Among those responding to recent columns on Bob Ehrlich, his friends at Help Save Maryland and their recent attacks on Casa de Maryland was J. Shawn Alcarese of Harford County. He says my Sunday column ("Ehrlich's migrating position on Casa de Maryland") had flaws, one being that it did not address "what is supposedly migrating about Mr. Ehrlich's position."
Mr. Alcarese writes: "Mr. Ehrlich stated he supported Casa de Maryland's original purpose and work of assimilating legal immigrants, as it did during Mr. Ehrlich's tenure as governor, but opposed the use of state tax funds today to support illegal aliens. That looks pretty solid and stable to me, and, I'm quite sure, to the majority of taxpayers as well."
Mr. Alcarese apparently wants to believe that Casa de Maryland waited until Mr. Ehrlich was no longer governor to change its mission from one of supporting only immigrants who legally settled in the United States to one of unconditional support for anyone, including those not documented.
There is no evidence that happened, no evidence that Casa operates today in any way differently than it did when Mr. Ehrlich was governor (2003-2007) and the state Board of Public Works, which he chaired, approved funds for Casa's new multicultural center and its operations.
There is no evidence that anything has changed, other than Casa de Maryland becoming more visible, more politically active in Annapolis and a lightning rod for the xenophobes who believe undocumented workers are a menace to society.
To assume that Casa's mission has changed, and that Bob Ehrlich detected this and changed his position accordingly — in time for the 2010 gubernatorial election — is to be an Ehrlich supporter, no matter what inconsistency might be pointed out to you.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! It's a free country. You are free to support candidates who say one thing and do another. We all do at some point.
From Bryan Shuy: "A couple of years I decided to walk into a Casa de Maryland Center to see what all the ruckus was about. What bothered me the most was that they openly displayed voter registration cards. While their mission claims they help all immigrants, it is clear they cater to the non-legal portion of the immigrant community. I had an issue with that. Your column had an interesting list of 'services' Casa provides, but realistically, aside from legal counsel their main service is helping immigrants obtain jobs — namely illegal immigrants. It has always been that way and it is no secret."
Dear Bryan: I'm a little confused. How do 'openly displayed voter registration cards' provide clarity that Casa helps illegal aliens? Furthermore, your claim that Casa has always helped illegal immigrants leads us back to Bob Ehrlich: If Casa "always" helped illegals, why did the Ehrlich administration support the organization with hundreds of thousands in state funding?
Brad Botwin, the director of Help Save Maryland, reports that his organization, with a couple of plugs on Mr. Ehrlich's radio show on WBAL, says he drew a whopping 45 protestors to the Casa de Maryland ribbon-cutting in Langley Park on Saturday. (The Washington Post, which covered the event, pegged attendance at 20.) The group believes Casa supports illegal aliens and, as a consequence, should not have received any support from taxpayers.
In an emailed report to his flock late Sunday night, Mr. Botwin noted that members of Congress and numerous state and local officials attended the event — "It was truly an illegal alien lovefest/mini-Democratic National Convention" — and the event featured musical serenades by — here's a shock — "a Mariachi Band from Mexico."
"This same Mariachi Band walked over after the CASA event was finished to play some Mexican music for us," Mr. Botwin reports. "How thoughtful of CASA! But before the Mariachi boys could get their act together, all 45 Help Save Maryland members proudly sang, 'God Bless America.' I'm sure it was the first time CASA's clientele heard the song."
A reader named Liz Hart took offense to a recent column about the Archdiocese of Baltimore asking parishes to support Catholic schools while the Vatican continues to reel from the long aftermath of the priest sexual abuse scandal and the mistrust among laity of church hierarchy.
"Yes, the abuse and cover-up has been terrible for many, but isn't it possible that many of the allegations could be just from people who are trying to get money? It happens all the time, even with the World Trade Center collapse. Also, you never mention the trial lawyers who bring these allegations and just want to line their pockets. That happens all the time, too. Also, the abusers were just a small minority of priests, but does that cross your mind? Obviously not."
Dear Ms. Hart: I have been following this never-ending story for years and have written about it numerous times. It is profoundly troubling, particularly the documented pattern of cover-up by church authorities that led to the reassignment of predator priests to multiple parishes and other religious offices, putting additional children at risk of abuse.
In the case of the World Trade Center, administrators were put in place to decide if victims had legitimate claims and qualified for compensation. This was done for New York City workers who asserted health problems from having worked at Ground Zero and for the families of people who were killed in the terrorist attacks. The process was set up to screen out fraudulent claims.
We don't know fully what the Catholic church has done in this regard, but we do know from numerous published reports, and one provided to the U.S. Conference of Bishops, that there were nearly 12,000 alleged victims between 1950 and 2004, and more have come forward since then. More than 5,000 priests were accused of sexual abuse during the 50 years covered in the report and, indeed, that was just 4 percent of priests during that time.
Not all of the claims were substantiated. But legal settlements have been estimated at close to $2 billion, and seven dioceses have filed for bankruptcy due to the cost of settlements. One assumes the church's lawyers are not handing out money over frivolous claims.
It should be noted that not everyone who might have been victimized gets to sue. A few years ago, there was an effort in Annapolis to extend the time for victims to claim damages.
Maryland law allows such civil suits only before victims reach the age of 25. In arguing to open the window for legal action to age 46, advocates argued that most victims of such horrific crimes were too burdened with guilt, shame and fear to come forward until they were deep into adulthood. (Many of the Catholic victims wait until their parents die before going public.) Bills that would have given victims more time to bring civil suits against those who molested them were introduced in the General Assembly several times during the last five years, but always were killed at the committee level. And during the 2010 legislative session, in which the governor and legislators were so eager to crack down on sexual offenders, no one chose to revive the bill.
M. V. Runkles III writes about a column from April, on Gov. Martin O'Malley's opposition to parole for criminals serving life sentences — even if they were sentenced at a time when parole for lifers was a possibility. Maryland is one of three states where the governor can veto parole decisions. A review of the recent record in Maryland found that 30 lifers have been recommended for parole during Mr. O'Malley's term, but the governor has denied all requests.
"I have mentored a prisoner since 1992," Mr. Runkles writes. "I saw him through his GED and his college degree. He has been in jail since he was 17 and is in his mid-40s now. … He is a completely different person from when he was 17 and would be no menace to society if he were released. … Even if he were able to obtain parole, this governor would not honor the parole board's decision."
True — and especially pertinent in an election year.
"It makes me wonder," Mr. Runkles writes, "why we have a parole board at all if it is subject to the whims of a governor."
Why, indeed.