Letters the week of 12/22/05

Warriors and spooks

(Re: "Mission creep," cover story, Dec. 15.) I draw attention to Judge Richard Posner's, "Remaking Domestic Intelligence," a working paper for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Posner argues for the creation of a domestic intelligence service, like the British MI-5 in the United States. His argument is based chiefly on the fundamental difference between law enforcement officers and intelligence agents, both their cultures, mind-sets and legal abilities. He points to pernicious constitutional dilemmas created by vesting intelligence gathering in law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Posner suggests that civil liberty concerns could be minimized with an independent domestic intelligence agency for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that spies are different than cops. He quotes Richard Shelby on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in his argument that intelligence officers have no coercive powers; in other words, they can peek through your bathroom window, but they can't arrest you for what they see.

I don't think this is a distinction without a difference. Our civil liberties should be the same as they were in 1789, but new situations (organized international terrorism) requires us to analyze aspects of our rights more closely and find policy solutions that work within newly defined limitations and expansions of our constitutional rights. In short, I would much rather have the military spying on me than the FBI or Department of Justice, because Private Joe and the Department of Defense doesn't have the power to arrest me, prosecute me and throw me in jail, unless I'm an enemy combatant.

Josh Harden/Kansas City, Mo.

Season's bleatings

(Re: "The problem with 'Merry Christmas,'" Stew's Views, Dec. 15.) To paraphrase one of Stew's fellow Jews, I'd recommend that rather than ranting about the beams in other people's eyes that he'd be better served by pulling that huge stick out of his own ass instead. I mean even in the small order of things, "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Hanukkah" vs. "Seasons Greetings" has got to be more a measure of anal retention then a source of outrage for any reason.

But to then go on and view the hypersensitive homogenization of generic homilies as "social evolution" is a stretch that casts political correctness and the craven capitulation to any possible criticism in far too favorable a light. It's like the "freedom of speech and expression" has so many exceptions that "Congress shall make NO laws..." has morphed into "therefore 'society' must silence the offensive and punish the putrid."

The question then becomes who/what is "society," and what is offensive and putrid? Everybody becomes a law unto themselves with the moral mission of extending their mandates into categorical imperatives for everyone else to follow. This in turn is supported and enforced by the media, also mentioned in the First Amendment, which then turns its abilities and responsibilities on their head so that they then seem to be talking out their ass.

So, though even in hyper-liberal Boulder County more than 30 percent of the electorate voted for Bush, you don't see anywhere near that representation in any of the media's presentations. Is this because Republicans can't write or something more insidious like prior restraint and censorship from elite editorialists sheltering the hypersensitive from offensive viewpoints?

Now these would be egregious violations of principles and power if done by the government, and we'd be hearing about it nonstop in every edition of the every paper. But if it's the media itself doing it, then by definition you'd never hear or know. Then you'd at least think that people would be more settled and secure by being pre-sheltered from exposure to uncomfortable, unpopular and non-pristine expressions.

But of course the exact opposite is the case, as Stew's Views illustrates in all its outrage and umbrage over the most minuscule of matters. So I'd suggest instead a far more revolutionary course of "social evolution," which should probably be censored by prior restraint lest it induce divisiveness in the delicate by being speech they'd hate to contemplate.

And that idea is... tolerance! That perhaps people like Stew and those he's protecting from exposure to a diverse range of beliefs, traditions and expressions be a bit more indulgent with the de facto deficiencies of those they despise. That instead of fulminating in outrage and umbrage at "Merry Christmas" he instead just says, "I'm Jewish, thanks, but I'll wish you one."

For I haven't heard or read a note of dissent about when Shofars go off in September or when Ramadan disrupts lunch or even when the totally concocted "celebration" of Kwanza is witnessed in any form.

But then I'm supposing that's because those who Stew thinks he's evolved beyond are actually already way ahead of him on the humanity scale. That just maybe they have more immediate, momentous and real calamities and calumnies with which to concern themselves.

Jeffrey H. Miller/via Internet

It's nice that Stewart Sallo is Scrooging us in a kinder and gentler manner this year, but he still misses the mark. In fact, his comparison of the secular suppression of religious holiday greetings to the battles for women's rights and against slavery is orbitally hyperbolic.

I have to wonder if somehow he has overlooked his own religion's long and sorrowful history with radical secularists—like Hitler and Stalin. One of the first things any good fascist does is use propaganda, public pressure and then the law to demean, demonize, suppress and ultimately outlaw public displays of religion. After that, murdering the religious in wholesale lots is the usual course of action.

If I were Stewart, I'd be thanking God that Christians are joyfully and excessively wishing me a Merry Christmas. He's not being excluded; he's being included in an event that's both historically and contemporarily rare—the fearless, free and open expression of religion. His response to a hearty "Merry Christmas!" ought to be, "Indeed! God grant that it remains so forever, and may He shower down his blessings upon us all. Oh, and Happy Hanukkah!"

Lest anyone think that I'm maligning Stewart, let me say that he is an important element in the sea change in my own attitudes about Christmas. I've been a Scrooge for as long as I can remember, and until I got to know Stewart and became aware of his feelings about Christmas when I worked for him at the Weekly, I was as radically atheistic and secularist as the fascistic, religion-hating ACLU, and would have been perfectly comfortable with a law outlawing the expression of any religion in the public square.

But that was ignorance and shallow thinking on my part. All that's changed now, and I have to sincerely thank Stewart, my good friend Wayne Laugesen and his family, the Taliban, and al Quaeda for showing me the light.

Mind you, I'm still an atheist who doesn't believe in any gods, but now I understand the vital importance of supporting and reveling in every form of religious display in the public square, because every time someone invokes a God, any God, in public, it's the sound of freedom ringing.

Scott Weiser/Boulder

Focus on the film

(Re: "Focus on the family film," Screen, Dec. 15.) It seems to me as if Thomas Delapa is perhaps more bitter about his interaction with Christianity than he is with this movie. Seek some counseling, Mr. Delapa.

Nathan Edwards/via Internet

Disarmed army

Swooping into Baghdad unannounced today, Vice President Dick Cheney took Iraqi officials by surprise with an unscheduled stopover to scratch some post-election backs. There were mutually condescending remarks all around, and then it was off to have Dick review a select group of those new Iraqi Army recruits everyone is counting on to eventually stand up to the insurgency.

But when it came time for those Iraqi soldiers to ritually present arms to the visiting veep, it was striking to observe that they had no arms to bear. Instead, the troops pantomimed their way through the drill with empty hands positioned as if holding actual rifles. Here were Iraq's finest military trainees, but not yet trusted in Cheney's presence with even ceremonial weapons.

Tonight, the president appeared on television to remind the nation once again why building a "strong, independent Iraqi army" is vital to America's security. Maybe next year then, when Cheney comes to visit, that Iraqi honor guard will be independent and strong enough to carry arms in his esteemed presence.

Cord MacGuire/Boulder

Bush is a traitor

I have some questions for those who still support the Bush administration. You consider yourselves citizens of the United States and defenders of the U.S. Constitution, yes? I am sure you are aware that every federal official, including the President and all U.S. military, take an oath swearing to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Now I do not watch television, so I don't know if this has been reported in the mainstream media. Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

In November, Republican Congressional leaders met with Bush to talk about renewing the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. GOP leaders told Bush that his stubborn push to renew the more oppressive provisions of the act could further estrange conservatives. "I don't give a goddamn," Bush said. "I'm the president and the commander-in-chief. Do it my way."

An aide at the meeting responded, "Mr. President, there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." Bush yelled back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

As Doug Thompson, from Capitol Hill Blue, who broke this story says, "To the Bush administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms the 'goddamned piece of paper' used to guarantee."

Still want to follow this "leader"?

Steve Campbell/Glenwood Springs

Let's be honest. Bush's violations of hundreds (maybe thousands) of Americans civil liberties without warrant is not to fight terrorism. It is clearly intended to fight dissent.

Merry Havens/Boulder

Boulder Weekly welcomes your correspondence by mail, e-mail, in person or by facsimile transmission. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should be typewritten if possible. Include your name, address and telephone number for verification, although addresses need not be published. Send letters to Boulder Weekly Letters, 690 South Lashley Lane, Boulder, CO 80305, FAX to 303-494-2585, drop them by our office or e-mail them to: letters@boulderweekly.com

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com