Stokes was right to applaud blacks for cross-racial voting
During his concession speech on Election Day (Sept. 14), Carl Stokes said he was proud of Baltimore's African-American community, because so many of its members had crossed racial lines and voted for Martin O'Malley.
I've thought a great deal about Mr. Stokes' comments. They were generous, because Mr. Stokes might have won, if about 35 percent of African-Americans hadn't voted for a white candidate.
They were also perceptive. It makes sense for black Baltimoreans to vote for a qualified black candidate instead of a qualified white candidate.
After all, it has only been in the past few decades that black Americans have been able to vote for black candidates. Given the bitter struggle to elect black leaders, and the pride that must have resulted from success in it, I can understand why black Baltimoreans might see it as a backward step to elect a white mayor.
And, in a city where most major powerbrokers are still white, it makes sense that the black community would feel safer with someone who represents its interests.
Yet, despite those realities, and despite the fact that African-Americans are well aware of the tenuousness of many whites' commitment to an anti-racist society, thousands of Baltimore's African-Americans decided to vote for a white person they thought could best lead the city.
That was an extraordinary statement, and Mr. Stokes knew it.
But it's important to consider that far fewer whites crossed racial lines to vote for Mr. Stokes, a strong black candidate who had won major endorsements.
It seems that black Baltimoreans, who have far better reasons to vote for people of their own race than do whites, were more able to get past race than their white counterparts.
Why is that?
Stan Markowitz, Baltimore
Voting for whites subverts blacks' political influence
I am heartbroken that so many black voters agreed with white voters on the need to return the top city government position to a white man.
The victor in the city's Democratic mayoral primary was opportunistic in betraying City Council President Lawrence A. Bell III and in undermining what should be our black consensus for self-governance. It's sad that blacks supported Martin O'Malley's selfish ambition.
I'm beginning to doubt seriously that voting can bring about black freedom and equality.
The suspicion that whites at the state level are more likely to finance the city needs if the mayor is white is a troubling surrender to white supremacy.
Watching black populations assist the white minority to regain the helm of one city government after another is giving me nothing but grief.
Achieving our voting rights is beginning to appear to be a hollow victory.
Orisha Kammefa, Baltimore
It's the press, not the public, that's preoccupied by race
I would like an explanation of the assumption in The Sun's article "In the voting booth, color took back seat" (Sept. 15) that when black people vote for the best candidate they are rising above racial politics, but when white people do the same thing, they are "exhibiting strong solidarity with the white candidate."
The Sun seriously underestimates the ability of Baltimoreans to think for themselves.
Regardless of race, Martin O'Malley was the only candidate whose character and campaign spoke for themselves.
The citizens of this city rose to the occasion -- making the right choice, despite the press harping on the candidates' racial heritages.
The knee-jerk assignment of positive motives to one group, and negative motives to another, does nothing to contribute to what this city so plainly craves: less emphasis on color and more on improving the quality of our lives.
Amanda Scheps, Baltimore
I recall Barry Rascovar's column earlier this summer, in which he discounted Martin O'Malley's bid for the Democratic nomination for mayor because Mr. O'Malley is white ("Electing a white mayor not out of the question," Opinion Commentary, June 27).
For this, Mr. Rascovar says he stands corrected ("O'Malley has mandate to be bold," Opinion Commentary, Sept. 19).
Mr. Rascovar goes on to say that the racial issue was "more of a fixation for politicians than for voters."
I think he needs to be corrected again. It appears it was the media, more than anyone else, who fixated on the candidates' race.
Jane L. Taeger, Baltimore
Gun laws won't stop mentally ill shooters
One could conclude from The Sun's editorial "Fatal omission," (Sept. 17) that Richard Wayne Spicknall's children would be alive but for a clerical error in the Howard County database.
Applying this reasoning, one could argue that gun laws will cure mental illness.
Charles L. Layton, Easton
Up-to-date court records may help prevent shootings
It's not often that our association agrees with The Sun. However, the editorial "Fatal omission" (Sept. 17) was right on target. Inaccurate court records are the reason some ineligible people get firearms.
According to the FBI, about 50 percent of court records nationwide are out-of-date. The police can always find arrest records, but the disposition of those arrests is not always available.
This is the fault of the courts and of police officials who do not post the information in a timely fashion.
It can allow an ineligible person to obtain a firearm. Our association does not want that to happen, but we can't stop it unless the system is up to speed.
The state's criminal records must be current at all times. Otherwise, mistakes, such as the case of Richard Wayne Spicknall II will happen again.
Sanford Abrams, Baltimore
The writer is vice president of the Maryland Licensed Firearms Distributors Association Inc.
Only an armed public can stop shooting sprees
Last week's shooting in Texas was another shooting spree the police could do nothing to stop ("Gunman opens fire in Texas church," Sept. 16).
The only people who could have stopped it were people with permits to carry concealed weapons, who were carrying their firearms with them.
Only people with guns stop killers -- whether they are police officers or licensed, trained civilians.
Calvin Chue, Baltimore
We can't create love, but we can ban guns
Regarding the shooting in a Fort Worth church, Texas Gov. George W. Bush is right that no law "will put love in people's hearts" ("Texas shooter remains a puzzle," Sept. 17).
That's exactly why we need laws to get guns out of people's hands.
Rea Knisbacher, Baltimore
Enough is enough: first the schools, now the churches. How frustrating it is to listen to the bereaved kin of massacred children, then listen to the National Rifle Association complain that enough gun laws are on the books and to the politicians skirting the issue of gun control.
Doesn't anyone in power have the guts to propose the only remedy for this?
Great Britain did it with one law after schoolchildren and their teacher were killed by gunfire in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996. A total ban on handguns came into effect in Britain in January 1998.
Let's admit it: These killings will continue on as long as there are guns in the possession of the general public and there is only one answer to the problem.
Morris Grossman, Baltimore
Pub Date: 9/22/99