There is a sophisticated moral anarchy that eventually subverts almost every columnist I have read in my 90 years, the most recent example being Dan Rodricks' recent column on Baltimore's mayoral race ("In Baltimore, a serious campaign for mayor," March 21).

What possessed Mr. Rodricks to call that column "serious" when he devoted his commentary exclusively to Democratic candidates? There wasn't even a mention of "serious" Republican candidates.


Why? When he pricks them do they not bleed?

Here in the so-called "city that reads" (reads what, the late Spiro Agnew's Guide to Ethics?), Mr. Rodricks actually wrote "seriously" about a Democratic candidate who was convicted of stealing gift cards meant for needy kids.

I have only once in my life voted for a Republican candidate, but now I intend to do so for another. Alan Walden is clearly a better choice than those about whom Mr. Rodricks wrote so "seriously" in his column.

Mr. Walden is not your average politician. He is conscientious, reliable, honest and forthright, a creative, innovative Baltimorean who loves this city.

His statements are clear and easy to understand. And he is running against people who have lived and worked as Baltimore politicians yet have done nothing to improve our city.

In the paraphrased words of the prophet Isaiah, "How long, Oh Lord, How long" do we who live in Baltimore need to suffer the same dreary promises and the same lack of results?

Mr. Rodricks would do well to talk to Mr. Walden. Seriously.

Nat Asch