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.