Defending Russia: Oh, what company the US keeps

The United States voted against a United Nations resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine (“Trump’s abrupt change of US policy on Ukraine raises questions about Taiwan support,” Feb. 24).

Guess who else voted against the resolution? Russia, Belarus and North Korea. Anyone surprised?

— Jon Jacobson, Lutherville

The real prize for college athletes is a free education

Here’s a heartening story against the name, image and likeness (NIL) backdrop of Arch Manning being set for life with a $6.6 million deal before he’s 20 and Shedeur Sanders possibly never having set foot in an academic building at the University of Colorado (“NCAA settles lawsuit with Tennessee and Virginia over NIL compensation rules for recruits,” Feb. 1).

In very semi-retirement, I’m an adjunct English professor at Morgan State University where I follow the football and basketball teams and occasionally go to games. A few weeks ago, I was watching a tight basketball game between Morgan and Norfolk State when a woman sitting in front of me turned around, proudly pointed to a young man on the court wearing Norfolk green, and said, “That’s my grandson!”

I made the appropriate fuss, even showed her volleyball pictures of my freshman-in-high-school granddaughter. All good, but what really made me happy was when the woman sitting next to her, the boy’s mom, made the point that what she loved most was that he was getting a free education.

When I said that I hoped he was taking full advantage of it, she energetically responded, “He certainly is!”

Morgan and Norfolk State are in the low major Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC). I love it, but it’s not where you want to be if you aspire to play at the next level. Like this young man playing for Norfolk, the backup tight end at the University of Michigan won’t play pro ball, but he’s getting room and board and a free education, a world class free education at that.

With our obsession with all the damn NIL money, nobody ever seems to make that point. More power to the Norfolk mom.

— Tom Buck, Parkville

Nuclear power not the answer to rising energy costs

Forty-five years ago, a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island, experienced a partial nuclear meltdown. It was the worst accident involving nuclear power generation in American history. On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), it was rated a Level 5 event — an “Accident with Wider Consequences.” Many predicted one of those wider consequences would be the end of nuclear power to generate electricity in America.

Fast forward to today.

There is public outrage throughout Maryland over high and in some case extraordinarily high electric bills (“Maryland’s leaders warm to nuclear power: Are they wrong?” Feb. 8). As a result, legislation has been introduced in the Maryland General Assembly to support nuclear power plants and small modular reactors. Support for increased use of nuclear power in Maryland is not universal.

A spokesperson for Food and Water Watch, an environmental advocacy organization, has said, “Maryland should be alarmed that state leaders want to build out these astronomically expensive and dangerous nuclear plants in Maryland to meet the state’s energy needs. These plants would be expensive to build and produce hazardous nuclear waste. Maryland should be pushing the grid operator to approve renewable energy projects faster. I think Maryland leaders really need to double down on truly clean energy, like wind and solar, as well as batteries. Not nuclear.”

That message will likely resonate with progressive members in the General Assembly. Conversely, the Freedom Caucus in the Maryland State House is proposing reopening closed and keeping open coal-fired power plants, eliminating “EmPOWER Maryland” fees on electric bills, repealing or revising state mandates law requiring higher margins of clean energy statewide, and reduce spending on a state climate department.

Regardless of the support or opposition to more nuclear power in Maryland, there are two realities that must be acknowledged. The first reality is the General Assembly session ends on April 7. Until then, Gov. Wes Moore and legislative leaders will be fully engaged in securing consensus on a balanced state budget.

The second reality is the time frame for new nuclear power plants is a long one. Construction alone for the Calvert Cliffs plant was seven years. Accordingly, nuclear power will not provide immediate or short-term lower electric bills. What is needed is for Governor Moore and General Assembly leadership to reach agreement on all the causes of higher electric bills and then aggressively pursue viable short-term and long-term solutions.

— David Reel, Easton