Dan Rodricks

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.

Kudos to Dan Rodricks ' hilarious column on gambling at National Harbor ("On slots, a deal's a deal, baby," May 10). Under one-party rule in the city and State House, a deal's good only until an elected official thinks of another way to spend money. There are rarely any political consequences when our monopoly government reneges. A deal's just what you do to lure the suckers; once in, they're ready to be fleeced. Make a bricks-and-mortar investment here? Watch you property taxes rise over time.

Dan Rodricks ' column published on America's saddest day of mourning for the nearly 3,000 American citizens murdered by terrorists has sickened me ("9/11 and the deaths of others: America's legacy of civilian casualties," Sept. 11). How dare he ask us to remember and mourn for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan on the very anniversary of our tragic loss? As I recall very clearly, the citizens of those countries were dancing in the streets and burning our flag in celebration.

Dan Rodricks ' recent column lacked a very important adjective in its headline. ("Immigrants: We detest them - and need them," June 30). It lacks the word "illegal. " But we know Mr. Rodricks agenda: He loves the word "undocumented" instead, as if that cleans it up. When an individual illegally crosses our borders, he or she is committing a felony. But we can't expect Mr. Rodricks to get that close to the truth. He says we need immigrants. Of course, we do. We always have.

Dan Rodricks has once again visited the topic of national public service for young Americans, and once again he proposes to sacrifice their freedom. The headline of his column reads, "Young Americans will serve -- if we ask" (Jan. 31). But in the text, Mr. Rodricks reveals his proposal for two years of national public service: "For every American once he or she reaches the age of 18, with deferment optional until the age of 21, when service becomes mandatory." Is Mr. Rodricks incapable of distinguishing "ask" from "mandatory"?

Here's something to chew on today: Gene Michaels, a Republican candidate for Baltimore City Council, is offering an ancient solution to crime. (Ah, the old ones -- caning, electrocution -- are the best ones, no?) This solution is kinder and gentler than most. Ready?Banishment.Michaels wants to banish Maryland's nonviolent repeat offenders. He wants to give them a one-way ticket to Somewhere Else, U.S.A.Michaels' "Rules of Banishment," presented at a candidates forum in Northeast Baltimore the other night, are as follows: "(1)

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.

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.

Dan Rodricks has hit the common sense nail on the head ("A casino switch that's moral," June 12). How distorted the thinking of those legislators who propose that adding ever more gambling casinos is going to benefit the citizens of our state. We know who will benefit, and it's not the people, most especially the poor. As was predicted, once the gambling industry gets a foot in the door, they will want more and more of our money, hence more power, so that's what we are seeing.

Unfortunately for your readers, Dan Rodricks ' column on the Towson melee was long on rhetoric but short on facts ("Refs, retail politics and a quiet delegate: After the Towson melee, wondering what happened to Pat McDonough," Sept. 27). When the Baltimore County Police deemed that the crowd gathered near the Towson Circle was overwhelming, their first response was to call for back up; then they enlisted the help of the Maryland State Police. There is no shame in asking for help, and using the resources of the Maryland State Police is something I've long advocated for in Baltimore City.