Dan Rodricks

As much as I respect Dan Rodricks ' work as a columnist, his recent article castigating President Barack Obama for FEMA's decision to deny relief to Worcester and Dorchester counties was curiously conspiratorial ("No hurricane relief, and no good reason," Dec. 6). One would expect Mr. Rodricks to be knowledgeable about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's mandate and the damage thresholds that trigger eligibility for relief. For him to suggest that President Obama would personally direct or deny relief to any community based on political considerations is disappointing and uncharacteristic of Mr. Rodricks' body of work.

Dan Rodricks thinks we should simply accept the city's upcoming IndyCar race as inevitable ("Grand Prix's coming, so quit the bellyaching," Aug. 18). He is half right. Instead of just complaining, we should be demanding an honest accounting of the real costs and benefits of this race. We should require transparency in the planning process and insist that the various deals and arrangements made by City Hall be made public. Then, armed with the facts, we should go to the polls on Sept.

It is offensive that columnist Dan Rodricks would refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage as "foes" and then state that they have an "irrational fear" of such unions ("Same-sex marriage foe: irrational fear," Sept. 11). By attacking Del. Emmett Burns, Mr. Rodricks appeared to forget that Mr. Burns also has a right to freedom of speech. Polls show that about 50 percent of adults in this country oppose same-sex marriage, and I find it difficult to believe that all, if any of them, are driven by "irrational fear.

Notwithstanding the assertions of Dan Rodricks in his recent column ("A Catholic priest speaks up in favor of same-sex marriage," Nov. 4), there is nothing courageous in Father Richard Lawrence's support of same sex marriage. If Father Lawrence, as an ordained Roman Catholic priest, finds that his conscience does not allow him to teach Christian doctrines and the meaning of Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, then, if he were courageous, he would resign from the priesthood and found his own denomination to teach his doctrines and interpretations of Holy Scripture along with the other more than 26,000 Protestant denominations.

Dan Rodricks ' excellent article about burying power lines needs some expansion ("It's not astrophysics: Bury power lines," July 5). Burying power lines has been going on for a century. One hundred years ago every major city in the country, including Baltimore, put its downtown power lines underground. In the last few decades, most planned communities, including Columbia, have put their power lines underground. Many European countries buried their power lines decades ago. Maryland needs to develop a plan of action, starting with current road and sewer projects, to decrease the remaining overhead power lines at a reasonable cost.

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.

I was about to send my check in for my subscription to The Sun when I read Dan Rodricks ' encomium to that resident of the fever swamps of the ideological left, Garrett Epps ("Wresting Constitution from the far right," Sept. 25). From whence the notion that the concept of restraining the power of the central government at the Constitutional Convention is a myth? Perhaps Mr. Rodricks and Mr. Epps would benefit from a rereading (if there ever was a first reading ) of The Federalist Papers instead of "Of Grammatology.

Does anyone, besides me, see the irony in the behavior of public figures who stand up against bullying? It seems that those who speak out against it the loudest are the very ones who are the biggest bullies. We see that scenario played out by Gov. Martin O'Malley, President Barack Obama and now Dan Rodricks ("Refs, retail politics and a quiet delegate," Sept. 27). I guess he is proud to be in such distinguished company with the "big bullies. " With such noted examples of behavior, it is no wonder our young people have become increasingly intolerant of those with differing interests or lifestyles.

I just read Dan Rodricks ' comments written about our "trashy" communities ("We need to get back to the message on trash" May 17) and my immediate reaction was "Amen and Amen. " I am continually amazed and disheartened with the behavior of people who, through their careless actions, are not fazed by the results of those actions. Is it stupidity, an "all-about-me" attitude, or simple unawareness? A campaign against this behavior is called for because the problem is growing exponentially.

The pending switch of "The Rush Limbaugh Show" from WCBM-AM (680) to local talk leader WBAL-AM (1090) was still a matter of hearsay yesterday to officials at the station losing the provocative talk-show host next year."