license number, date, time and exact speed, and would send that information into a central computer. The detectors would also record vehicles running red lights or stop signs.
The main computer would generate summonses and mail them to the owners of the vehicles violating the traffic laws.
In the beginning, every driver on the road would be receiving hundreds of summonses because, at present, everyone is speeding. Most are running red lights and stop signs.
The police could use their time to catch the drivers who are recklessly changing lanes and the trucks that are running up your back and cutting you off.
I will challenge anyone to find a driver who is obeying the speed limit at present. There is no such animal.
This system would pay for itself in one month, costing the taxpayers nothing, payed for entirely by speeders.
In six months, everyone who drives in the state of Maryland would be driving at or below the posted speed or paying heavily for the privilege of speeding.
One more advantage of this system is that any vehicle could be located instantly. The main computer could be called upon to tell the last time any license number passed one of these detectors. When police are searching for a missing person or a criminal, this would be the answer.
Bill Barto
Dundalk
Not All Handicapped Look It
The letter from Pamela G. McDonald regarding handicapped parking (Feb. 18) really struck a sour note. I refer to her statement that she has yet to see a single person who appears handicapped emerge from a vehicle displaying a handicapped parking permit.
My doctor and I have already justified my hidden handicap to the proper authorities, which qualifies me for a parking permit. I resent the implication that because I don't look handicapped, I don't deserve a special permit.
Perhaps in addition to the permit, Ms. McDonald would like to examine the several surgery scars on my back?
Or see posted on my car's windshield an affidavit testifying to the amount of pain and anti-inflammatory medication I must take or the number of cortisone injections I receive just to be able to stand straight and walk pain-free without limping?
Perhaps every time I get out of my car I should brandish about the cane I keep on the back seat for the "bad" days when absolutely nothing helps and I can't move without pain.
Instead of criticizing our state's criteria for awarding handicapped parking permits, a more constructive use of time and energy could be put into helping us campaign for higher fines for those who do not have permits who zip into that convenient parking space right in front of the door.
Irene Spencer
Baltimore
--------
Pamela G. McDonald is probably not aware that many of those who have handicapped stickers and "look seemingly fit" when they emerge from vehicles have chronic asthma, heart problems and probably total knee, hip or shoulder replacements, who have conquered carrying a cane or walker but are limited as to distances they can walk.
I happen to fit the above "handicapped" condition.
I also know that Maryland does issue temporary handicapped stickers.
Mildred C. Hance
Towson