Lawmaking lawyers grant themselves a tax loophole

The proposed business to business tax mysteriously lacks application to lawyers (“Maryland lawmakers grapple over new business tax as deficit increases to $3.3 billion,” March 7).

Could it be because a significant number of legislators are — wait for it — lawyers? This grossly unfair and discriminatory tax reveals (as if we did not know already) who Maryland lawmakers really care about — themselves!

— Randy Respess, Ellicott City

Trump’s worldview is distinctly upside down

Armstrong Williams’ column, “The age of Trump has arrived” (March 8), only makes sense if you live in upside down world. There, it makes sense for America to join with Iran and North Korea in refusing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There, it makes sense for America to praise Germany’s neo-Nazi party and Hungary’s vicious dictatorship, and to side with our enemies and ridicule our allies.

In an upside down world, you promise to lower prices while implementing tariffs that will raise them and you deal with a pledge to rid the county of waste and abuse by firing innocent federal workers while leaving massive subsidies to corporations untouched.

It’s the subtext that’s most telling about Williams’ orientation. It’s Old Testament with fire and brimstone, vengeance and retribution. Jesus Christ’s preaching of love and kindness and forgiveness is seen as weak and effete. It’s sad. And it’s terrifying.

— John Gazurian, Baltimore

Forever 21 and the high cost of fast fashion

Forever 21’s demise was almost inevitable as the rise of fast fashion has begun to push out most mall competitors. And the recent article, “The rise and fall of fashion pioneer Forever 21” (March 5), does a great job on highlighting this loss. However, the concern of how fast these fast fashion masterminds have emerged is something that should be more widely focused on.

Social media has significantly encouraged America’s consumerist mindset and micro trends only aid the inexpensiveness and readily available appeal that these fast fashion businesses have. Due to the mass consumption of companies like Shein and Temu, these low quality pieces of clothing quickly end up as waste right after use. This is evident as many thrift and second hand stores have witnessed an influx in fast fashion clothes. But how bad is this waste truly?

In order to keep low prices, fast fashion businesses utilize cheap materials like nylon, acrylic and polyester. These fabrics, however, do not biodegrade. Through wear and tear, these pieces release more microplastics when washed than fabrics like cotton. These microplastics then enter water systems, accumulate in marine life and disrupt food chains. This detrimental waste only piles up as fast fashion becomes more popular and more heavily consumed.

Thrifting and upcycling clothing is one way in which this issue can be combated but it must be executed by a mass audience. Consider the environmental cost of your next purchase. Fast fashion’s convenience comes at a price, one that our planet pays. To combat this growing crisis, we must shift our mindset from overconsumption to sustainability. Support secondhand shopping and encourage brands that prioritize ethical production.

The question is: Will you choose fashion that lasts or fashion that pollutes?

— An Tran, Baltimore

Where was press when Biden wasn’t talking?

Sorry, but I consider the recent column by Heidi Stevens, “Access not a trophy for favorite reporters” (Feb. 27), to be sanctimonious drivel. Yeah, that’s not a description I’ve ever used before.

Stevens complains that the White House controls who can attend their press conferences. Her statement, “Access is the price the president pays for the privilege of serving his constituents,” is what betrays her for the bias and ability to turn a blind eye to the inglorious past of the last president.

Let’s ignore that those who voted for Donald Trump (remember, that’s the majority of voters who cast a ballot last November) probably do not have a problem with the White House changing the press selection process that was controlled by the old liberal press organization.

No, let’s focus on the fact that President Trump probably has held more press conferences and been more often available to the press, both those who “support” and those who “attack” him, over the past two months than President Joe Biden did in his term of four years. And let’s remember the information that Biden always had in his hands when he did have those press conferences — the list (from his handlers presumably) informing him which reporters to allow to ask questions.

Where was author’s dismay, frustration and fear back then? We did not hear her defend the free press during Biden’s term so why now?

— Patrick Walsh, Linthicum