Letters: Buzz, judge got it right on Fumo

BUZZ BISSINGER'S article on Vince Fumo's resentencing (

"Judge a Total Fumo Suck-up,"

Nov. 15) was brimming with anger and frustration.

I can understand that reaction, given the public outcry for a longer sentence. But we should all be glad that courts aren't bound by public opinion. Independence of our judiciary is essential to the protection of our constitutional freedoms.

U.S. District Court Senior Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter considered the facts and the law, then did what he thought was right. That's exactly what judges are supposed to do.

To explain his reasoning, he weighed the good against the bad. That was not pandering "mumbo jumbo," as the article asserts. It was an effort to help the public understand why he thought the new sentence was fair.

I don't know what I would have done if it were my decision to make, because I wasn't there for the entire trial and I don't have all the evidence presented by both sides. But whether it was the right outcome or not, Buckwalter deserves our respect for calling it as he saw it. That couldn't have been easy given the blistering criticism that followed the previous sentencing. He must have known he would be excoriated again for adding only six more months of jail time. Yet he did it anyway, because he believed that was the just result. Under the circumstances, that was remarkably courageous, not "gutless" as Bissinger claimed.

Rudolph Garcia

Chancellor,

Philadelphia Bar Association

NBA dispute

is simple

I can't believe the Daily News continues to print Marc Lamont Hill's racist articles.

I usually don't bother reading them because of this; however, I started reading his latest article not knowing it was his. Is this guy for real or what? He refers to the NBA owners as the "masters" and the players as the "slaves," saying that the owners have the "slave/master" routine down pat.

Mr. Hill, get over yourself and get a clue. This NBA issue is nothing more than a dispute between the owners (who just happen to be the bosses) and players (who are the employees). Plain and simple.

Diane McDowell

Philadelphia

Hypocrisy is

the issue

Christine Flowers ("Paterno Made Everyone an Expert in Goodness," Nov. 18) suggests that those reveling in fired Penn State football coach Joe Paterno's demise are doing so because it somehow makes them feel better about themselves; that JoePa is a victim of his own overt virtue; that people just love to pull down to the grimy masses someone who preaches about "moral absolutes" and "an old-fashioned, nonnegotiable value system."

People don't object to morality or virtue. People object to hypocrisy. Those who impose their morality onto others often do so while elevating themselves above everyone else. When such proselytizers fall, satisfaction isn't derived from their descent, but rather from their fallibility, that they are, after all, no better than anyone else.

While going out of her way to rationalize Paterno's lack of action, Flowers seems to make the case for hypocrisy. Yes, Paterno imparted morality and "non-negotiable" values to his players for decades. Yet, when it came time to abide by his own ethical code, he failed - consciously and tragically. He chose to do the minimum because to do otherwise would have tarnished his precious legacy.

The danger in the "Pro-Joe" arguments is that they invariably render Paterno a martyr. Make no mistake, Paterno is not the victim here.

Jim Zaremski

Mount Laurel, N.J.