Firing prosecutors politicizes justice
There is a reason the statue of justice wears a blindfold: No one is above the law, everyone should be equal before the law and no one should be persecuted by the justice system because of his or her politics.
The loyalty of federal prosecutors should be to those they serve and the impartial administration of justice, not to a political party.
But apparently Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the Bush administration's Justice Department and the White House disagree ("Bush aide urged firing prosecutors," March 13).
Since the Bush administration came to power in 2001, investigations into local Democratic politicians have been seven times more frequent than those into their Republican counterparts. Is this a six-year coincidence or has the prosecutorial system been politicized?
The Justice Department summarily dismissed eight U.S. attorneys in December for what appear to be political reasons.
The firings look like a political purge aimed at preventing corruption investigations of Republicans by replacing independent-minded (Republican) prosecutors with politically loyal and subservient ones.
Every administration has the right to fire people. But the perception that justice isn't being administered fairly and impartially is more dangerous than mere bad staffing decisions.
And when the administration of justice is no longer fair and impartial, and political loyalty becomes the criterion by which prosecutors keep their jobs, we have lost something important.
Roger C. Kostmayer
Baltimore
No slogan will stem city's litter problem
Mayor Sheila Dixon is apparently planning to waste our tax dollars on an ad campaign that won't work ("Getting city to pick it up," March 13).
Catchy slogans are fun. But anti-littering ads don't work because changing people's behavior is very different from getting people to choose one brand over another.
Parents don't have to be persuaded to buy peanut butter for their kids. That's why "Choosy mothers choose Jif" was an effective ad slogan - the advertiser simply had to get parents to choose its peanut butter over other brands.
But behavior scientists have found that "norming" and social pressure work much better than advertising to change behavior.
For example, subjects returning to cars with fliers on the windshield were less likely to litter the flier if the parking lot was already litter-free and were also less likely to litter if they saw someone else picking up trash in the parking lot.
Therefore, I urge the mayor to consider spending the money instead on extra trash pickup and street cleaners, perhaps in a pilot program targeting one neighborhood at a time, to establish a norm of clean behavior and monitor results.
We all have seen city trash cans overflowing.
The message this sends is stronger and louder than any million-dollar ad campaign.
Caroline S. Ingles
Baltimore
The writer is a former training coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program.
Bottle bill best way to block litter blight
I think the best way to reduce the blight of litter on the city is for the mayor and her administration to support the bottle bill now before the state legislature ("Getting city to pick it up," March 13).
Under such a law, a 5-cent deposit on all beverage containers would remove the largest, bulkiest and most valuable part of the litter stream.
If discarded, the plastic bottles and aluminum beverage containers would not remain as litter very long, because the 5-cent deposit would provide a powerful incentive for enterprising kids or other folks to pick them up to earn some extra pocket money.
Removing beverage containers from the streets through a deposit system also provides a way to get those containers back for recycling, thus keeping them out of the waste stream where they would otherwise be buried in a landfill or incinerated.
Litter begets litter.
But if beverage containers are removed from our streets, people will be less inclined to discard other forms of litter.
Ajax Eastman
Baltimore
Find more equitable path to development
I heartily applaud the writer of the "tell it like it is" letter about the skewed and destructive priorities that lead to approval for building bloated and intrusive monstrosities such as those in the Harbor East ("Ritzy development leaves poor behind," March 10).
This crazy encouragement of development by and for those with huge wealth, even as the city refuses to pursue a more equitable approach - one that would stress affordable housing throughout Baltimore, all-around economic development leading to more and better jobs for all our citizens and an all-out push to shape up education in Baltimore - will inevitably lead to a continuing loss of middle-class, working city residents to the suburbs.
These sumptuous palaces for the very rich will do nothing to reduce poverty and the violent crime and drug-dealing that go with it.
Isn't it about time we all recognize the secretive Baltimore Development Corp. for what it is - a front organization set up as a buffer between our elected officials, who bless these unjust plans to use public resources to benefit their wealthy cronies and campaign contributors, and the public?
This smokescreen enables city officials to gain approval of projects that benefit only a few, without attracting the anger of their constituents.
John Bosley
Baltimore
Too much time taken up by tests
The current focus on the impact of Maryland's High School Assessments makes me think about how we are becoming more and more a nation of test-takers ("Worry grows on Md. testing," March 12).
From the time children are just beginning their elementary school years, they are faced with learning not just their ABCs but also a plethora of acronyms - MSA, PSAT, SAT, AP and HSA.
Those of us who came of age in the 1970s had an easier job.
Yes, we faced tests and studying, but standardized exams were far less intrusive in our lives.
We went to school, did some homework and still had time to work or take part in after-school activities - and still get more than five hours of sleep, unlike many children today.
Many of us took the SAT once, or maybe twice (without spending $100 per hour for coaching), and still got into the University of Maryland.
And yet without going through the stress of all the exams today's kids confront, many of us developed satisfying and successful careers.
An entire generation could not have been wrong.
Yes, there is more competition today, and students need to demonstrate proficiency in core subjects.
But why are we tying the educational experience of our children and their teachers to a single winner-take-all test?
The fact that many colleges and universities are reviewing their policies and relying less on college admission exams demonstrates that we must think outside the box.
There are many students who don't test well and do far better in their day-to-day work.
Should a year of academic success be thrown out because of a three-hour exam?
What about teachers who are forced to "teach to the test" to make sure the material is covered? What other essential topics are lost in the process?
I am pleased that state schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick and the Maryland State Board of Education are reviewing the HSA policy for the most vulnerable populations, including special-education students and those with limited English proficiency.
Many of these students are in real danger of not graduating under the current rules.
I urge the General Assembly and the board to carefully consider the idea of rescinding the current HSA requirements for all our students until a more sensible process is developed.
Susan Wachs Goldberg
Clarksville
The writer is the parent of a sophomore at River Hill High School.
Lawsuits can reveal ongoing child abuse
Once again, The Sun has lived up to its name by casting light on an important issue - the rights of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse ("Childhood abuse bill stirs debate," March 2).
It was also heartening to see the letter "A voice for victims of sexual abuse" (March 7). But it must be noted that giving a voice to adult victims of pedophilia is just one of the things the bill pending in the state legislature - which would create a one-year window for adults to file civil lawsuits for childhood abuse cases for which the filing deadline has expired - would accomplish.
The most prominent examples of such a measure's effectiveness can be seen in Minnesota and California, where, without any increase in policing, states were able to locate and identify hundreds of active pedophiles - in part as a result of testimony in such lawsuits.
By allowing adult victims to pursue their abusers through civil litigation, states also create an environment of openness and awareness that helps expose criminals who have been abusing children for decades.
The letter writer was also correct that the chief opposition to the bill is from the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore.
Last year, the archdiocese flexed its muscle and made a similar bill disappear; we can't let this happen again.
It is imperative that victims be given their day in court now - to safeguard Maryland's children in the future.
Joanne Lynch Suder James Hittinger Baltimore
The writers are attorneys whose law firm represents victims of sexual abuse.
Legislators can limit ground rent abuses
A recent letter writer complained about efforts to eliminate ground rents, arguing that ground rents are clearly explained in a mortgage and suggesting that people who don't understand ground rent are too stupid to buy a house ("Ground rent isn't so hard to grasp," March 9).
Our previous home had a ground rent before we bought it. We understood it perfectly, and redeemed it as part of the settlement.
Unfortunately, the title company failed to properly record our ground rent redemption with the county. This resulted in a rude visit and demands from the ground rent owner, who was then paid a second time.
Years later, when we sold the house, we learned that the deed had still not been correctly recorded in county records.
The original title company had gone out of business, as well as the original title insurance company. The ground rent owner refused to acknowledge his receipt for the second payment, saying nothing less than an official deed from the county would prove that he had been paid.
And this in spite of the fact that he had clearly considered it paid because he hadn't bothered us about it for 13 years.
It took me about 20 hours of phone calls and letter writing to track down the company that had inherited the title insurance policy and get it to pay the ground rent owner a third time and for its title lawyers to finally obtain a deed in fee simple, so we could sell our home without complications.
In retrospect, we were lucky not to lose our home over clerical oversights made by a company that was supposed to handle those legal details for us.
Mistakes can be made. But it is criminal that ground rent owners can seize a home worth hundreds of thousands of dollars over a few thousand dollars of ground rent.
Since some ground rent owners clearly do not have the ethical backbone to restrain themselves from making these unfair seizures, the legislature must act to make these excesses illegal.
Carl Aron
Catonsville
Regional diplomacy only way to end war
Trudy Rubin is correct. Regional diplomacy is key to saving Iraq ("A glimmer of hope in Iraq," Opinion
Commentary, March 6).
The problem is, the Bush administration has inflicted such pain on the Iraqi people that they no longer believe in any cure it has to offer.
In fact, a recent opinion survey of the people of Baghdad shows they overwhelmingly want us out of their country.
If the Bush administration really wants Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to succeed, it must give his security forces the equipment they need and give Mr. al-Maliki the necessary authority to pacify his country.
Because of its fear of Iran's great influence in Iraq, the Bush administration has done the opposite.
Rather than talking with Iran to resolve mutual grievances, it has tried to rally the regions autocratic regimes - Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt - to curb Iran's influence.
Unless the Bush administration truly embraces regional diplomacy - something it has so far treated mostly with disdain - and engages Iraq's neighbors in a real dialogue, nothing will change.
Fariborz S. Fatemi
McLean, Va.
The writer is a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Ties between Israel, Jews unbreakable
While the issue is not particularly newsworthy, it is perfectly legitimate for The Sun to publish articles about the very real divisions among Jews regarding the policies of the government of Israel.
Such divisions, which are as old as Israel itself, reflect not a lessening of Jewish support for Israel but the love Jews worldwide have for the world's only Jewish state and their deep concern for Israel's future.
It is another matter altogether for The Sun to publish a column that, under the guise of discussing gaps between Jews on Zionist ideology, questions Israel's very right to exist.
According to Yakov M. Rabkin's column "Gap among Jews widens on question of Zionism" (Opinion
Commentary, March 8), the Jewish world is divided between "militant" nationalists who support Israel and moral Jews "who believe that the very idea of a Jewish state ... undermines all that Judaism teaches."
The suggestion that morality requires rejection of Israel is in itself immoral, as well as deeply insulting to the millions of Jews and non-Jews who proudly consider themselves Zionists.
Far from being alien to Judaism, the historic ties between the Jewish people and the state of Israel are based upon 3,000 years of Jewish texts, teachings and traditions, and will never be severed.
Jay Bernstein
Baltimore
For-profit counsel damages debtors
The debate over for-profit credit counseling comes down to a very simple question:
What should credit counseling in Maryland be ("For-profit counsel on credit debated," March 7)?
Today, credit counseling in Maryland consists of nonprofit counseling agencies that provide comprehensive financial education and counseling assistance to consumers.
The pending legislation would change the model to allow for-profit companies to sell products to vulnerable consumers while providing them with little in the way of financial education and counseling.
As a result, consumers seeking counseling from a for-profit company may end up worse off than when they started.
Currently, Maryland law is functioning well in ensuring that consumers receive quality credit counseling and preventing others from engaging in predatory practices.
The real irony here is that some of the entities that have been so aggressive in their support of this legislation have been - or are being - investigated, sued or sanctioned for their credit practices.
Those entities are now using the rather novel argument that because the regulators are forcing companies that are violating the law out of business, Maryland law should be changed to create a haven to protect those very companies. That is just wrong.
The choice here is an easy one.
Maryland lawmakers should reaffirm the importance and benefits of nonprofit credit counseling and reject this special-interest legislation.
Susan C. Keating
Silver Spring
The writer is president and CEO of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.
Why discuss city's 'white guy' heroes?
Why is a Sun columnist having a debate with another writer over whether Baltimore has enough white heroes ("Back to you, Deford, on Baltimore's white guys," March 11)?
In her attempt to correct Baltimore native Frank Deford's survey of the city's history in a piece for Smithsonian magazine, Laura Vozzella only compounded the problem.
Mr. Deford wrote, "It is both ironic and instructive that in the first half of the 20th century, the two most illustrious Americans to come from Baltimore were Thurgood Marshall and Billie Holiday - African-Americans who rose up out of a segregated society; so representative of Baltimore's decline was it that no distinctive white citizens emerged upon the national scene."
This was a backhanded compliment that grudgingly admitted these two people's importance while suggesting we could have done better.
But Ms. Vozzella did not do any better. She one-upped Mr. Deford by momentarily erasing women from the city's history - notice the "guys" in the headline - and she tacitly agreed that it was worth limiting this exercise to white people.
Are we really so bored with the present that we have to invent new ways of misrepresenting the past?
I hope not.
And I refuse to have my heroes sectioned off according to color.
Lionel Foster
Baltimore
Slowing the shift to wind power
As a supporter of renewable energy and a cheerleader for the state's effort to provide cleaner energy alternatives, I am surprised at The Sun's assumption that if someone is complaining about a regulatory process, it must be working ("An ill wind," editorial, March 9).
Already, Maryland's wind projects are suffering a potential death by 1,000 cuts.
Opponents of wind energy - wrong on all the issues - have resorted to personal attacks and conspiracy theories to keep their "delay-at-all-costs" approach to wind power in place.
This has included filing multiple, frivolous lawsuits, which are often shopped around in the hope of finding judicial support.
It is no surprise that the state legislature and governor are standing up for clean, renewable energy. The state has already demanded it through legislative action.
Unfortunately, as the record of wind energy development in the state clearly shows, our efforts to turn that policy into action have fallen woefully short.
That carries a real cost. Communities such as Garrett County - which stands to receive more than $2 million per year in revenue from pending wind energy projects - sit on the sidelines struggling with their budgets and waiting for help to arrive.
One need look no farther than across the Mason-Dixon Line to see wind power development and the state of Pennsylvania enjoying a successful, fruitful partnership.
No one is asking to cut off public debate. The projects in Maryland and throughout the region have been subject to lengthy public meetings, debate, approvals and scrutiny.
That must continue, and will, under Maryland's reasonable proposed reform.
But when it is easier and faster to build a small fossil-fuel plant than a cleaner, renewable project - as is now the case - it is time to right the process for the benefit of the environment and our communities.
Frank Maisano
Gambrills
The writer is an energy lobbyist and the spokesman for a coalition of wind developers in the Mid-Atlantic region.
The Sun thoroughly missed the mark in its editorial against a bill to speed the development of wind energy in Maryland.
I am disappointed that at a time when the utilities and some in industry say Maryland doesn't generate enough power to meet our demand and are asking to build more nuclear and coal-fueled power plants, The Sun chose to criticize a potentially large-scale energy source that doesn't pollute or contribute to global warming - wind power.
It's as if the editors don't read the news section of the paper, which does a great job detailing the threats posed by global warming.
Wind power isn't perfect. But if we don't develop wind and other non-polluting, non-toxic energy sources rapidly, the very birds, bats and other wildlife the anti-wind power crowd purports to protect may be wiped out.
The state's wind power bills would not exempt wind power projects from public input. They merely would allow local governments a greater say in determining whether to welcome wind power.
Nobody in his or her right mind thinks we can have thousands of wind turbines in the bay without public input.
But let's take a stand for solutions to global warming.
Let's build wind farms in Maryland to replace dirty, volatile fossil fuels such as coal.
Gary Skulnik
Silver Spring
The writer is executive director of the Clean Energy Partnership.
The Sun's editorial about "An ill wind" has it right.
There are proposals in the General Assembly that would exempt powerfully connected wind developers from rational regulatory review processes that aim to protect the environment and provide those most affected by massive land-use development with an informed opportunity to respond to them.
The two wind projects targeting Garrett County would place nearly 70 42-story turbines along 15 miles atop the state's highest ridge, clear-cutting and dynamiting hundreds of acres.
All to produce about 40 megawatts of sporadic energy for a power grid system with a current capacity of 165,000 megawatts.
The projects would devalue property and create significant nuisances throughout the area while sabotaging the county's natural heritage plan.
Meanwhile, the projects' developers, one of which is Constellation Energy, would reap millions in tax avoidance.
If passed, these bills could allow wind developers to move with stealth across the state - and many residents might wake up to discover too late that their area has become a site of industrial development.
Jon Boone
Oakland
The writer is a member of Friends of Backbone Mountain who has testified against wind energy projects before the Public Service Commission.