Impeach Schmoke
Isn't this the same Housing Authority that awarded millions to the Nation of Islam to patrol the projects, even though they were the highest bidder? (And not to mention the fact that they are hardly an equal opportunity employer -- no whites, no Asians, no Hispanics, no Catholics, no Protestants -- nothing but black Islamics.)
Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke deserved The Sun series -- he's incompetent and ought to be impeached for operating outside the law.
Bid or no bid -- the mayor is squandering the taxpayers' money -- and it's not just Baltimore City's taxpayers' money. These are federal funds that have been dissipated merely to award contracts to black minority firms.
What happened to equal opportunity? If the taxpayers don't impeach him, then they deserve the corruption at which he is the center.
Paying a contractor $225 to nail a board across a door to "secure" it? If the bid had been let out, I would have done it for half.
Tillie Lapidus
Baltimore
Police Matters
As a Baltimore police officer's wife, I read the article (Feb. 12) concerning Commissioner Thomas C. Frazier with mixed feelings. These varied from rage to clamorous humor. I have never read a more self-supporting, self-imposed, conceited attempt to dupe the citizens and police officers of Baltimore.
Mr. Frazier in his articulate fashion has become the Commissioner of Rhetoric. Never once has this pompous individual given a candid answer.
His talent lies in the ability to observe an audience, sense their emotions and propagate a response satisfactory to all regardless of validity.
If Mr. Frazier had any serious considerations to his convictions, why would he request officers to move into questionable communities, jeopardizing their families' safety for the sake of salvaging a poorly conceived policy of community policing, when in fact he resides in Roland Park?
Why would he implement a rotation policy under the pretext of affirmative action, to insure minorities placement in detective positions? In realty, it's a policy of purging senior officers by indirect forced retirement.
It's no wonder the surrounding jurisdictions are becoming favorable recipients of Baltimore's senior officers' expertise.
Why would he state his support for higher wages, as the Baltimore Police Department ranks 13th out of 15 in salaries of the largest police departments in the U.S., when during wage negotiations he supported Mayor Schmoke for a reduction in wage increases?
But he agreed to a 12 percent wage increase for his command staff, to keep their salaries in line with other jurisdictions.
Why would he deliberately fragment the Police Department (black/white, male/female, detectives/patrol officers) to where unity, cohesiveness, support and solidarity are questionable?
Mr. Frazier can have all the recognition and laurels for the deterioration of the Police Department's morale. He has shown time and again his inability to support officers in time of crisis. He has left these fine men and women shallow and untrusting.
Ah, if only he knew, he had an opportunity upon arrival in Baltimore to gain the support and trust of his subordinates. Instead, he elected to alienate himself through deceit and blatant supercilious rhetoric.
Delores B. Fickus
Belcamp
Cheese Steak Sub?
Your recent article about House Bill 999 which would eliminate funding of the federally subsidized school lunch and breakfast programs ensuring that schools serve nutritious meals featured a picture of a young student eating a cheese steak sub.
A cheese steak sub? Maybe the program should be done away with for the sake of the health and well-being of the students.
Arthur L. Laupus
Columbia
Sex at Loyola
The recent brouhaha over the seminar on sexuality at Loyola College drew the expected responses, especially from talk radio. The "voice of reason" types predictably condemned the showing of the films viewed by the students based on the presumption that what was being shown was pornography.
If we want reason to prevail, then a closer examination of the situation is warranted.
First of all, no student was forced to sign up for the seminar, and the registered students were not forced to watch the videos.
Second, it appears that the protesters' use of the term "pornography" implies that sex is dirty, even though the overwhelming majority of the human race since creation has engaged in it in a variety of forms.
Third, if what is really upsetting people is the showing of the love-making between homosexual couples, then what we're really saying is that lesbians and gays are excluded from the universal experience of feeling love for another human being. At least they are forbidden to express feelings in a bodily way.
The Loyola students could have availed themselves of various other opportunities to view explicit sexuality. Instead, they opted to do so under the guidance of mentors.
These young people are, after all, not children. They are our future teachers, ministers, therapists, writers, sociologists, parents, etc. Isn't it better for them to learn about the dimensions of human sexuality as students in a seminar rather than as spectators at a peep show?
As parents, don't we try to educate our young so that the knowledge we impart might pre-empt the tragic consequences of ignorance?
Both Loyola College and the students who initiated the protest deserve our gratitude. They have stimulated the dialog which will help us define and accept the soul of our humanness.
Mary Nicholas Sommerfeldt
Baltimore
Illegal Drugs
I think it is admirable for The Sun to explore the issue of the medicalization of illegal drugs, and I think it equally important to express both sides of the issue.
I think that you do a great disservice, however, when you print viewpoints that are thinly veiled propaganda pieces by people who obviously "have no experience or expertise with illegal drugs."
I refer to the Feb. 16 Opinion * Commentary piece by Jill Jonnes titled "The Forgotten History of Illegal Drugs." It may be this woman has assembled the same tired old Anslinger "reefer madness" misinformation into a book, but you owe it to your readers to read it and consider its accuracy before you print excerpts.
I point to several obvious glaring inaccuracies which should wave a big red flag for you.
The first is the statement, "Our military is now drug free." This was obviously written by someone who has never had any contact with anyone in the military. What she should have said is, "We now have soldiers that know how to beat urinalysis."
As someone who lived next to a military base (Fort Ord) for four years, I can testify that I have never seen so many people do so much LSD so frequently as our trusty soldiers -- and I went to high school in the Seventies.
All I heard out there all the time was, "Got any acid, man? It doesn't show up on our piss tests." Which, as a chemist who worked testing blood levels of generic drugs, I can verify is 100 percent correct. Our soldiers are tripping every day and laughing about it to boot.
The other thing that really caught my attention was all this talk of "ever increasing doses." As with any drug, legal or illegal, tolerance develops eventually. The question here is, so what? Ms. Jonnes makes it sound like each addict will need a truck-load of drugs every day.
If we look at the average heroin addict, for example, he may indeed have a tremendous tolerance. While a non-addict would take 1 to 2mg, an addict can take as much as 50 to 100mg in a single dose (good for 4 to 6 hours). That is an amount roughly equivalent to the head of a match. Not exactly a truck-load, is it?
And if drug users should eventually kill themselves, as they inevitably will, we can do exactly what we do whenever some poor alcoholic drinks himself to death -- nothing.
Why should someone else's self-destructive behavior be the responsibility of the government, or some self-appointed moral guardians, or anyone for that matter?
What you do with your own life is between you and your creator, and no one else.
Please, keep running editorials and letters about the legalization/medicalization issue. It is very important to keep the discourse going over such a timely and important issue.
But please try to limit your valuable print space to responsible writers. Don't just look for credentials. Look for the truth.
William M. Smith
Baltimore
Repealing Rights
Why has there been little or no comment in the media about the vote in Congress to suspend the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
On Feb. 7, the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 666. Line 8 of H.R. 666 reads:
"Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution."
This means that the police won't need to show probable cause when they ask for a search warrant, they won't need to describe the place they plan to search, they won't even have to describe what or who they are looking for. Those are the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. If this bill becomes law, those requirements won't have to be met anymore. This means that Americans will no longer "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures."
When these congresspersons took the oath of office they swore to support and defend the Constitution. A little more than one month into office they voted to suspend part of the Bill of Rights.
Why hasn't this been a leading topic on talk radio or in newspaper commentaries or among the talking head TV pundits? Is the nullification of part of the Bill of Rights less important than O.J Simpson's trial?
Ernest Smith
Phoenix