Invert the increase in our energy use

The Sun's article "Tough to unplug" (Sept. 30) highlights some of the challenges we must address to counter the threat to life on Earth posed by global warming.

Our governor has called for a 15 percent reduction in Maryland's electricity consumption in the near term. So it's discouraging to read that Baltimore Gas and Electric customers actually increased their electricity consumption this summer by 3 percent over the 2006 level.

To ensure our children and grandchildren will have a livable planet, we must reverse this trend in energy use.

Replacing a few traditional light bulbs with energy-efficient ones is just a start.

Our forefathers lived without air conditioning and, at a still earlier time, without central heating. Surely we can adopt BGE's suggested summer thermostat setting of 78 degrees in our homes, schools and workplaces. And in the cold months, wearing a sweater will maintain comfort in an environment heated to 65 degrees to 68 degrees.

Driving at the speed limit, avoiding unnecessary idling, carpooling and combining errands can stretch our finite oil reserves and reduce our production of greenhouse gases.

We should each make it a personal, creative challenge to think about the environmental costs of our daily activities and find ways to reduce our energy use.

Bob Burchard

Catonsville

FERC ruling handled core of complaint

Jay Hancock's column on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ruling on the PJM Interconnection market monitoring case was pithy but incorrect ("Power overseer ignores alarms," Sept. 26). Indeed, Mr. Hancock missed the entire object of FERC's investigation.

Mr. Hancock faults FERC for acting to ensure the independence of the PJM market monitor, dismissing our actions in this regard as "tinkering with the organization chart."

Mr. Hancock also appears deeply unsatisfied that the FERC investigation and order focused on the independence of the market monitor rather than market power.

But the independence of market monitoring has been at the heart of this investigation since it began. And the reason for this is that the independence of the monitor was the central issue raised by the two complaints that were filed in May.

It should come as no surprise that FERC would address the central issue in the case, the one most important to the complainants.

And FERC did not "kill an inquiry" on this issue. We made a call on the merits based upon a substantial record. We found the PJM tariff unjust and unreasonable, and ordered changes.

The complainants urged us to act quickly, specifically seeking expeditious resolution of the complaint "to avoid irreparable harm to and loss of confidence in PJM wholesale markets." We acted quickly.

The commission largely agreed with the complainants. They asked for a settlement process involving all the parties. They got it.

The goal here is ensuring that PJM's market monitor is able to do his job and ensure public confidence that the markets are functioning properly.

That goal may not excite Mr. Hancock, but it remains important to FERC.

Mary O'Driscoll

Washington

The writer is director of press services for FERC.

Slots would carry some heavy costs

Gov. Martin O'Malley, state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller and various business interests are trying hard to whoop up an unstoppable tide to legislate Maryland into becoming a big-time gambling state just like neighboring states ("GOP shuns slots proposal," Oct. 4).

They seem to want to have a quick special session to railroad a tax bill through and legalize slot machines.

Slots advocates often say we need slots to be "competitive." However, these folks need to consider some other points:

Every dollar lost in a slot machine is one that will not be spent on a normal purchase from a Maryland business.

The military organizations moving more jobs into Maryland will not look kindly on a proliferation of big-time gambling establishments near sensitive installations.

Why? Because losing gamblers are a known security risk.

Many high-tech companies will tend to shy away from moving into big-time gambling centers as they are not family-friendly and do not foster a wholesome atmosphere for company operations.

Therefore, by shunning big-time casinos, Maryland could realize a competitive advantage of a much better sort.

Finally, slots advocates owe the rest of us an impact statement that thoroughly considers all the many negatives lurking beneath the surface of big-time gambling.

Dave Thompson

Elkton

Holes in safety net for state's disabled

Thanks for publishing Dan Rodricks' column about Howard Fry, which revealed some of the underlying failures of the state's safety net for those in need ("Safety net, unraveling," Sept. 28).

In explaining some of those failures, the article touched upon the lack of funding to provide the kinds of support Mr. Fry would need to live safely in a more independent, community-based setting.

Sadly, the state's Developmental Disabilities Administration has a waiting list of more than 16,000 people with needs like Mr. Fry's who have been left waiting for services because of a lack of funding.

While Maryland is the wealthiest state in the nation, it ranks near the bottom in spending for developmental disability services. (Maryland ranks 44th in the percentage of statewide personal income devoted to funding services for the disabled, according to the "State of the States in Developmental Disabilities 2005" report from the University of Colorado's Coleman Institute.)

In response to the chronic underfunding of the DDA, people with disabilities and their families and advocates are engaging in a renewed effort to call attention to the need to fund the services needed to get people off the waiting list.

Mr. Rodricks' column helped shed light on the lives of those who tend to remain in the shadows of the public's vision.

But so much more needs to be done to move our legislature and our governor to action.

Michelle Hart

Cockeysville

The writer is co-director of the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Council.

Health club fee tax could add to obesity

At a time when Americans' increasing weight is affecting everything from automobile tire capacity to airline and automobile fuel consumption to health care costs, Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposal to expand the sales tax to cover health club fees is of great concern ("O'Malley to propose sales tax increase to 6%," Sept. 20).

It is widely understood by public officials and many in the general public that obesity is a national epidemic and also may be an emerging international epidemic.

Indeed, federal health reform efforts launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have brought increased attention to the need for governments, corporations, planners and communities to develop interventions and strategies to offset this trend.

Excess weight and obesity are major risk factors associated with chronic health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, asthma, stroke and some forms of cancer.

These conditions require expensive health care, contribute to lost days of work and decreased productivity and hurt our quality of life.

Given that physical inactivity is a major risk factor for people becoming overweight and obese, promoting physical activity is a primary strategy to reduce obesity rates.

That's why Governor O'Malley's proposed tax on health club fees is so troubling.

Exercise promotes a healthy lifestyle and can cut health costs for individuals, companies and the government.

Those with the least income could be most impacted by the proposed health club tax. And they are often also the people at the greatest risk for the adverse effects of being overweight or obese and of the associated conditions and diseases.

This proposed "fat tax" will add to the major public health problem of physical inactivity by needlessly adding to the cost of exercise.

Tracy R. Rone

Baltimore

The writer is a research associate at the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University.

Single-party rule serves city poorly

The writer of the letter "Not voting is an act of moral protest" (Sept. 29), a self-described "political activist," explains that he chose not to vote in the Democratic primary not out of apathy but because none of the several candidates represented his values.

The writer may be right on target.

For the past 40 years, every Baltimore mayor has been a Democrat, having been elected on the same empty promises of representing the working man, being attuned to the special needs of public education, having all the answers to the crime problem and, of course, feeling our pain.

And what is their record?

Well, during that time of Democratic Party leadership, the city has hemorrhaged one-third of its population, crime has skyrocketed to the point where Baltimore is one of the most dangerous cities in America, and city public schools are, well, an utter disgrace.

Sadly, however, the letter writer and others like him are unlikely to see any meaningful change, at least so long as Baltimore voters continue to march to the polls like lemmings and cast their votes for another feckless Democrat.

George Deller

Bel Air

Both sides wrong in planning dispute

While teacher planning time is an important issue, so far the discussion over it has been dominated by misinformation ("Teachers union is taking on Alonso," Oct. 2).

Both sides are right and both are wrong here. But we have an invaluable opportunity to improve our schools if we make the right choices.

Much of the response to this dispute I have heard from the public has been that teachers and the teachers union are at fault for demanding more planning time - that teachers have enough time and are greedy to ask for more.

I can't help but notice that almost everyone who feels this way has no experience in city classrooms.

True, teaching offers more vacation days than many jobs do.

But anyone who knows a city teacher will tell you that time "off" is when we do most of our work.

Planning effective lessons for a class of 28 below-grade-level students is not done while we are instructing our children. If we are to plan those lessons in less than 45 minutes per day, how much improvement can we expect in our schools?

The good city teachers I know spend most of their free time planning and grading - after the school day is over - because that's the only way to make a real difference.

The great ones I know have sacrificed their personal lives and family lives to fulfill those responsibilities.

More than half our public school teachers quit in less than five years. Who thinks they're quitting because the job comes with too much free time?

But city schools CEO Andres Alonso is not wrong: Teachers need to meet and plan together in teams.

Otherwise, we will make no progress as a system.

The truth is that we need both sides in this dispute to give in, and we need it yesterday.

City teachers and the teachers union know weekly collaborative meetings are necessary. And I think the school board and Mr. Alonso know that it is wrong to ask teachers to give up individual planning without compensating them for it.

Teachers should offer to give a part of lunch or an afternoon for collaborative planning.

Administrators should offer more individual planning time elsewhere in the schedule or pay the teachers for their time.

And to anyone who feels teachers should be able to do more with less, I say: Start teaching in the city yourself, or leave the discussion to those who know what they're talking about.

Campbell McLean

Baltimore

The writer is a former Baltimore teacher.

Administrators seek much stronger voice

I read with disappointment Baltimore County schools Superintendent Joe A. Hairston's suggestion that "a lack of leadership at some schools is at least partly to blame" for the quality gap among county schools ("Quality gap in school faulted," Sept. 13).

While The Sun's article that cited those remarks raised important questions about the "quality gap" among county schools, it provided few real answers about its causes.

I know how hard administrators and teachers are working to make a difference at our most troubled schools.

But is the school system undercutting their effectiveness by systematically excluding site-based administrators from major decision-making?

Our schools are overwhelmed with data and data sources.

But research shows that the best programs are the ones that are designed for the specific needs of a specific school population.

One size does not fit all.

As a former principal, I know how important it was for me to create an atmosphere that encouraged open and honest dialogue among all the constituent groups in my school.

But does such a dialogue exist among the superintendent, his staff and the county's school-based administrators, especially those who work in the most difficult settings?

And what about resources?

Are we providing our troubled schools with the additional resources they need to help students catch up?

Or are we, in our efforts to support equally all schools in the system, being inequitable to those schools most in need?

Building administrators need and want to be allowed to be part of the school system's decision-making process that affects staffing, funding, programs and, ultimately, student performance.

I ask the superintendent and the board of education to invite them to join the conversation.

John Desmone

Towson

The writer is the executive director of the Council of Administrative and Supervisory Employees, which represents administrators in the Baltimore County public schools.

Inadequate housing hurts the whole city

The Sun is right to highlight the direct relationship between the city's lack of a comprehensive affordable-housing plan and the persistence of homelessness ("No place to call home," editorial, Sept. 27). And we join The Sun in asking: "Where's the sense of urgency - as well as a comprehensive, coordinated approach - to help not only those who are poor or working poor, but also those who have no roof over their heads?"

Baltimore's diminishing affordable-housing stock, a problem powerfully documented in a recent report from the Abell Foundation ("Housing authority faulted," Sept. 30), is insufficient to meet the needs of city residents. As a result, more Baltimoreans are being pushed from marginal housing situations into homelessness.

The longer they remain on the streets, the greater the harm caused to them and to the broader community. For the good of the city, this can and must change.

So we join Rep. Elijah E. Cummings in arguing that "there must be a comprehensive strategy in place to develop quality, affordable housing in Baltimore" ("Cummings urges halt to razing of homes," Sept. 28).

The only effective response to homelessness and our broader housing travails begins with a vision in which all residents are safely and affordably housed.

Jeff Singer Kevin Lindamood Baltimore

The writers are, respectively, the president and CEO and the vice president for external affairs for Health Care for the Homeless Inc.

Tragic Iraq conflict more folly than war

I appreciated Donald H. Horner Jr.'s column, which came from the perspective of a defense expert and asserted that it is incorrect to say that we are a "nation at war" in Iraq and Afghanistan ("Not a nation at war," Opinion

Commentary, Sept. 28).

I appeal to The Sun also to adopt language that more accurately reflects the state of this nation and the complexity of these conflicts.

Whether from a defense perspective, a historical view, an affinity for truthful language or just plain common sense, it is a fallacy to call something a "war" when only one of the parties to the tragedy is at significant risk of catastrophic loss of population, home and self-governance.

The asymmetry of this conflict is a large part of what distinguishes it - and defines it as an operation that is something other than a war.

The ongoing grief in Iraq could be called many things: conflict, nation-building, pacification, occupation, a myopic blunder of intelligence and leadership, a well-intentioned if misguided effort to transform the Middle East, a compassionate attempt to save the Iraqi people from a catastrophe we precipitated, imperial hubris, the fruits of arrogance and greed, or the consequences of our misdirected fears.

One thing it is not is war.

Our brave and professional military is unequaled in its capacity to wage real war.

But it is unequipped for the task of rebuilding a crushed infrastructure in the midst of a bitterly divided and proud foreign people.

One way to say "no" to war is to stop calling something a war when it is a quite different creature.

Alan Schmaljohn

Millers

Should city restrict pit bull ownership?

Kevin Cowherd's column "Sorry, I'm not a fan of your fierce dog" (Oct. 1) moved me to comment.

I live in Baltimore, and I own pit bulls.

Every day I walk them in my neighborhood where I've lived for two years, and they cause no problems for anyone.

My dogs are friendly, happy, socialized and well-trained. One is trained in obedience; the other is a therapy dog who can visit nursing homes and hospitals to comfort the sick.

My dogs are far better canine citizens than many of the dogs that live around me that seem to always be running loose, menacing people, barking and charging at me when I walk down the street with my dogs.

As a responsible pit bull owner, I obey the law. I keep my dogs leashed and contained, I never allow them to roam at large, and I never leave them out in my yard unattended.

Yet my dogs are the ones Mr. Cowherd thinks should be outlawed or locked up.

I wish people would recognize and understand that any loose dog running at large is a nuisance, and any dog with uncontrolled aggression problems, no matter the breed, can injure or kill a human being.

German shepherds, run-of-the-mill mutts and Labrador retrievers can and do bite.

You just don't hear about those bites on the news because people are much more interested in reading about the alleged pit bull biting epidemic.

The fact of the matter is that if communities would invest more money, training and resources in animal control and encourage the uniform enforcement of the dangerous-dog laws on the books, we could curb many of the dog-related problems communities face.

But sadly, pit bulls are much sexier news fodder than common-sense approaches to public policy.

Erin Sullivan

Baltimore

The writer is a member of the Working Pit Bull Terrier Club of America.

I found Kevin Cowherd's column regarding aggressive dogs very interesting, as I had an experience that was somewhat similar to the one he related in the same general area about a month ago.

I was driving west on Northern Parkway, a few blocks from Belvedere Square, when I had to stop at a red light. When I looked out of my car window, I observed four young men at the corner, each with a pit bull on a leash. I was instantly afraid and could not wait for the light to change green.

Of course, I was very happy that I was not a pedestrian on that stretch of Northern Parkway, and I was very grateful that I did not have to live in that neighborhood.

I am somewhat sympathetic with the problems government leaders face in dealing with illegal guns, as guns are so easy to conceal.

But it is very hard to conceal a pit bull. Traveling through the metropolitan area of Baltimore, I see more and more of these dangerous dogs. Clearly, most of them are being bred and trained to attack.

These dogs do not belong in any of our neighborhoods, as they are very dangerous.

It is time for our leaders to deal with this public safety issue before more people get hurt.

Edward McCarey McDonnell

Baltimore

In his column "Sorry, I'm not a fan of your fierce dog," Kevin Cowherd advises readers to go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site as a way to prove his argument that certain breeds of dogs are more dangerous than others.

But one of the items on that site is a report titled "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention" written by a task force of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The report states that efforts to "supplement existing animal control laws with ordinances directed toward control of specific breeds ... are inappropriate and ineffective." As the report argues, this often drives inhumane dog owners underground or causes them to switch to a different breed. Breed-specific laws are also often unenforceable, as breed identification is difficult to determine. And such laws do not address the real issue - responsible dog ownership.

The report goes on to state that "enforcement of restraint laws is essential" and that "a well-resourced animal control agency is vital for public health and safety."

If Baltimore wants to protect its citizens, it must adequately fund its animal control operations so that the city can properly enforce existing laws.

Adding more laws that cannot be enforced, such as a ban on pit bulls, would not make our community safer.

The safety of our citizens, especially children, is too important to propose solutions that simply do not work.

Aileen Gabbey

Baltimore

The writer is executive director of the Maryland SPCA.