Free speech is free speech. They can say what they want, but as a Christian I will still marvel at the so-called "Christians" that seem to think it's OK to hate someone else because of their race, religion or political beliefs.

They may talk the talk about Jesus but they forget to walk the walk when it comes to loving their nieghbors.

I'm glad, however, that they have the right to spew their hate and excercise their free speech because it also allows for those with good, loving messages to speak freely as well.

Jennifer, will you post a link to the column you're referring to? I'm without context. I may have read it, but that was clear last week, a veritable lifetime when one is losing brain cells at an exponential rate.

I like it when they put their names on the letters, because it tells the rest of us what sort of people they REALLY are.
Honestly...advocating genocide? I will remember that Dave Grin, ( http://davegrincdt.com/philosophy/index.html ) owner of Lone Mountain Dental Studio in St. George, thinks that billions of people should be killed based on their religion and religion alone. In fact, if you google "Dave Grin" now, his pro-genocide views are the first thing to come up. (His St. George dental studio is third.)
Sounds fair to me. If you're willing to put your extremist, pro-murder views out there, I'll be happy to never frequent your establishment.

Original letter to the editor:
http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/OPINION03/60912016/1014

I sure hope that some hick fired up by reading the kill-all-Muslims opinions the Spectrum has been publishing rather frequently of late doesn't beat a Sikh family to death on their way to visting Zion or something. Maybe a warning should be passed on to tourists that if they are Muslim (or of a non Muslim religion that wears turbans) and come to Washington County to see the national parks, their lives may be endangered.

Jennifer,

As Flaubert wrote (and I paraphrase, since he wrote in French): "One is not entitled to an opinion, one is entitled to an INFORMED opinion."

Comparing letters to the editor to paid advertising, as you do with your example, is erroneous itself. Those people paid to have their views aired; that simply is not the same as making the choices you do in your job.

And frankly, your "letters are a reflection of the community" comment is pretty specious too. The Spectrum (by your choice) has published these rants day after day after day - and there's yet another one today! You feel the opinion needed to be expressed: fine. But publishing it over and over and over, as you have done/are doing, goes beyond offering equal access to all opinions, no matter how vile. The repetition it's been given moves very much into the realm of promotion of the idea, in the sense that it moves from the opinion of an isolated nut into the appearance of mainstream thinking. Judging by the letters section of the Spectrum in the past week, at least a third of the population of Washington County is prepared to beat all Muslims to death with baseball bats at the first opportunity. Is that what you're trying to reflect with your choice of letters?

Calling for the extermination of a group of people based on their religion is a 'generalized rant'? Are you serious?? That's just a ridiculous justification. Calling for genocide isn't under any circumstance protected free speech. It was the primary charge of the Nuremberg trials. Backed up of course with charges of having ordered it, but originating with having placed blame and called for genocide.

If someone suggested that the next time the Spectrum publishes a pro-genocide letter that the presses be torched and the entire staff rounded up and thrown into the Grand Canyon, would that be free speech? The answer is no, because that is an incitement to violence against human beings - just like any call to genocide.

What would be free speech is to suggest that, if the Spectrum continues to promote genocide as a reasonable solution to our misbegotten foreign policy, that those who oppose that option should refrain from supporting any business that advertises in the Spectrum. It would also be free speech for those who object to the Spectrum's editorial policy to notify all businesses advertising in the Spectrum that they would not be patronizing those businesses so long as they continue to advertise. That offers freedom of choice to all parties: citizens may choose not to patronize businesses, businesses may choose whether or not to listen to their patrons, and the Spectrum can choose whether promoting a hatemongering extremist point of view is worth the loss of revenue.

First and foremost, the opinions expressed in the letters to the editor in no way reflects the position of the newspaper. The section, "In Our View," is the only spot on the opinion page that is the official position of the newspaper.
Second, I do not possess omnipotent powers to dictate what topics people decide to write about and submit to the newspaper. The role I do have is to discern the appropriateness for publication.
Third, the TWO letters in dispute printed over three weeks time is far from "frequently publishing" or "day after day" and "over and over." Neither of the letters detailed methodolgy, such as suggested with "torched and the entire staff rounded up and thrown into the Grand Canyon." It would be different if they had, but they didn't.
Fourth, an editorial is an editorial, whether it is a paid advertisement or not its premise is the same - to assert a position and point of view.
Lastly, quoting French novelist Flaubert who wrote a story of adultery and the unhappy love affair of a provincial wife based on his own sexual improprieties with an older woman, and furthermore plagarized his first essay, was a melanchoic hermit who also said, "I am a bear and want to remain a bear in my den."
I put myself out there with this discussion so I did anticipate feedback, but not insults and insinuation. Let's be more constructive, shall we?

The comments by Mr. Short are infuriating.

First of all, The Spectrum, in no way, endorses or expresses common ground with the letters that call for the genocide of Muslim people. We reflect our society, Mr. Short, not control it. We are not condoning the philosophy, just exhibiting the depth of its roots in our community, like it or not.

The Nuremberg trials -- and, yes, I am old enough to have watched some of them on the television -- were not holding newspapers accountable for REPORTING the news, they were for those who advocated the slaughter of innocents.

Secondly, and equally as dangerous as purporting a knee-jerk, shallow opinion, the suggestion of a boycott is, in itself, an attack on the First Amendment. If you don't like what we say, you will pull your advertising or refuse to support our advertisers? Sir, they've tried that here and at many other newspapers in the past and we shall not cave to that pressure. Have at it with your naive stab at censorship, akin to that being made popular by a certain comb-over, "bloviating" television personality -- not newsman -- who uses his bully pulpit similarly. Boycotts have about as much effect as a junior high school petition to the principal and are about as mature.

If you believe that our newsroom or editorial policy is influenced in any way by the revenue generated from advertising, I invite you to spend a couple of days with me and to sit in on an editorial board meeting.

Our news end editorial content cannot and will not be bought by anybody, persuaded by any theocracy or influenced by any political party and to suggest otherwise is an insult to the ethical standards under which this newspaper operates.

I agree that it is a pretty sad commentary on our community when the majority of letters lean in that direction. However, I must point out that we also choose to live here. I have been invited many times to leave -- some even offering to pay my way out of town. As you can see, I'm still here, even though I am not a member of any of the majorities you can cull from the local census.

It is horrible, absolutely, that some of our neighbors condone such actions. However, it is equally horrible to try to suppress that exhange of free speech -- no matter how much we detest it -- that makes us what we are, in spite of those in the Middle East and the Oval Office as well, who would take that from us.

Understand that Free Speech is for all, not just those who have an "informed" opinion. By the way, I am familiar with that quote as well and recognize it as a bit of wry humor rather than a true belief by its creator.

A belief, by the way, we do not agree with, otherwise your comment would have never been allowed to post.

Peace out, bro.

Jennifer,

Yes, I understand that "In Our View" is the only "official" opinion of the newspaper. However, to suggest that the nature of the letters selected for publication does not reflect the editorial bent of the paper, or that the nature of the letters selected does not help to SHAPE opinion among readers, is really a dodge that does not acknowledge the power of the press. The whole point of having letters is that it brings other voices into the debate, and public debate is ultimately decided by the number of voices who line up with a viewpoint. Publishing the same viewpoint repeatedly has the effect of giving that view credibility.

I understand perfectly that you don't control what people write to the newspaper - but you do control which of those opinions get printed. Unless you're printing 100% of the letters you get, you are by default doing some editorializing in terms of which opinions get space, and which don't. That's the nature of your job, and I don't for a minute believe it's easy to make the right call every time. But I believe that publishing letters that call for random mass murder is not required of you in order to do your job properly. I'd be far more inclined to say that NOT publishing those letters is required, because the nobler job of the opinion section is to stimulate debate which leads to finding workable solutions, and not simply to see who can yell the loudest and point the most fingers.

And we simply disagree about what constitutes repeatedly. I'd say Monday 9/11, Tuesday 9/12, and again the following Tuesday 9/19 (today) publishing letters that state that Muslims cannot coexist (the first two overtly, today's somewhat more obliquely) on the planet with any other faith is a significant amount of frequent repetition.

I'll simply say that I think you're wrong abut methodolgy for murder being relevant to the issue - dead is dead, no matter how it happens - and also about the difference between paid advertising and editorials. However, let's move on.

Here's a constructive suggestion: reject all the venomous and unreasonable letters that do nothing but assign blame without offering any sort of solution other than "let's bomb 'em". Take an editiorial position: demand that letters contribute to the dialogue. If there is any one thing thing that southern Utah, the United States, and in fact the whole world would benefit from more than anything else, it would be to get 'my way or the highway' out of our lexicon.

Since you don't like Flaubert, let me close with a quote from Stan Lee, who's been happily married to the same woman since the late 40s: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Mr. Kociela,

I'm suprised to see you so infuriated - you and I are together on a lot more issues that we're apart on. Trust me - I understand perfectly when you talk about not being part of any local majorities (other than perhaps those of us who think the Lake Powell Pipeline is the stupidest idea since inflatable underwear). Amd trust me, Ed, I have no respect whatosever for the Mr. Bloviate you refer to. I know very well that the people who've sent the letters in question are just parroting crap they've heard from him and his ilk.

But every newspaper shapes opinion through the letters that it publishes. That's the purpose of the letter section. Publishing thoughtful, reasonable letters that increase understanding - on any subject - makes for a more educated and informed society. Publishing pointless, hyperbolic vitriol adds nothing of value to the debate.

Taking the approach that I suggested to Jennifer of printing only opinions that add useful commentary to a debate is NOT censorship of free speech. It's simply a matter of a standard that requires reasoned discourse. If it disenfranchises the stupid and obnoxious - well, that's a compromise I'm more than willing to make.

You missed my point about Nuremberg (and I'm not quite old enough to have watched them live, but they were still recent history when I went to school). The important fact is that inciting genocide was the primary charge against the Nazi leadership; that's what the leaders did that all those who carried it out did not do, and that's what separated the leaders from the followers and made their crimes more heinous.

Ed, I didn't call for a boycott, any more than I called for you to be thrown into the Grand Canyon. Reread that paragraph. But would you not agree that if one believes the activities of a business are not in the best interest of a community, the most clear personal ethical response is to not patronize that business? And, that the best way to express that feeling to those who DO patronize or otherwise support that business is to not support them as well? The only thing that's meaningful to corporations is the bottom line - it's the only reasonable way to affect them.

(You know that's true. If Gannett thought they could replace everyone at the Spectrum with a random word generator, you know they'd do it. And at every other paper they own.)

However - the point I tried to make there is that calling for a boycott as outlined would in every possible way constitute free speech. It's coercive, but not against any human individual or group other than those who have taken a specific stand, and is not physically but only economically violent. Would the Spectrum's criteria for honoring free speech extend to publishing that opinion? That's not an accusation, just a question. But if the answer is no, then perhaps it would be useful for the Spectrum's editorial board to sit down and discuss exactly what those criteria are, or should be.

Ed, I'd love to sit with you in a editorial meeting. From what I can see of opinions at the Spectrum, I'd probably enjoy it more than you are allowed to much of the time!

Perhaps this clarification may help. The most letters to the editor this newspaper has received in one month was 175 letters. This is a big jump from merely receiving 60 letters on average just one year ago. I think there is a misperception that the paper receives hundreds of letters where I have to exercise a tremendous effort of content management. At this point, I do not. The letters that come into this newspaper that can be verified for authenticity and adhere to the guidelines do 100 percent get published in The Spectrum products and online as declared on the opinion page every day. When the volume does exceed what is feasible for one editor to manage, more content control and discernment will be utilized. But until then, yes, it is my goal to print as many letters as possible even if there are multiple letters on the same topic.

I like it when they put their names on their letters, because then it tells they have the courage of their convictions. And, Emily, even if I don't agree with them, I totally respect that.

I don't agree that Dave Grin called for genocide, but he makes a good point that these people will not cease until they are thoroughly defeated. I've read a few books myself and I agree with most of what he said in his letter.

A character atttack is not a valid argument against his position.

Barry, my conservative husband and his friends directly disagree with your premise. They think the paper is too liberal.

Here's a quote from Arlene Ball: "when both sides are mad at you, you've probably done something right."

Arlene, "these people" of which you speak are not a homogenous group. They're the extremists, and there are the nice, normal, everyday muslims who are exactly like you, except that they believe that Mohammed was a prophet and so was Jesus.

Lumping them all together is about as fair as if I were to judge all Mormons by the Mountain Meadows massacre....or all Christians by the inquisition...or all Christians by pastor Fred Phelps.

The vast majority of followers in any of these major religions are good, decent people. To judge any of them by a few nutcases who've latched onto the church as an excuse to advocate murder would be a mistake. In my opinion, the moment you suggest killing innocents for their beliefs, is the moment you've stooped to the same level as those you claim you're trying to stop.

Arlene,

I take some solace in your quote - at this point, both extremist conservatives and extremist liberals are mad at me, so I feel reasonably secure in my position!

But really, how in the world can you say Dave Grin didn't call for genocide? Here's what he said:

"Anything short of the total destruction of this (religion) will mean years of war or our eventual destruction."

I find that a pretty clear statement. Destroy them, and destroy them now!

More importantly, Emily is correct: extremism is extremism regardless of its source. It's as easy for Americans to demonize Muslims as it is for Muslims to demonize Americans - if we give in to demagoguery as many (but not all) of them have. And the fact is that our media, both conservative and liberal, appear all too willing to give in on that issue. It's not like this is something new - sensationalism has always been easier to sell than reason.

To get back to the First Amendment argument, I stick to my original statement: all opinions are not created equal. Dave Grin has every right to think and do whatever he wants, so long as his actions do not violate anyone else's rights. The Spectrum has a right to print whatever it wants, so long as doing so does not violate anyone else's personal rights. (It is my opinion, as I tried to express earlier, that publishing pro-genocide letters is on shaky legal and moral ground in this regard.) And I have the right to withhold my support - personal, financial, whatever - from those whose actions I find unacceptable. That's America in a nutshell.

But let's be clear on one thing; just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Here's one, I think, fairly simple rule of thumb for determining whether one of these letters is appropriate for publication: substitute "Mormon" every time you see "Muslim". Yes, I understand that someone will think that suggestion is inflammatory itself, but we all know there are people out there in the radical 'Christian' community who feel very much that way about Utah's predominant religious group. Just try it as an intellectual exercise - if it reads like an extremist rant to you when it's written that way, then it's still an extremist rant when written the other way. I agree with Jennifer that a newspaper has the obligation to reflect as many viewpoints as possible, but I also believe it has the obligation to reflect them in a responsible manner.

Barry,
Let's take a look at where we are here. We got a community discussion going. We have newspaper people, scholars, readers jumping into the fray and we have a genuine community conversation going, which is the whole point of the op-ed page.

People are talking, which is a good thing.

Responsibility is a heavy word. We must be responsible and that means that we must include some rather ugly, unpopular points of view in our newspaper. To pull them would be managing the news. Remember, we report, we don't create or manipulate the news.

And, how somebody interprets what we publish is something we cannot control. I know I have received calls/complaints/praise for things people have interpreted in my columns that are far from what I intended to put across.

Again, I cannot see where we draw the lines on this one. I think by representing the volume of letters we reflect the community.

It may be vile, but we will defend their right to speak their mind.

One more thing: I'm not uncomfortable with the tag liberal extremist. I've been called much worse and, quite frankly, it places me in with a bunch of people I admire.

Jennifer, on the other hand, isn't quite out there that far on the conservative ledge. I think you would be surprised where she ends up most of the time on the political spectrum. (I'm still working my evil magic to pull her farther over from the dark side. Only time will tell if I am successful!)

My hope? That the lurkers who punch in to read these comments join in and share their ideas.

Barry, You don't know me well enough to accuse me of being an "extremist conservative." The name-calling is really beneath you, too, as well-educated as you are. I think you've defended your side of the issue well and we can simply agree to disagree. I know I'm doing the best job I know how to do and will be seeking advice from other editorial page editors I'm acquainted with across the nation with content management. I've been in the position for 9 months; others I know have been doing this type of job for decades so they may have some insight we're all missing. The good thing from this is that I'm coming away from it with new perspectives and I think that will only facilitate my growth as the editorial page editor. Thanks to all for taking the time to discuss this important issue related to free speech.

I'm not a nice normal Mormon, Emily, so I hope they're not exactly like me.

I don't want to kill innocents. I think we should destroy guilties. But who decides that?

Isn't genocide the destruction of a race? I don't hear Dave calling for the destruction of the Muslim race. I think he's calling for the destruction of terrorism.

Islam, however, is based on the destruction of the rest of us. And those who espouse jihad are out to kill all of us Americans, make no mistake.

But where are the moderates you speak of? Where is their voice condemning murder? I don't see too many of them today, killing that nun in Africa doesn't seem like a nice normal thing to do.

I would tame the comment you refer to, Barry. I don't think anyone is calling for extermination of all Muslims. My personal belief, based largely on my reading of D'Nesh D'Souza's book, What's so Great Aboaut America, is that the TERRORISTS, TERRORISM, must be just destroyed. How? Boy is that a million dollar question. No clue here.

I think you're wrong, Barry, about what the paper decides to print. As Jennifer pointed out, they print almost every letter. I've only ever had one letter rejected and that's because it was too long. That's in 30 years.

Ed, Jennifer, I love that you engage people who reach out to you. You don't have to convince anyone, just validate and respect our right to disagree. Good job.

annegb,
I'm not Mormon either. My point was that while their religious beliefs may be different from ours, they are still human. They have kids and cars and mortgages. 99% of Muslims live out their daily lives in much the same way as you or I would.

I did see Dave calling for destruction of all Muslims. Here is what he said:
"We do not hear the moderate Muslims speaking out against terrorism because they don’t exist." [because moderate muslims do not exist, we infer that they are all terrorists]

"Anything short of the total destruction of this enemy [this enemy apparently referring to all muslims, since there are no moderates] will mean years of war or our eventual destruction. We need to employ the same tactics that we used in World War II [advocating bombings and mass murder] against the Japanese."

If you interpreted Dave's letter differently, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

You state that Islam is based on the destruction of everyone else....and you use "Jihad" in a way that implies it has only one meaning. There are several meanings to the word "jihad" - at its root, it means "struggle", whether that be internal struggle to be the best Muslim possible, or external struggle in the form of a military battle. While the word has been perverted of late to mean terrorism, in reality its roots are more akin to the mitzvahs done by followers of the Jewish faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Islam is not based on destruction any more than the other biblical-based religions. Of course, Muslims are supposed to testify their faith to others, and share the word, but I fail to see how this is inherently worse than missionaries or proseltyzing by any other church.

Anne, you don't see the moderates because they don't make the news. There's no "big story" in a regular person who sleeps at night, works, goes to school, and goes to mosque. This is the same reason that many people outside Utah perceive the LDS church and the FLDS as one and the same. Like any religious group, it's the fundamentalists with the most controversial views that are all over the news.

Barry, I initially agreed with you when the letters were published. I questioned whether they should have been in print at all. However, if the paper started censoring every view with which it disagreed, I think that would be more harmful than the current practice of printing everything that fits the length and frequency guidelines.

Several quick things:

Ed, as liberals go I don't find you particularly extremist - at least not very often. You're a Utah liberal, who would be called a moderate most anywhere else!

Jennifer, I don't think you're an extremist conservative either - that was more a comment on Arlene's husband and his friends who think the paper is too liberal. I'm sure someone will disagree, but I think anyone who believes the overall tone of the Spectrum is "too liberal" really has to be acknowledged as a fairly extreme conservative.

annegb, now that Jennifer has stated she's printing every letter that fits the guidelines, I can cut her a little more slack - but I still have an issue with publishing virtually identical letters calling for genocide on consecutive days. I know she sometimes holds letters a few days before they see publication, so I believe even within the parameter of printing everything that a bit more balance could be struck. Maybe she just got caught with a shortage of publishable material - I don't know that. But consecutive day repetition, if nothing else, makes the viewpoint look a lot more widespread than it probably is.

As to terrorists, I agree - except that Dave Grin (and "Bud" the day before) in his letter makes the leap that every Muslim is a terrorist. That's what I believe to be his mistake. 90% of the Muslim world lives below what in America would be the poverty line. Those people are far more interested in feeding, clothing and sheltering their families than they are in anything political.

Emily, my concern with these letters remains that, in my opinion, they are inciting violence; and if that violence manifests itself locally, it will almost certainly be against completely innocent parties. Those who've responded here may disagree on many things, but I'm certain none of us want to be in any way part of that. I don't for a second believe the paper should censor every opinion they disagree with. But were I in Jennifer's position (and I'm not), I would draw the line at opinions that advocate murder.

Ed, I'm also gratified to see the conversation going. I've always felt that if we - everybody - would talk about things instead of shouting, pointing fingers, or trying to do things behind others' backs, we'd find we're in agreement on about 90% of everything. I also understand that the other 10% can be a real dogfight.

I hope this discussion continues in the community. And I hope it extends to the editorial board, too. Responsibility is a heavy word, as you say; understand that my response to this issue comes every bit as much from a sense of responsibility as what you may feel about the Spectrum's decision to publish the letters. I've come to the position that the uncivil discourse that dominates the current American political landscape is probably the single greatest threat we face; internal threats are always a greater risk than any external threat, as we've shown time and again. If my comments here push the Spectrum one inch closer to promoting reasoned discourse instead of fingerpointing and posturing, then whoever gets mad at me along the way is just something I'm willing to accept.

Barry,
Now we're getting somewhere. My greatest fear is that we lose touch with the importance of debate and opposing viewpoints being held up to the harsh light of day. The moment we lose that, we lose all.

Unfortunately, we have a number of people who, for whatever reason, will write letters of agreement or disagreement to me personally, but when I respond and ask them to submit them as letters to the editor, they shy away because they are afraid.

I find that disappointing for when we give up that essential freedom because of fear, we cease to be America. And, because so many of the people we have elected to office are holding that against us -- calling us un-American or un-patriotic for disagreeing with them -- I believe we have lost much already.

These blogs may seem like a waste of time to some people. However, we no longer gather at the local mercantile and sit over a checkerboard to discuss the day's events. We are singularly insulated from the world, stuck in our little caves and unable to communicate like our parents and grandparents did. We have too much at hand -- the telephone, the Internet, Blackberry devices, Ipods, etc. -- to actually go nose to nose with each other. This is about as good as we can expect, so I am thankful.

And, whether we admit it or not, we are humans and we need that intimate contact with each other, so I encourage all to read these blogs to not be shy or afraid and jump in, whether you want to comment on NASCAR, policitcs or the human condition. We're all grown-ups, we can take it.

Also, I'm disappointed. I was feeling all nice and warm thinking I was the token lefty in the village, then you shatter me with the "moderate" thing. Me, a George McGovern-Dennis Kucinich-loving kind of guy!

Let's talk. Let's ALL talk. We're providing a nice, safe forum here for the entire community. Scour these blogs and let the writers have it if you disagree and pat them on the backside if you agree.

There's room for all. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.

Interesting discussion. I personally like the Spectrum's editorial independence from the generally conservative local social climate, and the willingness to discuss events and concepts freely. I think the Spectrum staff does a very passable job of responsible journalism and to me it is clear that the editors take their jobs and responsibilities seriously.

If anything, I wish they would go a bit further in terms of pursuing lines of truth that are not very widely discussed (more on those perhaps as they surface in future blog entries) but one has to take what one can get in today’s potentially vicious political dialogue. :-)

Regarding free speech issues, I see something of value in every person’s post above. I would agree that it is important to air even the most odious viewpoints if they are generalized rants or unspecific complaining, and not credible serious threats made to a particular person or entity. I also think that then those odious rants need to be discussed in public fora like this one and taken apart for the rest of the community to see the extremity of, and to activate people’s distaste for this kind of vitriol in their own local community.

So in a sense I agree with both Jennifer Weaver, and Barry Short, depending upon the point being made. Allowances always need to be made for individuated, specific circumstances that cannot be predicted and might apply in only one case.

Blogs are the newest form of public civil/social discussion, because these days most of us are too isolated, busy, uninformed, distracted, cynical, or otherwise disinclined to be able to participate in other means of this. We have suffered a loss of civic life in this nation of hyper-individualism, consumerism, gated communities isolated by (frequently irrational) fears of crime and violence, and bread-and-circus entertainment without basis in a higher purpose or the concept of a greater good. The internet and the growing availability of information form a wide diversity of viewpoints online and in cyberspace offers us an avenue to reclaim large aspects of this.

Blogs at local newspapers and within communities are a good trend, because they invite participation in a democracy that is suffering under the weight of special interests (of whatever stripe) and domination by the moneyed few with the ability to pay for lobbyists or attend public meetings of critical importance.

Local communities are strengthened by an active, dedicated citizenry. A central tenet of democracy is the concept that citizens have a voice that deserves to be heard. But when we stay holed up in our gated neighborhoods with our 200 channels of satellite-beamed fantasy nothingness, rarely venturing out into the larger world to see what it has to offer, we lose something critical as a society. Blogs are still a slightly distant, somewhat removed, and not wholly adequate substitute for physical, daily or weekly community involvement, but they are a nascent reversal of the isolation and ennui that so many face.

Please participate in your community, people! Start here online, and work your way into other things as well. Your neighborhood, town, county, state, nation, country, and planet all stand to benefit, as do you as a person.

Oh, crud. I forgot what my name was. I have a blog under the name annegb and it's become automatic. Please forgive me and know when you see it, it's me.

I can't speak for David, Emily, but I didn't interpret his comments so wholesale. It does appear that he's condemning Islam and I don't think we can underestimate the violent nature of those peoples. Look all over the world and that particular religion is certainly spawning violence and hatred exponentially.

However, we have Muslims, good kind and wonderful people in our own community. It saddens me to see some caution in their eyes when they tell me where they're from.

Individually, I think we must be kind. But in addressing this problem on a global basis, I tend to lean toward David's line of thought rather than the peace and love crowd.

Barry, it occurred to me that if Jennifer received a lot of letters saying the same thing, your moderate views are in the minority. Do you suppose? Letters to the editor aren't supposed to reflect the paper or popular opinion, but they do represent the views of many.

Jan, you're absolutely right.

Jan,
As the City Editor, I would be more than happy to hear from you regarding the pursuit of other types of "truth" you'd like us to explore. Believe me, nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- is off the table.

The problem we face is a general fear we find in talking to people who would love to have some things exposed but are dreadfully fearful of attaching their names to it because of the repercussions they believe would come their way from community members.

This is the worst form of oppression. But, on our end, it makes it extremely difficult to find people with the backbone to stand up and say, "This is wrong!" whether it has to do with local politics, local business, local culture or any other topic. As a result, their information is dificult, at best, to verify. We have a number of investigative pieces in the works, but need people with courage to step forward with hard evidence to support them.

Unlike many other news agencies, we are not very fond of allowing anonymous sources -- only when there is the likelihood of physical danger, loss of income or genuine, not perceived, ramifications. As an editor, I find anonymous sources can sometimes be extremely unreliable, which is why I am not favorable to them without heavy vetting. Or credibility is always at stake and I will not, under any circumstance, compromise that.

If you would like to go over some of your concerns and would be more comfortable, please contact me directly at ekociela@thespectrum.com.

Like I said, I'm game and would love to hear from you or anybody else with something to say.