GROW UP
I would like to take a moment to respond to the author of last week's "Public Enemies" letter. Apparently the author and his friends felt an overwhelming compulsion to ignore the sighting of an alleged bankrobber because they were in some way offended that the police had treated them with less than sugary politeness in their own attempt to stay on the trail of the felon. The author was offended that the police "barked sharply" at them. In some kind of moronic attempt to "get even" with the policemen's lack of civility, the author and his companions decided that when they saw the felon in a parking deck later that evening they would quite purposefully not use their cell phones to notify authorities of his existence. I find it hard to believe that 44-year-old "adult" would actually make such an immature and irresponsible decision. I ask the author this: how would you have felt after consciously not notifying police, if this felon had put a gun to your head using you as a hostage to escape from the authorities? I am aghast that any "adult" could let their sophomoric "down with the man" mentality actually aid in the escape of a felon. I would like to remind the author that bank robbers have absolutely no regard for your property and hence your entitlement to life on this planet, while the police are primarily concerned with the preservation of our lives and property. The fact that the police have to put their lives on the line protecting idiots like yourself for the paltry sum of money they are paid is clear indication to me that they are not doing it because of any other reason than the ultimate well being of the community at large. That they have to deal with people like you sir may be the reason that they become short with some of our citizenry. So grow up and show some civic responsibility, next time please bite your lip, pull your cell phone out and do the right thing - you may even unwittingly save your own selfish ass from harm's way.
David Cappi
Athens

RACCOON REPRIMAND
Some of those opposed to the levying of official university or legal sanctions upon those students involved in the "raccoon case" argue that the actions of Mr. Zimmerman and his brothers of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on the evening of Dec. 12, 2003, consisted of nothing more than typical hunting behavior. But such an argument is, at best, disingenuous. At worst, it follows a logic so skewed that one becomes dizzy attempting to follow this rationale for excusing brutality and violence. The faulty analogy comparing the bludgeoning and burning of this raccoon to so-called sportsmanlike hunting becomes only too apparent when one considers that hunting does not occur within city limits, near dumpsters, with pylons and pellet guns, fire and flames. Whatever activity Mr. Zimmerman and his clan engaged in on the night of Dec. 12 is certainly classifiable as something, but that something is not hunting.
Additionally, those drawing the analogy of the raccoon killing to hunting also attempt to cloud the issue further by engaging in ad hominem attacks, calling those in favor of official reprimands "out of touch with reality" or "crazy animal lovers." But the mere question of the morality of eating animals does not comprise the core of the issue in this case (nevermind, too, that the animal in question was purportedly thought to be rabid - a possibility which should have deterred anyone, carnivore or not, from eating the thing). Rather, the issue here is one of animal cruelty - cruelty which, since it has gone unpunished by the IFC and UGA, is condoned by these very organizations. PETA and the Humane Society are not making a "big deal" out of nothing. The big deal was created by Mr. Zimmerman and crew when they bludgeoned and burned this animal; it is our responsibility as a humane society to reprimand them.
Jane E. Gatewood
Athens

SEPARATE JURISDICTIONS
Recently arriving in my new abode of Northern Virginia, a winter tundra compared to the above-freezing chill of January Northeast Georgia, I noticed the presence of initiatives in several cities and counties condemning a commuter tax proposal being considered by the government of the District of Columbia. While I disagree with income-based taxation of those who work in our Nation's Capital, but choose to live among the suburbs I now call home, I do not believe that another local government should engage in condemning the act of another when it does not affect their existence. Local governments are separate, and each should respect the right of one another as equal and avoid interfering with intrajurisdictional matters.
A similar belief holds true with the relationship between local governments and the federal government. I am all too aware, given my profession in the public sector, of the regulatory hurdles imposed by federal and state bureaucrats on communities like Athens-Clarke County. However, our citizens, through their elected officials on these levels, have the ability to make their voices heard on such matters.
On occasion, intergovernmental discussion (and even lobbying) is appropriate, but officially condemning a state or federal act undermines the Constitutionally-established principle of national sovereignty.
Critics of the USA Patriot Act, such as recent Flagpole contributors Stephen Haedicke and Ed Moore, are entitled to undertake whatever legal means necessary to encourage their locally-elected officials on the federal level (Congressman Burns, Senator Miller or Senator Chambliss) to encourage them to instigate a rollback or repeal of those provisions they feel negatively impact civil liberties. They may feel this is fruitless, but this is the same avenue provided every American citizen as established by our Founding Fathers.
Athens-Clarke County, as a local government, does not have standing with the federal government in matters such as this. Civil liberties are federal domain, only impacted by states and local governments in specific ways (as determined by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States). Therefore, encouraging that the ACC Commission adopt a resolution criticizing the USA Patriot Act is an inappropriate use of power, following a bad precedent set by other local governments and institutions across the country.
Often times, the will of the majority and the competing desires of the minority are separated by the majority's willingness to utilize those means of dissent and comment established by our government. That may explain why, despite the efforts of anti-war groups in organizing mass protests condemning the actions of our government, it is the silent majority of citizens at the voting booth who officially, and properly, proclaim their support of current government policies and decisions designed to enhance national security and improve the lives of millions around the world.
Kenneth Hunter, ex-Athenian,
Manassas, VA