BCGP: In the News

d a i l y p r o g r e s s i v e n e w s & o p i n i o n

Aljazeera.Net
Alternet
BuzzFlash.com
Common Dreams
DailyHowler.com
Democracy Now
Free Speech TV
Progress.org
TalkingPointsMemo.com
usgreens.org weblog
World TV

Listen to Scott Ritter , former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, ex-marine, Republican, and a conservative who voted for Bush II, describe what the Bush war in Iraq is really all about.

Opinion:
Dave Goldsmith
8/12/02

The greens are unique because our agenda is essentially enlightened self- interest: we feel that it is just too dangerous to let the Republicans and Democrats keep control of our nation. Our country now routinely (exclusively?) fights wars against regimes we had previously installed; we produce and sell more weapons than any country in history.

The greens think this is stupid and dangerous. The greens completely reevaluate what is in our nation's best interest, and in the light of global warming, the presidential election atrocity, the 911 tragedy, and Enron/ Worldcom, green issues have dominated the news.

In contrast to the Greens, the Republicans and Democrats have created a climate of fear, corruption, and death on a truely biblical scale: we are the greatest empire in history.

The greens are the antidote for political corruption and citizen apathy, and we can prove it. We propose that the law should be changed so that corporations cannot give money to political parties or candidates, and we run our local and campaigns without any corporate contributions. We do the right thing now, even before the law requires it. And, parenthetically, the Green party's exclusion of corporate money predates the current Enron / Worldcom stock market crisis and is in fact a core principle among greens and especially our 2000 presidential candidate Ralph Nader. We are showing Americans why they should believe in the political system again.

(D-Wisconsin) Senator Russ Feingold has admitted that the American political system "has become a system of legalized bribery and legalized extortion." Many greens agree, and think it is obvious that only an empowered electorate can overthrow this corruption, this tyranny of the Republican-Democratic party. Join the Greens and begin to live the future you seek.

Do you have an opinion (or two) you'd like to share with the Baltimore County Greens? Email us your thoughts. Indicate in your message if you would like your opinion posted on our website.

Listen to Dave's rant

Do you rant green?

We can record your rant and put it here. Email Dave for details.

i n t h e n e w s

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
October 24, 2007.

Obfuscating torture is no real defense Neither President Bush nor his nominee to be U.S. attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, nor anyone else in the Bush administration is willing to publicly answer the simple question: Is waterboarding (an interrogation method that simulates drowning) a form of torture? The excuses they have given for their reticence are themselves tortuous: Mr. Bush has argued that terrorists would get an advantage if he answered the question, and Mr. Mukasey cited his concern that to answer would put interrogators' "careers or freedom at risk" ("Mukasey hearing turns testy," Oct. 19). In truth, terrorists know that the U.S. "outsources" (through the program known as "extraordinary rendition") harsh detainee interrogation to countries where waterboarding is employed. Thus terrorists determined to steel themselves against this widely documented technique are not waiting for a definitive answer from Mr. Bush. As for Mr. Mukasey's alleged concern for protecting the interrogators - well, in fact, nothing could put them more at risk than not knowing whether the methods they employ are legal under international conventions. In a just world, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, other members of the Bush administration and some Republican and Democratic members of Congress would find themselves facing war crime charges at The Hague, where they would have to publicly and explicitly defend their torture and pre-emptive war policies. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is coordinator of the Baltimore County Green Party.

Obfuscating torture is no real defense Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
August 28, 2007.

The wrong lessons from Vietnam War It is understandable (but not excusable) that President Bush, having spent his Vietnam War-era military service stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, now thinks that the primary lesson from the Vietnam War is that U.S. soldiers have to keep killing and dying for a lost cause to prevent more killing and dying after they leave ("White House tries to reframe the war debate," Aug. 23). In fact, the key lesson from the war in Vietnam (and the war in Iraq) is that U.S. presidents should never start wars based on lies, especially against countries that aren't threatening us. Until the next American president acknowledges this truth, and the perpetrators of the Iraqi fiasco are tried and imprisoned, it is unrealistic to expect that any ally will help any U.S. administration extricate our country from this costly debacle or enthusiastically cooperate in our efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism against Americans. Furthermore, until Americans stop voting for candidates and parties that believe war is a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to be a favorite target of terrorists and that our middle-class standard of living (and levels of health, education and welfare) will continue to slip further behind the standards set by the post-imperial Western societies. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is Baltimore County Green Party coordinator

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
August 28, 2007.

Warner's proposal would continue war Far from calling for a meaningful troop pullout, Sen. John W. Warner actually laid down a blueprint for the indefinite continuation of the Iraq debacle ("Senator advises start of pullout," Aug. 24). First, rather than call for a meaningful troop withdrawal, Mr. Warner called for a symbolic drawdown of as few as 5,000 troops by Christmas. This is an obvious public relations ploy designed not to begin winding down this disaster but to pacify the American public with an emotional Christmas-time return of a token number of troops. Mr. Warner also jumps on the "it's al-Maliki's fault" bandwagon. By scapegoating Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the disaster in Iraq, which is clearly President Bush's responsibility, Mr. Warner joins the chorus of those who may give Mr. Bush an opportunity to indefinitely continue this madness - by dumping Mr. al-Maliki and then arguing that we must give his replacement a reasonable opportunity to fix things. Why can't the mainstream media see through this nonsense? Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 30, 2007.

Funding war keeps troops in quagmire This is to praise Rep. John Sarbanes for his courage in rejecting the Iraq war supplemental funding bill and to condemn Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin for their cowardice in supporting it ("Candidates spar over war funding," May 26). We have the raw military power to stay in Iraq indefinitely. But we have absolutely no ability to "prevail" there, whatever that may mean, in the chaotic environment our invasion has created. It is the presence of U.S. forces that fuels the insurgency in Iraq, and it is only by removing American troops that that fuel can be removed. There is no denying that Iraq will remain a horrifically bloody mess for years to come; that is President Bush's legacy as a result of initiating this venture in imperial hegemony. But the painful process of resolving the Iraqi civil war cannot begin until the U.S. leaves. The argument that Congress must continue to fund the occupation to "support the troops" is a prescription for indefinite entrapment in this quagmire. Far from supporting the troops, funding the occupation guarantees that American men and women will continue to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed and suffer lifelong emotional trauma. Congress must have the simple guts to support the troops by cutting off the funds. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 21, 2007.

Don't attack crime with martial law So City Council Vice President Robert W. Curran thinks instituting martial law in crime-plagued areas is going to solve the crime problem ("'Desperate' plan to slow crime," May 17). If this is the best our City Council can do, we are in worse trouble that we realize. The Bush administration has been chipping away at our civil liberties for years, and now this dangerous non-solution has come to our fair city. If Mr. Curran and the City Council want to solve the crime problem, they need to address the root causes: the massive loss of well-paying jobs, the lack of affordable housing, the abysmal public education system, the drug trade and rising utility costs. It is past time for the City Council to wake up to the real problems facing this city. Maria Allwine Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
April 19, 2007.

President's presence points to his absence It is altogether fitting and proper that President Bush appear at Virginia Tech to express the nation's grief and shock at the senseless murders of 32 innocent people, whose lives were taken and who had the promise of their youthful talent tragically cut short ("Tears, Hokie spirit fill memorial service," April 18). However, the president's presence at Virginia Tech stands in contrast to his absence at any of the funerals or memorial services for the 3,200 innocent U.S. troops whose lives were ended and the promise of their youthful talent tragically cut short by this president's senseless and unjustified invasion of Iraq. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
March 10, 2007.

Ritzy development leaves poor behind Sunday's article on Harbor East made me sick ("Harbor East Boomtown," March 4). Harbor East is a miracle only to those spoiled enough to have the unlimited wealth to buy what it offers. For the rest of us, Harbor East glaringly represents Baltimore's skewed priorities - its focus on attracting business while ignoring the plight of its other neighborhoods and the people who live in them. What ails Baltimore is the belief, embodied by the O'Malley and Schmoke administrations, that development solves all ills. Development makes Baltimore look healthy. But all it really does is play a shell game with the underlying problems as we develop one neighborhood and then another while moving the displaced residents and their poverty further from sight. Rather than luring businesses with obscene tax breaks, the mayor, the City Council and city business leaders should commit to finding solutions to the real problems facing this city: poverty, a lousy school system, a nonfunctional public transportation system and the fact that many city residents lack health insurance and face drug addiction. Creating living-wage jobs, fostering changes to the structure of the city's public education system, forcing companies doing business here to pay their fair share of taxes, among many other solutions, would truly make Baltimore a livable city for all who live here - not selling $500 handbags to those who don't care how most people in this city live. Maria Allwine Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
February 6, 2007.

Resolution impedes cutoff of war funds The Senate should reject the Levin-Warner nonbinding resolution on Iraq ("Symbolic measure spurs war debate," Feb. 5). America's imperial invasion of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. With tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,000 Americans needlessly slaughtered, and countless more physically and psychologically maimed for life, it is time to end President Bush's criminal venture to dominate the Middle East for the benefit of his corporate friends. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate confirms, there is simply no legitimate justification to continue this war one day longer; the United States is incapable of achieving any outcome that could charitably be described as successful ("Intelligence analysis of prospects bleak," Feb. 3). Yet the Levin-Warner resolution would prohibit "the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field." Ostensibly designed to foster the safety of American troops, this language is wholly uncalled for in a resolution that is designed to express the Senate's opposition to Mr. Bush's escalation of forces in Iraq and will only make the inevitable funding cutoff that much more difficult to accomplish. Only a cutoff of funding for Mr. Bush's mad enterprise can bring our brave young men and women safely home. The soldiers in the field are merely cannon fodder to Mr. Bush; as long as the Congress gives him the money, he will spend it to guarantee their continued slaughter and to provoke Iran into a confrontation in Iraq that will start a wider, even more disastrous war. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
November 13, 2006.

Hope triumphs over fear of attack This election brought a number of remarkable "firsts" ("Democrats win House, post gains in Senate," Nov. 8). The House of Representatives will be led by the first female speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi); the Senate will induct its first Socialist member (Vermont's Bernard Sanders); for the first time, the majority of Americans voted on electronic machines; and here in Maryland, a "third-party" candidate for a statewide race was able to participate in (most of) the debates (Green Party Senate candidate Kevin Zeese). But of all the "firsts," perhaps the best is that for the first time since the 9/11 attacks, a majority of the national electorate cast its votes out of hope and not fear. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is Baltimore County Green Party coordinator.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
October 24, 2006.

Voting software can be stolen again Maryland voters should carefully note Diebold Election System's unconvincing response to revelations that its source code for touch-screen voting has been stolen ("Diebold declares machines secure," Oct. 21). Diebold assures us that there is nothing to worry about, because the apparently purloined software is not the current version of the program. But this is consistent with Diebold's standard response to any criticism of the program's inherent vulnerabilities. Perhaps Diebold would have more credibility if it made its current version of the program available to critics. But the company has not done so. Instead, it hides behind the fact that the program is proprietary and refuses to make it available for outside testing. Besides, Diebold's "nothing to worry about, folks" argument misses the point. Whether or not this particular disk contains the current program, the point is that if the program can be stolen once, it can be stolen again. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
October 17, 2006.

Policy train wreck alienates even allies Observing President Bush's foreign policy is like watching an imminent train wreck: You can see looming disaster from a mile away but there is not a thing you can do about it. Critical observers knew the reasons given to justify the war in Iraq were bogus and that the invasion would be a catastrophe for the United States and the Iraqi people. Similarly, critical observers knew Mr. Bush's doctrine of military "pre-emption" coupled with his short list of countries ripe for "regime change" would accelerate the push by Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. As predicted, we have North Korea announcing "publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons" ("Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing 'rough go,'" Oct. 10). How is it that in the span of six years, the U.S. has gone from being the "indispensable nation" to being a country that is reviled by some allies and disregarded by its enemies? The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depth with regard to foreign policy. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The Writer is the Baltimore County Green Party Coordinator

ComCast TV
Interview with Dave Goldsmith
September 24, 2006.

Maryland Gazette
Few in number, third-party supporters rally troops
September 29, 2006.

BALTIMORE � The gubernatorial race is typically referred to as a two-man contest. The same is said of the U.S. Senate campaign. But the general election ballot will include four choices for governor and three for Senate, rounded out by third-party candidates who acknowledge they play the part of David trying to topple Goliath. About 150 of their supporters rallied at the University of Baltimore on Tuesday for a ��Unity Convention� to promote issues, hone their message and, perhaps most importantly, raise money for cash-strapped campaigns. John Low, treasurer for U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese, was aiming to raise $30,000 by the end of this week. ��That�s a drop in the bucket for a Senate campaign, but it�s a lot of money for us,� Low said as he appealed to each attendee to contribute $100. Zeese, who is not accepting PAC donations, reported having $16,000 in the bank in June. His opponents, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) and U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D) reported $3.1 million and $1.6 million, respectively, as of Aug. 23. But Zeese, who is running under the Green, Populist and Libertarian party banners, is undaunted. ��This is not a money campaign. This is an ideas campaign,� he said. Zeese, a veteran activist from Takoma Park, will get a chance to articulate those ideas, joining Steele and Cardin on Tuesday at the Greater Baltimore Urban League for what he hopes will be the first of many debates. ��I think you�ll see a big change in the level of support in the polls once I start getting in these debates,� he said. ��... Voters want change and I�m the only non-status quo candidate.� Supporters are energized that Zeese is being included in the race. ��We have 100 kinds of toothpaste to choose from when we go to the grocery store,� said Patsy Allen, co-chairwoman of the Maryland Green Party. ��We should have more than two Senate candidates to choose from.� Like many third-party candidates in 2006, Zeese opposes the war in Iraq, calling for immediate troop withdrawal. He also says America should re-evaluate its support of Israel, supports universal health care and has proposed a ��microtax� on the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. ��I want to change the direction of the country and neither of the two parties are willing to make fundamental changes,� he said. Although their numbers pale in comparison to the major political parties, independents represent the fastest-growing group of voters in the state and can determine the outcome of tight races. That�s why mainstream lawmakers recognize their importance. Independents ��act as a barometer of how the organized parties are doing,� said Del. Jean B. Cryor (R-Dist. 15) of Potomac. ��I think when you see the number of independents grow, there�s a simple conclusion that there is a dissatisfaction with the Republicans and the Democrats. What they�re saying is I want to play, but I don�t want to play by your rules.� Even so, the financial deficit still looms large. ��Money is the mother�s milk of politics, and independent candidates rarely have enough to get their message out,� Cryor said. More people believe that the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt and controlled by special interests and big business, said Christopher A. Driscoll, the Populist Party�s gubernatorial nominee. ��We need to put the people back in charge,� he said. ��... We want to terminate the two-party duopoly that has trashed our democracy.� The Green Party�s gubernatorial nominee, Ed Boyd, did not attend the rally. Much of the evening centered on Zeese. Supporters donned ��Zeese or Resist� T-shirts and ��Zeese for Peace� signs were scattered throughout the auditorium. Former presidential contender Ralph Nader fired up the crowd, urging them to change the system rather than just talk about issues. ��I�m tired of diagnosing,� he said. ��We�ve got to get over this idea of only talking small talk.� But limited name recognition, little money and few other campaign resources often means third-party candidates are not on voters� radar screen, said Paul Herrnson, a University of Maryland political science professor. They can serve as a ��pressure valve� on the major parties to push a certain issue. Could lightning strike for third-party candidates in Maryland? ��Maryland is typical of virtually every state in the county in that it is inhospitable to minor parties,� Herrnson said. ��I wouldn�t bet the farm on a Kevin Zeese victory."

Baltimore Examiner
1960s Revival
September 29, 2006.

The Kevin Zeese � rhymes with peace � �unity convention� Tuesday night was like a 1960s teach-in, replete with poets, long-haired peaceniks, chanting street protesters � all two of them � and Ralph Nader, the corporate scold who made his name in the 60s but wears his 72 years pretty well. �We have 100 kinds of toothpaste in the grocery store. We should have more than two choices when we go to vote,� said Patsy Allen, co-chair of the Green Party. How about some really green toothpaste, hold the extra whitener. Len Lazarick is the state house bureau chief of The Examiner, he can be reached at llazerick@baltimoreexaminer.com

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
September 23, 2006.

Agreement allows torture to continue The agreement between the White House and Republican Sens. John McCain, John W. Warner and Lindsey Graham would, if enacted, violate clear international law on the humane treatment of prisoners while holding out the fiction that detainees will be tried ("President backs off detainee treatment," Sept. 22). By immunizing CIA interrogators against criminal prosecution for the use of torture techniques such as simulated drowning, the agreement, in effect, guarantees that such techniques will be used. In theory, under the agreement, a detainee could raise the issue of torture to suppress the use of a coerced confession during a trial by military commission. But here's the dirty little secret hidden in the pending bill: Under this arrangement, it is unlikely there will ever be such trials. In focusing on the issues of interrogation and secret evidence, the news media have ignored an even more odious feature of the bill: It prohibits the federal courts from hearing habeas corpus actions from terrorist suspect detainees. As a result, the administration could hold detainees without trial, indefinitely. If this bill passes, this or any subsequent administration will be able to seize individuals, including citizens, torture them and hold them indefinitely without trial, all on the unsubstantiated allegation that they are terrorists. And make no mistake about it: This can happen to Arabs and Muslims, and there is nothing to stop it from being used on any American whom the government chooses to label a "terrorist." Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
September 17, 2006.

Act to safeguard integrity of vote To almost no one's surprise, Tuesday's election was a fiasco. It is just fortunate that it was a primary rather than the general election ("Election woes elicit calls for firings," Sept. 14). For years, warnings from many organizations about the integrity of the ballot have been ignored. The legislature dithered, failing to pass legislation requiring adequate security, quality assurance and a clear, auditable trail for the electronic voting machines. The only good that might come of this debacle is if the problems finally get the attention they deserve. If the integrity of the voting process is suspect, nothing else really matters. Until the state takes adequate measures to ensure the integrity of these machines, I'm voting by absentee ballot. I want my vote to count. Craig Herud Aberdeen

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
September 5, 2006.

Restricting debates demeans democracy I'm greatly dismayed by the decision by Maryland Public Television (MPT) and the League of Women Voters to allow only the top two candidates to participate in Thursday's Senate debate ("Talking about differences," Sept. 1). Democracy is supposed to be about giving all voices the opportunity to take part in the public discourse. With 18 candidates on the ballot, voters have the right to hear from every candidate, especially in a public forum. Not allowing them to present their case is simply undemocratic. MPT and the League of Women Voters should not be choosing candidates for us - that is up to the voters. Voters have the right to know they have more than just two choices. Daniel Waldman Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
August 21, 2006.

Public won't support backers of Iraq war Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman's quip that Ned Lamont's victory over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is proof of the Democratic Party's strategy of "retreat and defeat" says more about the desperation of the Republicans than about the results of the Connecticut primary ("Democrats find direction in Conn. vote," Aug. 10). The bottom line about the Lamont-Lieberman race was that one centrist millionaire was narrowly chosen over another. But what really worries the Republicans is that more than 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. By standing still while the rest of the country moved away from President Bush's hopeless "stay the course in Iraq" policy, nearly all Republican and Republican-lite candidates (like Mr. Lieberman) now find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and the wrong side of history. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
June 18, 2006.

Sneaking into Iraq a sign of weakness On Jan. 9, 1966, the United States mounted a huge infantry assault on North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam; 8,000 American infantry participated. Our putative ally, the South Vietnamese government, was not informed in advance of this major offensive on its soil, for fear that the plan would be leaked to the enemy. Flash forward 40 years, and we have the spectacle of President Bush sneaking into Baghdad without even informing the so-called prime minister of the "sovereign" state of Iraq in advance ("A surprise visit to Iraq," June 14). According to The Sun, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was told only five minutes before they met that Mr. Bush was in the country. In spite of Mr. Bush's pro-forma claim that his not informing Mr. al-Maliki in advance of his arrival does not mean a lack of trust, the failure to do so speaks volumes: We cannot trust the so-called Iraqi government for the same reason we couldn't trust the government of South Vietnam - because puppet regimes in general are thoroughly infiltrated by the enemy. Do I hear helicopters whirring above the U.S. Embassy? It's only a matter of time. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 9, 2006.

Crab-eating contest is shameful gluttony The Sun ran several articles that mentioned the Phillips Crab Cake Eating Contest at the Inner Harbor ("Smooth sailing at harbor festival," April 30). And Kevin Cowherd wondered if it was a display of "eating prowess" or "sheer gluttony" ("It's no gag when the Black Widow sits down to eat," May 1). I wondered how our society could cheer for 14 contestants "eating" enough food to feed hundreds of hungry people for a day. Shame on Phillips, and on other sponsors of eating contests, for the waste. Allison Fletcher Baldwin

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 7, 2006.

War won't control the nuclear genie The fear expressed by the writer of the letter urging the United States to attack Iran before that country develops nuclear weapons is obviously sincere and deeply felt ("Waiting to attack Iran adds to danger," April 29). And indeed, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is truly frightening. But it is precisely the fear of a rival nation developing nuclear weapons that has allowed these monstrously evil devices to flourish. From the beginning of the Atomic Age, fear has fed nuclear proliferation. The United States developed the atomic bomb out of fear that Adolf Hitler would develop it first, only to use it on Japan - an already utterly defeated nation - in order to send a message to Josef Stalin. Stalin responded to that message by developing the atom bomb in response. And so it has gone, right up to the present day. Israel developed the bomb out of fear of the Arab states. And Iran may now be developing the bomb out of fear of the United States and Israel. It may already be too late to stop this madness; the world may very well be on the precipice of a nuclear Armageddon. But if anything can save us, the history of the Atomic Age has shown that fear will not do so - fear can only push us all over the edge. And if there is a way to put the genie back in the bottle, attacking one "bad" regime after another will surely not do it. Only total nuclear disarmament by all nations - including the United States and Israel - holds out any prospect of saving the planet: by eliminating the weapons that are the source of the fear that leads nations to build them in the first place. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 4, 2006.

U.S. won't do much to aid world's poor G. Jefferson Price III's column "Aid can keep would-be immigrants at home" (Opinion � Commentary, May 2) is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. U.S. policy has always been to exploit Central American countries and to try to keep them from falling under the sway of communism or its close cousin, socialism. Our foreign aid is a paltry 0.15 percent of our GDP. And the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have seldom used their vast resources to benefit the poor people of underdeveloped countries. They have been but an arm of the United States, other developed countries and the multinational corporations in their efforts to extract the natural resources of Third World countries, burden them with debt, privatize their infrastructure and turn them into providers of cheap exports to the rich countries. We have never made an effort to help poor countries become self-sufficient with balanced economies. I don't mean to imply that all efforts to help are insincere, but far more help is given by American churches and other nonprofit groups than will ever be given by states and international financial organizations. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
March 17, 2006.

Confront the causes of immigration woes It is the churches' job to follow the Gospels, which call on us to be loving and compassionate, especially to the poor and needy. It is the government's job to provide security, protect our borders and regulate immigration. By seeking to pass legislation making it a felony to provide charity to illegal immigrants, a corrupt and incompetent government is attempting to shift the responsibility for refusing to solve the immigration mess to those providing humanitarian aid ("Church and state," editorial, March 7). One reason that we have failed to sort out this mess, obviously, is that reducing the supply of cheap, exploitable laborers would reduce the profits of powerful corporate campaign contributors - and never mind that failing to confront the issue depresses wages and costs our citizens jobs. An investigation into the impact of U.S. foreign and economic policies and the practices of multinational corporations on the causes of illegal immigration, particularly from Latin America, would be enlightening and might point the way to an equitable, long-term solution. Craig Herud Aberdeen

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
February 23, 2006.

Congress kowtows to the president Now that the president has been caught engaging in illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, Congress has leapt into action, proposing a number of laws, all of which would essentially authorize the president to continue to engage in the same conduct as before, this time with a congressional seal of approval ("Lawmakers are taking steps toward oversight of spying," Feb. 18). It's good to see that congressional Republicans take their oversight responsibilities seriously. At first, I thought impeachment was the remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors." But then I remembered - impeachment only applies to consensual sexual acts between adults. Silly me. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
February 9, 2006.

Changing lifestyles to conserve water The Sun's article "Running dry?" (Feb. 5) is an excellent summary of how growth is straining one of our most essential resources. There is a water cycle that is appropriate for each ecosystem. Beyond thinking about the issue of what a sustainable level of population is, we have to think about the issue of our lifestyle. So far, we have faced few restrictions on our profligate behaviors. But in many parts of the West where annual rainfall is small, many communities have mandated low-flow toilets and cisterns to collect rainwater from roofs so it can be recycled. In some cases, all household water is treated and becomes recycled gray water for gardens or lawns. We have too many impervious surfaces in Maryland, and too much of our rain finds its way to the sea rather than into our groundwater. Better technologies can help, but Smart Growth can also help by increasing density and leaving more land open so nature can do her thing. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
February 2, 2006.

Red flags raised long before war In his State of the Union speech, President Bush said, "There is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Second-guessing is not a strategy" ("President focuses on health, energy," Feb. 1). But no second-guessing was involved when critics argued before the war that Saddam Hussein didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or operational ties to al-Qaida, or that the U.S. invasion force would not be treated as liberators in Iraq and that worldwide terrorism would increase if the U.S. invaded that prostrate Muslim nation. And it is not defeatism to argue now that there is not and cannot be a "war on terrorism" any more than there was a "war on kamikazes" during World War II. Suicide bombing and kamikaze attacks are tactics, not enemies. Using violence in the name of political gain is, sadly, as old as history itself. It will never end until the great powers eschew the tactic of waging war (which amounts to state-sponsored "terrorism") as an instrument of foreign policy. Dave Goldsmith Baltimore The writer is the coordinator of the Baltimore County Green Party.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
January 23, 2006.

Universal coverage only real solution There is a huge flaw in the reasoning of the authors of "Health care solution" (Opinion Commentary, Jan. 18). The authors argue, correctly, that a mandated health insurance law such as the Wal-Mart legislation will enable large employers to negotiate better price deals with HMOs and other insurers. But they ignore the likely consequences of those reduced premiums - higher deductibles and co-payments on insurance and reduced benefits to the consumer. HMOs and insurance companies are profit-making enterprises whose primary obligation is to their shareholders. If they cannot raise premiums, they will reduce their costs by shifting them to the consumer. I fully agree that Wal-Mart has been getting an unjustified free ride on the backs of the Maryland taxpayers and of its competitors by keeping its costs down by underinsuring its workers. But in the long run, employer-provided health care will be a thing of the past. Sooner or later, the social costs of health care will need to be spread throughout the society through a universal, publicly funded single-payer system. This is too important an issue to leave to for-profit enterprise. Sheldon Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
December 29, 2005.

Privacy falls prey to abuse of power I don't know what's more appalling: the president authorizing unwarranted wiretaps or the telecommunications companies unquestioningly going along with the National Security Agency's demand for access ("NSA mines data on a wide scale," Dec. 24). Americans should be very wary about how our government wields power, as well as about those who bend to power's will so easily. We are quickly moving away from a society of laws toward one in which we are prisoners without privacy in our own country. If the president's spying on American citizens isn't grounds for impeachment, we are all surely doomed. Daniel Waldman Pikesville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
December 24, 2005.

Abolish the districts parties manipulate As the Supreme Court prepares to step into the "political minefield" of congressional redistricting ("Political maneuvers," editorial, Dec. 15), virtually no media attention has focused on the easiest, cheapest and most permanent solution to the problem - abolishing congressional districts entirely. While the Constitution requires that the number of representatives from each state be based on population, there is no requirement that the states be broken into smaller units from which those representatives are elected. It is the existence of those unnecessary districts that allows the two major political parties to shamelessly manipulate congressional district maps to their advantage. As a result, it is the political parties, not the public, that essentially determine who serves in Congress. If congressional districts were to be abolished, the two-party monopoly on who serves in the House of Representatives would be eliminated. In addition, if proportional representation were coupled with the abolition of congressional districts, political minorities would have a better chance of attaining some congressional representation. Political power should rest with the people, not the major political parties. Abolishing congressional districts would help restore that power to the public. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore The writer is a member of the Baltimore County Green Party.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
October 11, 2005.

Miers won't defend the public interest Newt Gingrich's column "Conservatives can trust in Miers" (Opinion Commentary, Oct. 7) has made the perfect argument for why Harriet Miers should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, although he intended to do the opposite. He has documented well that she is a reliable, predictable, known quantity who will vote in favor of corporate interests, which has been her record over an entire career. The Senate just confirmed a chief justice who will be a reliable corporate ally. Who will be for the people on this remade court? Employers are well-heeled and well-represented at all levels of government. And partisan ideology at this level is unacceptable. The Constitution might have to be amended to take this appointment privilege away from a presidency that the Congress and the courts have allowed to become too powerful. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
August 16, 2005.

No foothold for labor in world of free trade In "Reviving organized labor" (Opinion Commentary, Aug. 8), Peter Morici suggests that the labor movement can heal itself. I don't think it can - at least not without a lot of outside help, and I don't know where that would come from. The fundamentals of the global economy have changed in the past 30 years and individuals have little power to control the great forces that "free trade" has unleashed. American workers see themselves as primarily consumers and only secondarily as citizens. Consumer power is not well organized and democracy is being downsized in every sector of society - politics, work, world trade agreements and even in unions. Only in parts of "Old Europe" have unions stood fast against the global onslaught of cheap labor, but this has resulted in chronically high unemployment rates. The average person no longer feels in control of his or her destiny and has surrendered to the corporation, the nation-state and the shabby forms of institutional redress still available. Destiny is shaped by invisible forces and worldwide industrial over-capacity, which will probably soon result in deflation and depression. With less than 8 percent of the private work force organized in America, with labor laws skewed in favor of employers and with the successful demonizing of unions by corporate propaganda, there is little hope unless labor can conjure a paradigm shift under which the greater public would conclude that workers' rights are, indeed, human rights, and can only be preserved through organized opposition to the existing power arrangements. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
August 14, 2005.

Brutality alone doesn't win wars Gregory Kane's thesis that "brutal tactics make the enemy quit" is counterfactual ("Hey, Mr. President: War is all about the brutality," Aug. 6). Does he believe, for instance, that the United States was more brutal than the Nazis during World War II? And if brutality really decides the outcome of wars, how does Mr. Kane explain the U.S. defeat in Vietnam even after we killed millions of soldiers and civilians? More perplexing is Mr. Kane's advice that President Bush be more brutal in Iraq to win the war, while simultaneously reminding Mr. Bush that the French experience in Algeria demonstrates the "futility of occupying Iraq." I suspect it is muddle-headed thinking like this on the part of the Bush administration that got us into the Iraq debacle. What we need now is creativity and compassion in order to get us out of Iraq. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
July 23, 2005.

If market is so hot, why subsidize hotel? Let's see if I have this straight. The Harbor Court Hotel is for sale in a hot market for hotels, which have appreciated in value 20 percent to 25 percent in the past year, and the seller is expected to get top dollar for this 20-year-old hotel ("Baltimore's only 5-star hotel is for sale," July 21). But there is apparently so little private interest in building a new downtown hotel to serve the convention center that the city has no choice but to use public bonds to support this vital public need. What am I missing here? Sheldon Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 23, 2005.

Hypocrisy on use of political violence Regarding the violence in Uzbekistan, The Sun reported that the Bush administration "faces a quandary in responding ... because of its ties to the Karimov government and its air base in the country" ("11 killed in Uzbek border-town clash," May 16). White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence" ("Protesters revolt in Uzbekistan," May 14). Iraqis also wanted a more representative and less brutal government when the Bush administration invaded their homeland, ostensibly to bring them democracy. Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov is a brutal dictator and an ally of Mr. Bush in the so-called war on terrorism, just as Saddam Hussein was once a brutal dictator and ally of the United States in its proxy war against Iran. In other words, by overthrowing one "strongman" while supporting another, the Bush administration is employing the same kind of "situational ethics" conservatives love to chide liberals for. And for all its lofty talk about no longer tolerating "democracy deficits" in our foreign policy, Uzbekistan seems to prove the Bush administration is as short-sighted and hypocritical as earlier U.S. administrations. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
March 26, 2005.

The display of the Ten Commandments in a public setting conveys the message that only one form of spirituality - one derived exclusively from Judeo-Christian religious teachings - is valid, and marginalizes all other people who seek spiritual meaning in other, equally valid ways. Surely, people of all religious faiths, and others who are deeply spiritual but entirely secular in their philosophy, can join in making their lives public monuments to peace, to universal brotherhood and to the sacredness of the planet and the cosmos. Such living monuments will bring us together rather than divide us over public displays that emphasize deeply personal and sometimes conflicting matters of faith. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore The writer is a member of the Baltimore County Green Party.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
March 8, 2005.

Build monuments to humanist values In The Sun's article "Justices attempt to establish 'that line'" (March 3), Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is quoted as suggesting, "If an atheist walks by [a religious monument], he can avert his eyes and think about something else." This may be a sensible solution to a thorny problem. And because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I think the same approach should be extended to include displays honoring atheism. Approximately 10 percent of Americans are nonreligious or are atheists. To be fair to these citizens, how about requiring that 10 percent of any taxpayer monies spent building monuments extolling a belief in God be spent to produce and display signage that honors nonreligious and antireligious philosophies? I would recommend that framed posters of the Earth as seen from outer space, along with the lyrics of John Lennon's song "Imagine," be placed in every public school classroom in the country so our children will have the daily benefit of being reminded of a powerful, uplifting humanist point of view. And when someone who opposes atheism walks into a classroom and sees the poster, he or she can avert his or her eyes and think about something else. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is the Baltimore County Green Party coordinator.

The Towerlight
Congressman hosts Iraq town hall
March 5, 2005.

by Kristi Funderburk, Photos by Lisa Johnson February 21, 2005 Congressman Ben Cardin (D-Md.) responded to heated opinions about the Iraq war at a town hall forum in the Susquehanna Terrace Wednesday night. Among the standing-room-only audience, senior citizens outnumbered students at the forum, which was titled "The United States' Future in Iraq." Cardin came to the campus to discuss his opinions of the Bush administration and its actions in Iraq. "I want to hear your concerns and try to respond," he said. "I want to give as much information as I possibly can." Cardin offered a presentation to illustrate the current circumstances and issues in Iraq, complete with costs, statistics, and numbers of casualties. He also shared his opinion of President Bush's administration, before opening up discussion to the audience. "I have disagreed with this administration," Cardin said. His comment was followed by applause. Cardin went on to say his disagreements were specifically with the administration's approach of engaging the national community and with diplomacy. He also said he was against the president's idea of sending troops to Iraq. His reasons for being against Iraq included lack of proper equipment, inefficient training, and lack of an efficient exit strategy. "We need to know what [President Bush] needs. I need a strategy to win. I want to win; I would like to see a democratic country in Iraq," Cardin said. "[The war] hurt us badly. It hurt the people in Iraq and even the taxpayer. I think it's important to acknowledge our mistakes." At one point Cardin asked, "Will we win in Iraq?" The room erupted with answers of "No" and "get out now!" Cardin then gave the audience a chance to offer their opinions. Audience members queued around several tables waiting for their turn to speak. "How many more Americans have to die?," one speaker asked. Another said, "It makes me ashamed to be an American." Some audience members were too anxious to wait for their turn. Several people clapped and shouted when one person called out, "War is terrorism." Cardin told the audience that Congress was wrong and did not give "a substantial debate" to Operation Iraqi Freedom in the beginning. "We should insist [Bush] tell us what his game plan is," Cardin said. Richard Ochs, a member of the Pledge of Resistance--Baltimore, spent his time at the microphone explaining how the war is not even legal, with or without a game plan. "War is based on laws," Ochs said. "The U.N. says war is illegal." United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the BBC in September that the United States-led war in Iraq was illegal because the decision violated the United Nations charter. The planning and preparation was to be completed through the Security Council; instead it was done unilaterally. Maxwell Obuszewski, another member of the Pledge of Resistance, told Cardin he cannot forget the war is illegal because he was arrested for protesting it. Daniel Fleisher (right) of the Pledge of Resistance, Brandy Baker (center) of the Charm City Greens and Myles Hoenig (left) of the Charm City Greens protest the Iraq war outside the Susquehanna before the town hall. "This war is based on lies; I can't forget that," he said. "It's a slaughterhouse over there. Somebody has to stop this." Some audience members chose to make their statements enduring. Instead of standing in line, they wore shirts or held flyers with their own messages. One flyer several people were holding said, "Money for schools, not for war! Troops out now!" On the other hand, one sweatshirt read, "George W. Bush, War Criminal." Activist Bernadette Riordan made a statement both with her clothes and with her words. "I want the troops home and I want them home now. I want Congress to stand up for us," she said. "[Bush] and Laura danced on their Inauguration night while our troops are dying." Her shirt showed a picture of her daughter in a wheelchair. Her concerns are with budget cuts being made because funds are being taken away from her daughter's medicinal requirements. Patsy Allen, who ran for Senate against Cardin with the Green Party, wants Congress to take more of a position with the war. "I really want to know why you're waiting for Bush's exit plan," she said. "What we have done in that country is criminal and you know it." Cardin wanted to emphasize the cost of defending freedom. "We will defend our liberty with whatever it takes in this country," he said. "We have accomplished great things and we did not shoot guns to do that." Most of the students in attendance chose to stand by and listen to the comments being made, while some stepped in line with other audience members. College Republicans president Brendan McElroy, a junior philosophy major, was one of the few students to initially speak. He offered reasons for the troops to stay in Iraq. "Cardin recognizes that now that we're there, we should stay there," McElroy said after the forum. "We should do the best we can to support them." Cardin said he honored the troops, adding that they are serving in Iraq "with tremendous courage and professionalism." Adetoun Olumide, a junior mass communication and political science major, thought Cardin's presentation was enlightening. However, she found it difficult to sift through the propaganda. "I don't know how it will turn out," Olumide said. "It's really important to know the right information.

Baltimore Chronicle
"The Israeli/Palestinian Cease Fire" by Sheldon Laskin
March 4, 2005.

The Israeli/Palestinian cease-fire is cause for celebration. During the Second Intifada, Israelis and Palestinians have suffered and died because of the failure of their leaders to address the underlying causes of the violence. For the first time in four years, innocent Israelis may reasonably expect to board a bus, dine in a restaurant or attend a wedding without fear of death or maiming in a vicious terrorist assault. And for the first time in four years, innocent Palestinians may reasonably expect to go about their daily affairs without fear of death or maiming because of a misdirected Israeli response to terrorism. Any reduction in innocent death and suffering is a cause for joy. But if the cease-fire is to ripen into a true and lasting peace, both sides need to recognize the urgent need to speedily resolve the conflict based on mutual recognition of the rights of both peoples to live in peace and security within two independent, viable sovereign states. On the Israeli side, there must be recognition that the Occupation, while not the sole cause of the conflict, is the principal obstacle to its resolution. This means giving up any illusions that Israel can retain most settlements on the West Bank in return for the creation of a Bantustan-like state consisting of isolated pockets of Palestinian control, encircled and permeated by Jewish settlements under IDF protection. If Prime Minister Sharon believes that the unilateral evacuation of Gaza, coupled with dismantling a few unauthorized West Bank settlements, is the price to pay for retaining most of the West Bank, the cease-fire will quickly fall apart. Any Palestinian government will be deligitimized in the eyes of its people if it is unable to negotiate an end to Israeli occupation and the creation of a viable state. It is also clear that Palestinian terrorism over the past four years served to silence the Israeli peace movement, and enabled Sharon to violate the human rights of the Palestinian people with impunity. Palestinian terrorism enabled the Sharon government to construct the illegal Security Wall deep in the West Bank with no significant opposition, either domestically or from the United States government. Both sides must move quickly to finally resolve the conflict based on a two-state solution. To prolong the ultimate resolution in a chimerical search for security before there can be peace guarantees that there will be neither security nor peace. The Geneva Accords negotiated between Israeli and Palestinian representatives is a basis for a final resolution of the conflict on mutually agreeable terms. Israel and the Palestinians have a limited window of time to make such a resolution a reality.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
January 29, 2005.

Is U.S. doing enough to aid those in need? The latest projection for the U.S. gross domestic product is almost $12 trillion. The government currently plans to spend $350 million on relief efforts for the Asian and African nations devastated by the tsunami disaster. Even allowing for anticipated additional American financial assistance for reconstruction, this is less than the proverbial drop in the bucket in relation to the wealth of this nation. At the same time that the Bush administration proposes to spend such a miserly sum to rescue people, many of whom are Muslim, it is prepared to spend apparently unlimited billions of dollars to kill thousands of Muslims in a wholly unjustified war in Iraq. The administration's priorities are clear - death over life, destruction over creation. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
January 17, 2005.

Anti-war forces right about Iraqi weapons The Sun has reported that the Bush administration has finally acknowledged that its chief reason for war was false: There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ("U.S. ends hunt in Iraq for banned weapons," Jan. 13). Anti-war demonstrators around the planet knew the truth about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenals before the war. So now we are left with the disaster the protesters predicted before the war began. If the polls can be believed, we were unable to convince a majority of Americans beforehand that the war was being waged based on lies and that the results of the war were going to be disastrous for the United States, Iraq and the world. By the end of 2004, if the polls can be believed, most Americans finally realized we had been correct all along. I hope Americans will listen with growing respect to the voices of those of us who have spoken honestly about the war, and with increasing skepticism to an administration that has deceived us time and again. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is Baltimore County Green Party coordinator.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
December 28, 2004.

Liability isn't cause of high medical costs The Sun's article "Medical liability target of GOP push" (Dec. 25) highlights that this issue is mainly a partisan political argument, and part of the GOP's long agenda related to deregulation, privatization, tort reform and free markets. But high malpractice insurance premiums are not a reason for the high cost of health care; rather, they reflect the high cost of health-care technologies of the 21st century, and are a function of it. High health-care costs are one of the reasons the medical consumer expects a satisfactory result -- and when that doesn't happen, we expect that someone must pay and pay big: the doctor, the hospital or the insurer. But let's look at what underlies inflation and the escalation of health-care costs and not blame the crash on the speedometer. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
December 11, 2004.

The Sun and reporter Erika Niedowski are to be commended for the exquisitely moving series on the Yamada family's return to the Japanese-American internment camp in which family members were imprisoned following Pearl Harbor. At a time when the president of the United States arrogates to himself the authority to indefinitely incarcerate American citizens he deems "enemy combatants" without benefit of counsel or the right to have the government prove its allegations in court, it is so important that Americans be reminded of this shameful period in recent American history. Then, as now, the government sought to justify its actions, both to the public and in the Supreme Court, by invoking "national security." Decades would pass before the government was forced to reveal, following a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, that J. Edgar Hoover determined at the time that there was no evidence Japanese-Americans on the West Coast or in Hawaii posed any security threat. Flash forward 60 years, and we see the Bush administration holding American citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi virtually incommunicado for almost three years as an enemy combatant, only to release him when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing. The Japanese-American exclusion cases should have taught Americans that neither national security nor traditional American values of the presumption of innocence and due process of law justify homeland security measures based on official appeals to mass hysteria and racial and ethnic stereotyping. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Jewish Times
Letter to the Editor
November 27, 2004.

The murder of Margaret Hassan was a despicable, unforgivable act of moral depravity for which her murderers deserve the condemnation of the entire world. But the Baltimore Jewish times' Nov. 19 editorial, "Unacceptable," distorts the meaning of Ms. Hassan's dedication to peace and social justice by omitting one crucial fact: Ms. Hassan was unalterably opposed to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that led to the country's becoming a magnet for terrorists. The Jewish Times also fails to note that Ms. Hassan lived peacefully in Iraq for 30 years, at no risk from terrorists. Whatever else can be said of Saddam Hussein's misrule, Iraq was not a base for Islamic terrorism until George W. Bush's irresponsibly criminal invasion of Iraq made it so. As such, President Bush shares in the moral responsibility of Ms. Hassan's death, as he does the deaths of every Iraqi and American who has or will die because of his imperial delusions. As the Jewish Times asks, where is the outrage? Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
November 2, 2004.

The final leg has been knocked out from underneath President Bush's Iraq war with the release of a study that found that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion ("Survey: Iraqi deaths higher," Oct. 29) In other words, all the excuses Mr. Bush has given for the war (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, an Iraqi and al-Qaida connection and relief for the long-suffering Iraqis) have proved to be false. I don't know who to feel more sorry for: the Iraqi people who Mr. Bush has put in harm's way or the American people who will surely suffer horrible "blowback" from Mr. Bush's illegal and immoral Iraqi war. Now more than ever, regime change begins at home. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
October 22, 2004.

In his defense of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the writer of the letter "Attack on tax cuts just doesn't add up" (Oct. 16) suggests that government has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of personal wealth, which he maintains is entirely the result of individual effort. A moment's reflection demonstrates that this idea is a myth. How many future millionaires were able to go to college only because of low-cost, federally financed student loans? How many entrepreneurs relied on federally financed university research to help develop their products? How many small businessmen got started because of the availability of low-cost federal small business loans? How many entrepreneurs rely on the federal interstate highway system to quickly and inexpensively transport their goods to market? In considering government's role in creating wealth, it is wise to remember the words of John Donne: "No man is an island, entire of itself." Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
September 24, 2004.

In placing Ralph Nader on the November ballot, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional the provision requiring petition sheets be labeled with the name of a single county ("Nader placed on Nov. ballot," Sept. 21). The overturned provision would have invalidated signatures from voters who signed the "wrong" sheet, in effect disenfranchising them. This decision builds on the Maryland Green Party's successful 2003 lawsuit against the discriminatory two-tier nominating process for third-party candidates. It is another victory for Maryland voters, and further diminishes the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican parties over the electoral process. Craig Herud Aberdeen

Baltimore Chronicle
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: �Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society� by Sheldon Laskin
September 5, 2004.

Many factors have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the United States-increased concentration of corporate media ownership, privatization, deregulation, globalization, etc. But one factor that progressives fail to give adequate attention to is the erosion of the progressive income tax. Increasingly, the burden of taxation in this country is being borne by the middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.This is a major reason that disparities in wealth between the richest fraction of 1% of Americans and everyone else are at all-time highs. First, while the richest 1% of Americans-those with reported adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than $313,000 in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts)-paid more than 37% of individual income tax that year, this is only part of the picture. When other federal taxes are included, their overall federal tax burden was about 25% of total taxes, about 21% of their reported income. And yet, the richest 1% received one-third of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts. And, while $313,000 is certainly a very nice income, people at this level hardly constitute the super-rich in America. The tax burden falls exponentially the higher up the income ladder one looks. Also, measuring the tax burden by reported income is misleading. The reported income of the very wealthy is a fraction of their total income. Unlike the typical wage earner, the very wealthy are able to take much of their income in forms that never show up on a tax return at all. One of the major reasons the tax burden is so heavily skewed against the middle class and in favor of the very wealthy is the Social Security tax. This tax is especially burdensome to middle-income taxpayers, while amounting to petty cash for the very wealthy. Unlike the income tax, the Social Security tax applies to the first dollar of income, and the tax is capped (as of 2000) at $76,200 of income. The Social Security tax burden for someone earning $76,200 in 2000 was 12.4% (the sum of the employer and employee share). For someone earning $313,000, this tax burden was only 3%. At $1,000,000, the burden was only nine-tenths of 1%. Further, Congress didn't cut spending to fund the Bush tax cuts; instead, it borrowed the money. To pay the bill, the middle class subsidized the income tax cuts for the very wealthy, through the Social Security trust fund. Congress routinely uses Social Security taxes in order to meet current general budget needs. In doing so, Congress leaves the Social Security trust fund with an IOU that can be paid only by increasing some combination of the income and/or the Social Security tax, or by cutting Social Security benefits. This, and not the necessity to pay retirement and disability benefits, is the source of the Social Security funding crisis. It is outrageous that the super wealthy, who contribute so little to Social Security, should be able to finance tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit them by handing an unsecured IOU to the rest of us. Finally, the middle class is increasingly becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax (ATM). Originally enacted to reduce the ability of the very rich to shelter income, for a variety of reasons the burden of the tax is increasingly falling disproportionately on the middle class. By 2010, people with less than $200,000 in income will pay 58.6% of the ATM, while those with $1,000,000 will pay only 6%. Comparable figures for 2003 were 19.2% and 22.5%. This shift in tax burden is so profound that it will shortly become unfixable without a general income tax increase, because fixing it will simply cost the Treasury too much. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Progressive income taxation is based on the very reasonable principle that those who have benefited the most from living in an ordered society should contribute the most to meeting the social needs of the nation. No society has long remained democratic that did not have a progressive income tax system. The unwillingness of the very rich to pay their fair share of tax is one measure of the breakdown of the social contract in this country. The writer holds an LL.M in Taxation from the University of Baltimore, where he teaches state and local tax in the graduate tax program.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
September 1, 2004.

I enjoyed the feature article in Sunday's Perspective section on the Maryland Green Party ("Md. ballot is novel for Nov. 2," Aug. 29). However, I must take issue with the suggestion by professor Paul S. Herrnson that the only measure of success is winning. I would certainly consider the successful lawsuit challenging the state's discriminatory two-tier nominating system for third-party candidates a victory for democracy for all Marylanders. Craig Herud Aberdeen

Baltimore Sun
Md. ballot is novel for Nov.2 by By Arthur Hirsch
August 29, 2004.

Candidates: Seven party members are out there running for Congress against the 'duopoly.' THIRD PARTY is written all over Bob Auerbach. Could be the broad-brimmed straw hat with political buttons orbiting the crown - "Meat is Murder," "We Won't Go," "Socialist Party" - or the fringe of white beard or a blissful demeanor suggesting abiding faith in further human improvement. In other words, not your basic congressman. Nonetheless, he is running for Congress as a Green Party candidate, which would not be so novel except that the Green Party will appear on state ballots this year. Seven Green candidates for Congress - one for Senate, six for the House of Representatives - will be named, thanks partly to a court decision last summer making it easier for third parties to challenge what Greens call the Democratic/Republican "duopoly." Naturally, this cheers Auerbach, of Greenbelt, who decades ago helped rouse Green impulses in Maryland. When Auerbach and a few other party pioneers began meeting in private homes in Greenbelt in the late 1980s, the talk was about local environmental activism, not politics. They advanced no grand plans. They sought neither power nor office. They were interested generally in trash, specifically Greenbelt's recycling program. "We didn't even consider putting up any candidates," says Auerbach. If the subject of running candidates was discussed at those early meetings, says Rebecca Otter, now of Talbot County, who was also there, "it was discarded." Now, the Maryland Greens see autumn 2004 as a historically significant moment for their party. "I believe it's the first time, at least since World War II, a slate of candidates for a third party" has appeared on the ballot, says Dave Goldsmith, the Maryland Green Party's unofficial historian. Of the eight U.S. House races, Greens are running in all but District 1, consisting chiefly of Eastern Shore counties, and District 8, in Montgomery County. A Green also is running against U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski. The seven include four women and three men: an accountant, engineer, elementary-school teacher, legal secretary, college professor, retired librarian and videographer ranging in age from 29 to 84. They work, raise families and attempt to do politics in the old Jeffersonian model of the humble farmer setting down the plow to mind the republic's business for a spell. Jeffersonian concepts were dreamy enough in his day - he never quite lived up to them - and all the more so now that conducting the republic's business has grown expensive. The Greens embrace the quixotic notion of amassing political power without the benefit of contributions from corporations, political action committees or unions, strictly by the combined force of ideas and shoe leather. The folks with the money appear to be winning, but Auerbach is undaunted. "I tend to be optimistic," says Auerbach, running for the District 5 seat occupied by Steny H. Hoyer, one of many entrenched House Democrats, in office since 1981. "Optimistic" is one word for a man running against the military-industrial complex in a district that includes the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, commonly believed to represent around 80 percent of the local economy in St. Mary's County. At age 84, Auerbach stands at the purist edge of the Maryland Green Party's ideological spectrum, a kind of political maharishi. One need not ask how he feels about the war in Iraq after hearing that he first took to the streets of Washington to protest the exercise of American military power during World War II. Hitler, he insists, could eventually have been vanquished by Gandhi-esque mass resistance. He was ineligible for military service in World War II because of a disabling bone marrow inflammation in his left leg, which struck when he was a boy and slows him somewhat to this day. The experience of being segregated in classrooms for "crippled children," he says, heightened his attention to the experiences of the disadvantaged. In civil rights movement days, he was arrested twice in one day in protests in New York and New Jersey, and later served as a marshal during the "I Have a Dream" March on Washington in August 1963. He has been a socialist and now, a Green, embracing what the party refers to as the "Four Pillars" of the faith: "social justice," "ecological wisdom," "grassroots democracy," "nonviolence." Don't look for Auerbach's beatific smile on billboards or television ads. He might drop some leaflets. Expect two colors: black and white. Perhaps green, if the budget allows. Money is an inescapable topic of discussion among Greens, as they work to resist its corrupting influence. The party does not accept contributions of more than $1,000 per individual contributor and takes no money from PACs or corporations. 'Not about issues' Theresa Mitchell Dudley, a Prince George's County teacher and civic activist running in District 4, says it appears politics "is not about issues, is not about quality of life, it's about how much money you have. Whether you're willing to sell your soul to the special interests." Dudley, 41, is focused a bit more closely on the local than the national, saying she's troubled by the pervasive political influence of real estate developers in her district, many of whom do not live there. She's been president of her neighborhood association, fighting unsuccessfully against construction of the Washington Redskins' stadium in Landover and successfully for the closing of a nightclub that was the scene of fights and at least one shooting. She cannot claim a record of public protest or arrests, but she remembers that she first was politically engaged as a high school student in her native Massachusetts, working for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's 1980 presidential campaign. Her early political role models were 1960s leftist activist Angela Davis and Shirley Chisholm, who in 1968 became the first African-American woman elected to Congress. Dudley has run unsuccessfully three times for Prince George's County Council, getting a little closer to winning each time. In 2002, she lost in the Democratic primary to Bladensburg Mayor David Harrington - by about 500 votes, as she recalls. Mike Cornell, who co-chairs the Maryland Green Party, says Dudley and Auerbach can fairly be said to represent a tension within the party between more and less practical impulses. "We've internally dubbed them the philosopher kings and what I like to call the pragmatists," says Cornell. "We're all coming from the same place" on fundamental ideas, which he says do not represent "anything terribly radical." That tension between the pragmatic and the purely ideological is typical of Greens, , says Micah L. Sifry, who in 2002 published Spoiling for a Fight: Third Party Politics in America. In his research, he could not help noticing "a dynamic between people who just want to make a statement and people who really want to get elected." Winning has its own price, as "it may force them to compromise," says Sifry, a senior analyst at Public Campaign, a Washington-based organization supporting campaign finance reform. 'In the launch phase' Sifry says seven candidates on the ballot suggests the Greens are "in the launch phase" in an election season that might be less fortuitous than in years past. On a national level, the sense that the Democrats and the Republicans are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee is less than it was," he says. Maryland Green Party co-chair Nina Rutledge says the intraparty conflict of the moment is less about winning than about whether the congressional slate is more of a help or a distraction. Some members have argued that the party should concentrate on the eight candidates running for City Council in Baltimore, where they might win. On the other hand, the congressional candidates raise the party's profile, says Rutledge. Paul S. Herrnson, a professor of politics and government at the University of Maryland, College Park and co-editor of a 2002 book on multiparty politics, says the 2004 Green congressional slate "is a measure of life, it's not a measure of success." Herrnson says the weakness of the Republican Party in Maryland could give the Greens something of an edge in appealing to disaffected Democrats. Still, he's quick to add that the only meaningful measure of success is winning. But Herrnson, director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship, has no illusions about the chances of Green congressional candidates in Maryland. "Do I expect the Green Party to win ... ? No," he says. Green Party candidates have come close, but have not won a partisan election in Maryland. Maryland Greens - with active organizations everywhere in the state except the Eastern Shore and the far western counties - expect no miracles this year. "We're taking a very long-term approach," says Cornell. That view seems reasonable when the simple matter of Maryland voter registration as of June is considered: There are 1.6 million Democrats, 856,181 Republicans and 6,468 Greens. Still, that's about six times the number of Maryland Greens registered in November 2000, when Ralph Nader's presidential campaign gave the party a boost here and across the country. And the number dwarfs the other two parties recognized by the Maryland Board of Elections; 244 Maryland voters are registered Libertarian and 117 have declared allegiance to the Constitution Party. Despite those numbers, voters in Maryland are going to have a clear Green choice on their ballots this year because of a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling in July last year. The court eliminated the second of two steps required for putting third-party candidates on the ballot. Now, once the party is recognized by submitting 10,000 valid signatures, candidates do not have to gather several thousand more signatures of their own. To get on the ballot, candidates must win the endorsement of their local party organization. The change seems not a moment too soon for an activist like Maria Allwine, a legal secretary from Baltimore who is running as a Green for the U.S. Senate seat held by Mikulski. "Our political process is really in the grip of money," says Allwine, who has been protesting the Iraq war and advocating national health care. "I'd love to get rid of all lobbyists in Washington and in the State House, too. Those who can pay get to play, those who can't play can't get any representation." Copyright � 2004, The Baltimore Sun

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
July 31, 2004.

The United States should get out of Iraq immediately. It is clear to me that the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation were illegal under international law and our Constitution. To fail to withdraw would set a bad precedent for future administrations -- suggesting that they can act with impunity. If our excuse to occupy Iraq is based on Iraq's instability, well, we made it that way. If a civil war ensues upon our withdrawal, then so be it. There are countless countries in the world engaged in some type of civil war at any given time. Our own country had to work through a civil war. If the United Nations or the Arab League becomes involved in Iraq after we leave, the insurgency may dissipate. But we have no right to be there, and our continuing presence just makes things worse. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

ABC
Green Party To Field Record Number of Maryland Candidates
July 23, 2004.

Annapolis, Md. (AP) - Maryland's small Green Party will field candidates for at least six of the nine congressional races in November. And party officials say there will be a record number of Green candidates in the general election. The party has also qualified candidates for eight Baltimore City Council races. Maryland Green Party co-chair Mike Cornell says party members want to move "from agitation outside to reformation inside" the political system. Several Green candidates spoke at a news conference Friday in Annapolis. A common theme was that the Democratic and Republican parties are tools of corporate parties are tools of corporate America who represent business interests and the status quo more than they represent the American people.

WBAL
Green Party To Field Record Number Of Maryland Candidates
July 23, 2004.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's small Green Party, hoping to improve its standing as an alternative to the two big political parties, will field candidates for at least six of the nine congressional races in November. The party also has qualified candidates for eight Baltimore City Council races and "will field a record number of candidates" for the general election, Mike Cornell co-chair of the Maryland Green Party said Friday. Green Party members want to move "from agitation outside to reformation inside" the political system, Cornell said at a news conference attended by four of the congressional candidates and two city council candidates. A common theme among the speakers was that the Democratic and Republican parties are tools of corporate America who represent business interests and the status quo more than they represent the American people. "I believe the government exists to serve all people," Maria Allwine, the candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Barbara Mikulski, said. "I know that our politicians don't care about us. They don't care about our families," she said. "We are all paying for this rule by corporations. Allwine is a Baltimore resident and an anti-war activist who said she has been arrested several times. Like other candidates, she decried President Bush's invasion of Iraq and said the U.S. needs to ask the United Nations to help end the occupation of Iraq. The party's congressional candidates include: Keith Salkowski, running for the 2nd District seat held by Democrat C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger. He is a father who coaches his son's baseball team, a graduate of Harvard and a small business owner. Patsy Allen, running for the 3rd District seat held by Democrat Benjamin Cardin. She is a mother and an engineer with a degree from Johns Hopkins who sees the Green Party as "a real source of hope" and a wellspring of new ideas. Theresa Mitchell Dudley running for the 4th District seat held by Democrat Al Wynn. She is a school teacher, a mother of two and a community activist in Prince George's County who says Maryland needs an alternative because "government is not working." Bob S. Auerbach is running for the 5th District seat held by Democrat Steny Hoyer. He is a grandfather who has lived more than 40 years in Maryland and is active in organizations promoting peace, racial harmony, social justice and protection of the environment. Gregory J. Hemingway is running for the 6th District seat held by Republican Roscoe Bartlett. He is an accountant and a resident of Baltimore County who believes the U.S. needs more than two political parties to give voters a real choice. Daniel Waldman, spokesman for the Green Party, said it may qualify one more congressional candidate for the November ballot.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
July 2, 2004.

As an attorney who has argued and won a case in the U.S. Supreme Court, I must confess to being puzzled. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit was so urgent that it was out of the question that she wait until President Bill Clinton was out of office before proceeding. But on June 24, the court ruled that the Bush administration may try to convince a judge that it would be just too darned inconvenient to require the vice president to disclose whether this administration's energy policy was bought and paid for by the likes of former Enron CEO Kenneth L. Lay ("Justices refuse to order Cheney to release details of energy panel," June 25). The court thereby effectively denied extremely vital information to the voters before Election Day. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
June 23, 2004.

The Sun's editorial "Bin Laden's bidding" (June 18) was a courageous statement about our failed Iraqi adventure. The anti-war movement knew before the invasion that the evidence against Iraq was inconclusive, insufficient and contrived and that the administration's motives were suspect. To this day, there is little acknowledgment that the opponents of the war were correct in their warnings -- in many quarters, they are still denounced as unpatriotic. Somewhat dispirited and, to a degree, frozen in place, the war protesters observe with sadness a society and a system that, to date, refuse to take our misleaders to task for their egregious actions against our Constitution and America's long-term interests. The Sun should follow this excellent piece by continuing to explore the genesis of al-Qaida's rage against us, and whether nonmilitary solutions may be a more effective way to protect this nation. J. Russell Tyldesley Catonsville

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
June 22, 2004.

President Bush decried the murder of Paul M. Johnson Jr. by al-Qaida terrorists in Saudi Arabia, saying that "America will not retreat. America will not be intimidated by these kinds of extremist thugs" ("American beheaded; al-Qaida leader killed," June 19). But almost simultaneously, the U.S. State Department issued a directive that all Americans should leave Saudi Arabia. My dictionary defines intimidate as "to make timid, fill with fear; to coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats." It seems clear that members of the Bush administration were coerced into recalling Americans from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia because they were afraid that more terrorist acts would be perpetrated against U.S. citizens. I have to conclude that either Mr. Bush does not know what intimidate means, or else his comment is yet another example of the now-infamous Bush administration proclivity for obfuscation. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse: Mr. Bush's ignorance or his administration's penchant for deception. Dave Goldsmith Woodstock The writer is Green Party coordinator for Baltimore County.

Baltimore City Paper
Letter to the Editor
June 17, 2004.

Thank you, Brian Morton! After a depressing week of witnessing the all-too-predictable corporate media orgy of hero worship following the death of the second-most reactionary president in American history, Brian's Political Animal column is a breath of fresh--and truthful--air. Ronald Reagan's only virtues were an affecting smile and a comforting speaking style. His presidential legacy consists of aiding brutal right-wing dictatorships, rewarding the super rich with undeserved tax breaks, and teaching Americans that poverty and discrimination are not legitimate subjects of public concern. As for his economic legacy, Dick Cheney said it best when he cited Reagan for the false proposition that deficits don't matter. Our children and grandchildren will reap the legacy of Reaganism as they struggle to pay the trillion dollars of debt he, and now George W. Bush, have saddled them with. Meanwhile, they will live in a morally diminished America that is hated throughout the world, thanks largely to the right-wing revolution engineered by Reagan and his supporters. Some "shining city on a hill!" Sheldon Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
May 22, 2004.

Thanks for the article "On campus, turning young minds toward peace" (May 16). It is exciting to learn that, at this time when so much news is about war and violence, there are colleges and universities that teach peace studies. What a positive bit of news. I have been aware of the peace studies program at Goucher College for several years and know that professors Joe Morton and Seble Dawit provide outstanding opportunities for students to learn about the wisdom of nonviolent conflict resolution on personal, neighborhood and international levels. We in the Baltimore area can be proud that such a program flourishes in our community. What a wonderful message it would send to the rest of the world if the United States would spend even a fraction of the billions it spends for war to support the study of peace. Phyllis S. Yingling Baltimore

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
April 17, 2004.

The headline and emphasis of the article "Apathy, not activism, floods campuses as interest in the war in Iraq wanes" (April 9) about supposedly "waning" interest by college students in the Iraq war downplays the level of interest and concern among students, many of whom have friends and family members in Iraq or are themselves facing deployment. In my 30-person international relations class at Towson University, one student has lost a cousin to the steadily increasing death toll of our military in the conflagration and another has been told that she will be called up to active duty in December and is probably headed for Iraq. The rest of us not only care about our friends and classmates but have been following the issue because of concern about the cost of the war and its impact on the future. Students are not all apathetic about the war; many are deeply concerned about a conflict that threatens the lives of our friends and classmates while offering little hope for a safer future. Laura Goren Baltimore The writer is a senior at Towson University.

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
April 9, 2004.

As Iraq degenerates into a general uprising against American occupation, it is time to ask at what point the United States realizes its policy is doomed to failure ("U.S. forces battle for Fallujah," April 8). Last week, The Sun suggested that the occupation of Iraq may come to resemble Israel's occupation of the West Bank ("A lynching," editorial April 2). Is this what Americans want? The Israelis have pursued their failed occupation policies for 37 years, with no end in sight. Do Americans really support an endless sacrifice of an entire generation to bloody death, both in the Middle East and here at the hands of generations of Islamic terrorists? How many casualties are acceptable? Six hundred? Six thousand? Sixty thousand? If we continue down this path, this nation will squander both its soul and its wealth while allowing our domestic and social infrastructure to rot from neglect. President Bush's war in Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. It would be insane to continue to pursue such a failed policy. The United States must "de-Americanize" the conflict by surrendering control of Iraqi reconstruction (and command of all troops) to the United Nations, canceling all contracts with American war profiteers and allowing Iraqis to choose whatever government they want, including a Shiite theocracy. That would hardly be a desirable outcome. But the Bush administration's reckless, illegal invasion forever foreclosed the prospect of a desirable outcome. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Jewish Times
Letter to the Editor
April 5, 2004.

In reading the March 19 article on gay marriage, one could gain the impression that the issue is whether the state will force the clergy to perform religious marriages for gay couples. But the issue is whether the state has any legitimate secular justification to deny the benefits of civil marriage to committed couples merely on the basis of their sexual orientation. The very fact that the article could only quote the testimony of the clergy in opposition to gay marriage suggests that the only doctrinal basis to oppose gay marriage is theological, not secular. A number of established religions, such as the United Church of Christ, hold gay marriage to be consistent with their theology. If the state were to deny United Church of Christ ministers the authority to marry committed gay couples, it would violate both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution. A strong case can be made that the right to perform marriage ceremonies should be the exclusive prerogative of religious bodies. It is probably too late in the day to abolish civil marriage. But as long as it exists, the state cannot legitimately deny the numerous civil benefits that flow from marriage on the basis of religious dogma. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Chronicle
Letter to the Editor
March 16, 2004.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On March 3, Bush appointed Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, as a US representative to a conference on anti-Semitism in Berlin. Rosen, who has helped raise $100,000 toward the Bush re-election campaign, refused to condemn Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, for his explicit comparison of the Holocaust to progressive social causes. The irony of this bears no further explanation, and makes the following letter sent to Rosen by Baltimore attorney Sheldon Laskin on January 13, 2004 still timely now. Open Letter to Jack Rosen, President of the American Jewish Congress Dear Mr. Rosen: I write as a former President of the Maryland Chapter of AJ Congress. This is to tender my resignation as a member of AJ Congress, in protest of your blatant conversion of this organization into a front for the Bush reelection campaign. I have been concerned for some time about your aggressive campaign to use AJ Congress for partisan political purposes. This is perhaps best exemplified by the recent AJ Congress e-mail newsletter that prominently touted your having raised $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. The placement of the piece in an e-mail designed to disseminate AJ Congress news had the effect--and I believe the intent--of appearing to be an AJ Congress endorsement of the President's reelection. There was a time when AJ Congress was far more scrupulous about protecting its �501(c) (3) tax exemption. But you are undoubtedly correct in assuming that the IRS will not be knocking on your door. I have been thinking of tendering my resignation for some time. I have held off because the immediate past President of the Maryland chapter, and personal friend, Matt Weinstein, implored me to wait. But I can wait no longer. Your cynical politicization of the memory of the Holocaust in your wholly unwarranted attack on MoveOn.org has gone too far. I can no longer be associated with a Jewish organization whose President thinks nothing of misusing the memory of the Holocaust in support of a Republican National Committee (RNC) misinformation campaign. Here are the facts regarding the MoveOn.org ad campaign. In December, MoveOn.org launched a "Bush in 30 Seconds" TV ad contest. MoveOn invited interested persons to submit proposed 30 second TV ads. Following an online vote of MoveOn supporters, 15 finalists were to be selected for further consideration. Among the criteria for selection was the proposal's suitability for TV. MoveOn would pay to have the ultimate winners run on TV during the election campaign. In response, over a thousand entrants submitted proposals. Among the proposals were two ads that compared Bush to Hitler. Neither of these proposals was chosen as finalists by the hundreds of MoveOn supporters who voted under the MoveOn selection criteria. As a result, these ads were not determined to be suitable for TV and MoveOn will not be placing either of these ads on TV. Had the RNC not itself posted the ads on its website, they would no longer be appearing anywhere at all. One can quibble over the aptness of the comparison between Hitler and Bush. It is sufficient to note that millions of people, including myself, believe that Bush's war on Iraq was launched on the basis of a cynical campaign of lies, misinformation and fear-mongering. We firmly believe that the war is an illegal war of aggression against a nation, no matter how odious its leader, that posed no realistic military threat either to the United States or to its neighbors. Even the Sharon government stated that Iraq posed no threat to Israel prior to the war. But reasonable people can differ over the appropriateness of the comparison. MoveOn itself has stated that the ads were in poor taste and regrets that its screening system was not effective in detecting the ads in advance. But in no way did MoveOn sponsor or endorse these or any other, of the ad proposals. You would have MoveOn censor the ad proposals in advance. By allowing a democratic vote of its members, MoveOn demonstrated that democracy in fact works; the ads were rejected. If it is true--which I much doubt--that the purpose of the Iraq war is to build democracy in that country, should we not practice it here? Not only is your outrage at MoveOn totally misplaced, it is also highly selective. What's sauce for the Democratic goose ought to be sauce for the Republican gander. But I do not remember your saying a word about Republican anti-tax activist Grover Norquist's explicit comparison of the Holocaust with the estate tax. Here are the facts behind Norquist's outrageous statement. In October 2003, Norquist appeared on National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross. During the course of a discussion over the estate tax, Norquist said the following about the fact that the tax affects only the wealthiest "2 percent of Americans": "I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. I mean, it's not you. It's somebody else." Terry Gross then tried to get Norquist to explain his comparison between the estate tax and the Holocaust. "Excuse me one second. Did you just...compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?" Norquist then reiterated his original comparison. "No, the morality that says it's okay to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says the Holocaust is okay because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage." A complete audio transcript of the Norquist interview is available here, at NPR's site. Norquist's statement is far more egregious than anything MoveOn did or failed to do. First, these statements clearly reflect Norquist's personal views; the ads did not reflect MoveOn's views. Second, Norquist explicitly compares the estate tax to the Holocaust. A fair interpretation of the ad proposals is that they were comparing Hitler's militarism to that of Bush. While the comparison may be misplaced, it is not an explicit comparison to the Holocaust itself. Most importantly, Norquist is a person of great influence in the current Administration. As President of Americans for Tax Reform, he has regular entr�e to the White House and actively participates in the formulation of Administration policy. See, for example, "Sowing the Seeds of GOP Domination: Conservative Norquist Cultivates Grass Roots Beyond the Beltway," The Washington Post, January 12, 2004, p. A1 (describing recent strategy meeting between Norquist and Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman). MoveOn is simply an advocacy organization with no influence whatsoever over government policy. In your Wall Street Journal piece of January 5, you decry the danger of trivializing the memory of the Holocaust for political gain. Did not Norquist do precisely that? Does not Norquist's comparison diminish "the reality of what happened, and ... cheapen the memory of a horrific crime?" So where were you when he made the statement? Not only was it aired on NPR, it was reprinted in the January issue of Harper's Magazine, on newsstands in December. I simply cannot believe that this interview has not previously come to your attention. But there has been nothing but silence from AJ Congress about this outrage. So I can only conclude that your indignation over the political misuse of the Holocaust extends only to liberal advocacy organizations, and not to your fellow Republican ideologues. In the end, this means that you are guilty of the very exploitation of the Holocaust that you decry. Coming from a Jewish President of a Jewish organization, this is obscene. Please sever all connections between myself and the AJ Congress. I am authorized to speak for my wife, Fran Ludman, as well. Very truly yours, Sheldon H. Laskin

Baltimore Sun
Letter to the Editor
March 16, 2004.

I am very concerned by one aspect of The Sun's coverage of the arrest of Susan P. Lindauer for her allegedly illegal contacts with Iraqi intelligence agents ("Suspect is vocal, with uneven job history," March 12). Twice, once in a very prominent photograph and once in the article by Johnathon E. Briggs, The Sun describes in great detail the anti-Iraq war bumper stickers on Ms. Lindauer's car. I am concerned by the implication that anti-war activism suggests disloyalty. Millions of loyal Americans, including myself, proudly display many of the same bumper stickers on their cars. I do not know the facts of Ms. Lindauer's case; perhaps she is guilty of the charges. But if it turns out that she is guilty of nothing more than opposing an illegal war, it will not be the first time that the government has responded to legitimate protest with trumped-up charges. From the infamous Palmer raids to the trial of Eugene Debs to the McCarthy era, American history is replete with instances where the government sought to suppress free speech by labeling dissenters as disloyal. The Sun should be careful that its coverage does not contribute to a hysterical atmosphere of fear-mongering and scapegoating. Sheldon H. Laskin Baltimore

Baltimore Jewish Times
Cover Story
February 27, 2004.

Debating Democrats FEBRUARY 27, 2004 Local supporters try to figure out who can be their best bet in November. Neil Rubin Senior Editor Sheldon Laskin knows his man has "really no chance" to win the Democratic presidential nomination. But he feels that the persistence of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) will actually help push President Bush from the White House. "It's very important to have a progressive voice in the campaign," said Mr. Laskin, who like many Baltimore Democrats is preparing for next Tuesday's primary. "Dennis Kucinich and to a lesser extent [former Vermont Gov.] Howard Dean have helped the other candidates reflect traditional mainstream Democratic values," he said. "Had Kucinich not been at the debates keeping the other candidates honest, you wouldn't see the high turnout at the primaries. "Unlike [Sen. John] Kerry, he's not conflicted on his position for the war," Mr. Laskin said. "Peace and justice are always Jewish issues. Health care for all is a Jewish issue. A living wage is a Jewish issue. Judaism says to devote one's self to study one must be able to earn a living." Many other local Democrats are choosing a new candidate after their initial choice backed out. Barry Garber, a one-time backer of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, is among that camp. "I actually thought he was the most mainstream candidate who could draw from both the Democratic and Republican voters and had a strong and clear, positive message as it related to Israel, and had a strong economic plan," Mr. Garber said. "He didn't write off all the Bush administration's plans and I thought that was an appropriate approach." Admitting that his candidate didn't have "a connecting spark with voters," he is hoping for "a very appealing" Kerry-Edwards ticket. The rivalry, he said, has not turned nasty, an omen for an eventual alliance. "The longer the Democratic primaries go on the better it is," he added. "They're on the front page and leading the TV news every day. It's free publicity." State Sen. Paula Hollinger might still be in Boston for the late July Democratic convention, but not as the once-hoped-for Gen. Wesley Clark delegate. "The bottom line for me is I want a new president, someone we can elect. I don't have a problem with either Edwards or Kerry," she said. She became a Clark supporter early because delegates had to file their choice last year. "I thought Clark would have a pretty good shot against Bush," she said. "He didn't have a record he had to defend on votes. I thought he had a very good demeanor. He had come out critically against the war very early and I'm not a supporter of what we were doing in Iraq." David Shapiro, an attorney, has stuck with his early support of Mr. Kerry. "On foreign policy he is very strong," he said. "Certainly he has military involvement. That he was in the armed services with distinction was very important as was that he took a strong position later against the Vietnam War." He added: "He has a strong hu