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.
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
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?
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.
The primary blame lies with the totally inappropriate plea bargain.
Judge Cahill's judgment and his comments were abysmal. He has declared open season on all who may stray -- and he has shown by the 18-month sentence that we can all get away with murder.
Until plea bargains are justly arrived at, and until judges learn to respect justice and the judicial system, our value system will continue to deteriorate. And violence will rule over reason.
As a woman and advocate for domestic violence reform, I was more than appalled by the ruling of Judge Cahill.
Sentencing a man to just 18 months in jail for murdering his wife is both archaic and sexist. The ground women are gaining in government and the workplace is being negated by our inequality in the hands of justice.
I do applaud the media for making this case front-page news, thereby catapulting this misogyny to the national level.
It is my hope that the publicity, and the debate that ensues, will teach Judge Cahill and his companions in the justice system that their antiquated views will not be tolerated anymore.
Judge Cahill has delivered the ultimate sucker punch to the domestic violence awareness movement.
The messages are clear and undiluted: "Do with her what you will" and "by any means necessary."
The verdict validates the archaic notion that the wife is the man's chattel or property and that he is to discipline her as he sees fit.
Judge Cahill's decision to sentence Peacock to 18 months in a work-release program (with the possibility of home detention) has reduced the value of one human life to no less than a men's locker-room joke.
One can almost imagine the conversation that could have taken place: "Hate to do this to you, but it wouldn't look good if we didn't do something."
Despite the recent changes in domestic violence laws, this decision suggests that what happens inside a man's castle is still a private affair, and not for public scrutiny.
Verdicts such as this one send the message to the law enforcement community -- as well as the population at large -- that domestic violence is not a serious crime.
Judge Cahill's decision indicates the compelling need for judges to be trained in the issue of domestic violence.
Small victories have been won in the war against domestic violence, but no significant, lasting gains will be made until the public recognizes these acts for the crimes they are.