Olesker NeighborsMichael Olesker and The Baltimore Sun...


October 21, 1994

Olesker Neighbors

Michael Olesker and The Baltimore Sun staff have written several articles about Louis DePazzo which imply that he is racist because he objects to the Moving to Opportunity program.

I know Lou DePazzo as a person who cares about his constituents, and there is nothing racist about him or his opinions.

The liberal mentality of Mr. Olesker suggests that if you oppose a government giveaway program, then you must be a racist.

This is common among liberals who live to use the "R" word against anyone who opposes their ideas about social engineering.

Mr. DePazzo supports the efforts of the hard-working people of his community.

They support him because he recognizes their efforts to provide for their families and pay taxes in order to live where they do, while MTO residents could live there and not be required to work, watch their children or even look for work.

Anyone who has a work ethic and takes parental responsibilities seriously is welcome in our community.

Mr. Olesker always seems to have an excuse for those suffering the "pain of poverty" without acknowledging that they have already been given many opportunities, including free education, and have instead chosen a path of teen pregnancy, drug abuse and crime.

If these are the type of people Mr. Olesker feels comfortable with, then let him encourage them to be his neighbors, so that he can raise their self esteem and make them productive citizens.

Robert Limmer


TV in Court

Carl T. Rowan advocates having TV cameras in the O. J. Simpson courtroom (Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 11), listing six reasons for this stance.

I agree with all of these points, but one must remember that a complete, objective, fair observation of the trial via TV requires that the viewer watch and listen to every hour, minute and second of the trial just like the judge, jury and lawyers will do.

Anything short of this is to miss testimony, whether relevant, important or not, and no one knows in advance which utterances will turn the case. Viewing must be "real time" to be meaningful.

Therefore, I agree that Judge Lance Ito would be on solid ground if he decides to eliminate TV cameras from the courtroom in the Simpson trial.

It may be wise to simply film the trial for posterity to see and hear and analyze and critique.

N. W. Reid


Business Lesson

The political paradox described by William Pfaff's Oct. 11 column suggests that voters are unable to specify what we want changed in government.

Mr. Pfaff is not listening. We understand that broad tax decreases will not work, nor will tax increases, for those tend only to add to the inherent waste of all big government programs.

What we want is better management of all of our assets, including our tax money, our work force and our natural resources.

During the past decade, many businesses have been forced to improve their efficiency by flattening corporate organization structures, minimizing wasteful programs and improving productivity. We need politicians who can apply these techniques to government.

We don't care whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We just want them to spend our money more carefully.

We want our politicians to fix the mechanisms that foster waste and poor return on investment (an example is to implement the line item veto).

We want them to improve and reform welfare, housing and job development programs, which are noted for fraud and waste. We want America to be able to compete fairly in world markets.

Most taxpayers are too busy earning a living to pay much attention to the details of government. That's why we want to put leaders in place who have a sincere desire to manage government so that it works to our benefit.

Government should only be engaged in that which it can do well. The rest should be entrusted to the private sector.

( Is that specific enough?

Frank Dvorak


Judge's Leniency Upsets Readers

According to your Oct. 18 article, Judge Robert E. Cahill gave an 18-month sentence to a man who murdered his wife for being unfaithful to him.

And he gave that paltry term only very reluctantly, declaring: "I am forced to impose a sentence . . ."

This is an outrageous travesty of justice.

Being enraged does not give you license to kill your wife.

I am sure that if the sexes had been reversed and she had killed him for the same reason, the judge would not have been so sympathetic.

This reflects a sexist belief that women's lives just aren't as valuable as the injured male ego. Women are not property that can be destroyed with impunity.

Judge Cahill needs to be removed from the bench as he is evidently grossly unqualified to serve.

Daniel L. Jerrems


As outraged as I am at Judge Robert Cahill's lenient sentencing of Kenneth Lee Peacock, I also am puzzled and angered by the prosecution's acceptance of a plea bargain that allowed the slaying to be called involuntary manslaughter due to the defendant's anger and use of alcohol in a two-hour period leading to the killing.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.