Fasting to give city kids a chance
I've lived long enough to watch my city descend through some levels of the underworld. I ask: Who will stand up to fix the problems of my Baltimore?
We students in a coalition called Peer-to-Peer Enterprises are aware of the injustices city youths face.
Peer-to-Peer organizations employ older youths to teach their younger peers skills and knowledge.
In the past few years these organizations have employed hundreds of youths, helped increase test scores, kept young away people from violence and drugs and established "families" outside the home.
These programs should be expanded and need sustained investment to grow their accomplishments.
The Peer-to-Peer coalition has requested $3 million from the city's budget to create an additional 700 to 1,000 jobs and provide services to thousands more peers.
The funds would allow youths to participate actively in a knowledge-based economy. Peers help peers learn all kinds of things: public speaking and debate, algebra, theater and playwriting, drumming and dance, video production and much more. These technical skills help students plan successful futures.
The City Council unanimously approved a resolution in March requesting that the mayor include this $3 million in the city's budget. But Mayor Sheila Dixon has refused the council's request.
The City Council recently missed an opportunity to do something to help us by refusing to fund Peer-to-Peer Enterprises with the interest on the city's rainy day fund ("Youth fund boost denied," May 29).
The interest this year will be approximately $3.5 million on a total fund of $88 million.
We don't understand why an investment in our youth can't be made from the interest on money that isn't even being used. In effect, we're just asking for the loose change under the cushions in the sofa.
Why would the City Council unanimously pass a resolution in March but then tell us in May that we aren't worth a little interest?
Having exhausted all other courses of action, we have decided that participating in a hunger strike is a way to take action against injustice.
We dedicate our bodies in solidarity with our peers. Educationally, we're starving already. We choose now to represent voluntarily what's already happening to us against our will.
We would love to eat of the fruits of knowledge-based jobs and quality education. But our city, not our peers, keeps us hungry.
Bryant Muldrew, Baltimore
The writer is a student at Baltimore City Community College who works for one of the Peer-to-Peer Enterprises groups and is one of the hunger strikers demanding city funding for the Peer-to-Peer program.
Naive to scorn judicial lobbying
As a former member of the legislature, the judiciary and a judicial nominating commission, I find this fuss in Anne Arundel County over a judicial nomination astonishingly naive ("Miller alerted about fallout," May 28).
Judicial selection commission members provide a valuable service to an appointing authority. They vet nominees who are often little known.
Typically, the commission members receive many contacts, written and oral, about the possible nominees, and they often interview the nominees as well.
Local, state and special-interest bar associations are also a part of the process.
But the decision is ultimately up to the appointing authority. In state courts, that is the governor. In federal courts, it is the president.
While some may believe judgeships are awarded on the basis of merit alone, this is hardly the reality. Judicial appointments are made largely on the basis of lobbying.
For the federal courts, the lobbying is often by a friendly U.S. senator.
For the state courts, it is usually by someone who has the governor's ear.
This is the reality of judicial appointments.
For experienced commission members to resign over this sort of thing just because state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (who has a political lifetime of helping constituents) may have been part of an effort to have his son appointed as a judge is absurd and makes one wonder about their agenda.
James J. Lombardi, Annapolis
The writer is a retired Circuit Court judge.
Slots wrong way to revive racing
The first cursing I can remember hearing was addressed to a one-armed bandit, 40-odd years ago in Annapolis. The anonymous harbor-front gambler had just lost his quarter, and I asked my mother what was happening. "That," she said in disgust, "is a slot machine."
Some people claim that ready access to such addictive gambling will help balance the state budget, create jobs and save Maryland's racing industry.
Canadian billionaire Frank Stronach, who owns Magna Entertainment Corp., and I know better.
Slots are a mechanism for moving money from the hands of many into the pockets of a few. And if today's rosy predictions about the impact of slots don't pan out, we can expect to hear how racing cannot survive without, you guessed it, more slots.
Slots proponents cannot promise that the Maryland dollars being wagered in Delaware and West Virginia would return to Maryland if we allow slots here.
The fact that the stories of Barbaro and Seabiscuit captured the public's imagination shows there remains a high level of popular interest in horse racing.
Maryland thoroughbred racing can find a better survival strategy than slots.
Cameron Adams, Easton
McClellan's book has few surprises
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has let us in on his little secret ("Book Retort," Commentary, May 30).
However, it is clear that most of the American public is aware that President Bush misled us into the war. Most Americans also know that Mr. Bush ignored intelligence and acted on his own gut instincts.
Apparently, the only people who are surprised are Mr. Bush's advisers, who crafted this whole misadventure in Iraq in the first place.
Braxton Andrews, Baltimore
Protests inspired opposition to war
After reading "The Catonsville 9 from the opposite side" (May 25), I had to write a response.
Phyllis Brandt accused Philip Berrigan and the other anti-war protesters of screaming "You're murderers" at the Selective Service clerks on May 17, 1968.
As someone who has spoken to a number of the Catonsville Nine over the years, I do not believe Ms. Brandt's recollection.
The nine were practitioners of nonviolence who disavowed verbal violence. Note, for example, their gentle behavior at trial.
I also have to question this comment by Ms. Brandt: "No one wanted that war. We all loved those men and tried to help them."
The Selective Service was responsible for selecting boys to be drafted and, in some cases, sent off to the Vietnam quagmire.
The war in Vietnam, like the one in Iraq, continued because so many good people did not act to stop it.
John V. Murphy III, whose mother was inside the office that fateful day in May 1968, got it right: "Maybe that was the intention of the Catonsville Nine, to wake up the world, including my mother."
I can state with confidence that their protest did cause many people to shake off their slumber and get involved in the peace movement.
I hope the memories of 1968 cause people to consider joining today's peace movement.
Max Obuszewski, Baltimore