Dan Rodricks

Is the Dan Rodricks who wrote that ridiculously misinformed column about pit bulls ("Pit bulls: Own them at your risk," May 1) the same Dan Rodricks who implores us to give ex-cons a second chance in society? He's ready to condemn innocent dogs and their owners, but we are all supposed to give people who have already been proven guilty of a crime a second chance? What about a first chance for pit bulls, Dan? April Myers, Baldwin

When the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its disheartening ruling declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous," I was pleased to see that there were those who thought the issue wasn't that simple. So you can imagine my consternation, disappointment and anger when I read Dan Rodricks ' column on the subject ("Pit bulls: Own them at your own risk," May 1). Mr. Rodricks' column is not only misguided and reductive but clearly shows a lack of good journalism in its failure to investigate the claims he makes.

The robocalls made on behalf of Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. were less cynical than Dan Rodricks ' column ("Drawing the line in cutthroat business of politics," Dec. 7). To describe protected political speech defenses as "hedging" betrays a sneering disbelief in basic First Amendment freedoms. Constitutional rights are not technicalities. Thomas F. McDonough, Towson

Dan Rodricks ' May 1st column ("Pit bulls: Own at your risk") effectively condemns all pit bulls to death. It demonstrates how fear combined with ignorance can lead to prejudice. It's too bad that Mr. Rodricks, who has spent years trying to counteract this phenomenon among others, does not recognize it in himself. Jeanne Bilanin, Baltimore

Dan Rodricks ' May 1st column ("Pit bulls: Own at your risk") effectively condemns all pit bulls to death. It demonstrates how fear combined with ignorance can lead to prejudice. It's too bad that Mr. Rodricks, who has spent years trying to counteract this phenomenon among others, does not recognize it in himself. Jeanne Bilanin, Baltimore

In Dan Rodricks ' otherwise intriguing discussion of the future of Sparrows Point ("Re-imagining Sparrows Point," Nov. 6) I found the total absence of any mention of environmental impact startling. I believe that we need to include environmental interests at the beginning so it is built into any development plan, not put on as a somewhat unwelcome afterthought. Natalie Dandekar

It took a lot of courage for Dan Rodricks to write his recent column regarding the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan on the 10 t h anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks ("In anger and pain, little sympathy for the 'deaths of others.'") His views are shared by many returning veterans from those campaigns who saw first hand the horrible state of so many innocent people. As a veteran of World War II and father of veterans and relative of others who have served in Iraq, I will forever support our troops but have been opposed to the Middle East military policy going back before Desert Storm.

I agree with Dan Rodricks ("O'Malley shows more ambition than leadership," March 15) and this does not happen often. Our alabaster nanny Martin O'Malley or "MOM," is very ambitious, and he is also a good politician, but he is very weak in management and is a poor leader. By the way, these are all traits he shares with President Obama. Lyle Rescott, Marriottsville

I think Dan Rodricks' column about sex abuse by a former chaplain at Calvert Hall ( "A demon's death in paradise," Jan. 9) was unfair to my alma mater. Does this man read his own paper? If he does how can he explain not mentioning the name Charles Lo Presto, the teacher who took corrective measures when he learned of the abuse. If I have learned anything from my 16 years of Catholic education it is the importance of fairness. I usually enjoy Mr. Rodricks' work. The Calvert Hall column was unbalanced.

With regret, I read Dan Rodricks' column about his recent experience with Verizon ("Verizon service: Goodbye to all that," Feb. 21). I want to apologize to Mr. Rodricks for this experience. It's not one we're proud of, and it's not indicative of the experience of millions of Verizon customers in the mid-Atlantic region. Our goal at Verizon is to provide the very best service possible to all of our customers. Unfortunately, we failed to do so in Mr. Rodricks' case. We are reviewing Mr. Rodricks' experience in order to learn from it and prevent similar situations with other customers in the future.

Is the Dan Rodricks who wrote that ridiculously misinformed column about pit bulls ("Pit bulls: Own them at your risk," May 1) the same Dan Rodricks who implores us to give ex-cons a second chance in society? He's ready to condemn innocent dogs and their owners, but we are all supposed to give people who have already been proven guilty of a crime a second chance? What about a first chance for pit bulls, Dan? April Myers, Baldwin

Thanks to Dan Rodricks for shining the spotlight on that annoying expression, "spot on" ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 2). It is a British way of thinking that something can be perfectly correct, while in America we know that nothing is perfect. The ultimate irony is that the "spot on" users are referring to Supreme Court arguments where neither side is perfect and a decision will probably be split 5-4. The broccoli analogy was a specious statement by Justice Antonin Scalia to oversimplify the argument and appeal to the anti-government movement.

Now your opinion writers are masking their invective. I thought it was a new and fair Dan Rodricks in the first two paragraphs of his recent column ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3) that reflected the headline. But the remainder of the column was the usual rationalization of President Barack Obama's poor health care law. Healthcare should be improved - coverage for uninsured and an extra year for kids is fine. But we don't need 2,000-plus pages to do that.

In his recent column ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3), Dan Rodricks continues his attacks on the Supreme Court for asking the tough questions of the lawyers presenting the Obama administration's case for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Mr. Rodricks refers to the observation of The Sun's Eileen Ambrose 's that two years after the law's passage, most Americans don't know what it does. Mr. Rodricks fails to mention that the Democratic Congress failed to know this also but voted for it anyway.

Unfortunately, Dan Rodricks ' column about our so-called "progressive" tax system in Maryland ("Land of pleasant living - thanks to your taxes, folks" March 25) has it wrong. The alleged "rate" of income tax is not the same as the true percentage of your annual income that you pay under state and federal income tax systems. You can have an apparently high rate, but given the abundance of tax shelters and various tax breaks that are available primarily to the wealthy, you can end up paying little or no tax. For decades now, the wealthy having been paying much, much less than the middle class in terms of the true percentage of total income.

Dan Rodricks ' column "Maybe Bobby Zirkin should be a Republican" (March 20) really cracked me up. Between Mr. Rodricks' column and the editorial slant of The Sun, I am led to believe that if you don't completely agree in lockstep with the party line, then you are not a good Democrat. I paid attention to this, and Sen. Bobby Zirkin said it best: One serving the people must not only be able to dissent against other political parties, but also within one's own. Not being able to do this doesn't serve those you were elected to represent.

When the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its disheartening ruling declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous," I was pleased to see that there were those who thought the issue wasn't that simple. So you can imagine my consternation, disappointment and anger when I read Dan Rodricks ' column on the subject ("Pit bulls: Own them at your own risk," May 1). Mr. Rodricks' column is not only misguided and reductive but clearly shows a lack of good journalism in its failure to investigate the claims he makes.

I was disappointed and, quite frankly, surprised to read Dan Rodricks ' column in which he wrote that based upon his opposition to the tax increase, Senator Bobby Zirkin should switch political parties and become a Republican ("Bobby Zirkin: secret Republican?" March 20). As a guest on Mr. Rodricks' radio program last year, I discussed my decision to support marriage equality and the fact that I was the only Republican senator to do so; support, I might add, that Mr. Rodricks applauded.

It isn't often that I find myself agreeing with columnist Dan Rodricks , but his idea of more really local TV and less redundant reporting is one I've had myself ("Let's put more 'local' in local TV," March 11). Why not add even more topics to his list? How about a 30-minute spotlight on local historical sites, of which our area has literally hundreds. Or a scenic cruise segment, for which, again, there are many candidates in our region? You could ask for viewers' home video input.