Annotated Musings

Posted 16 weeks 1 hour ago by Harry

Due to popular demand (ok, my wife said I should do it), I've decided to gather some of the letters to the editor that I've had published in the past few months. The topics usually speak for themselves, but I'll add some context or additional thoughts to clarify what may otherwise not be clear. I hope the reader(s) will consider the words and ideas in each carefully.

My first published letter on the matter of critical thinking -- something I wish we had more training and experience with...

Cynics vs. skeptics

Re: "Rove faces cynics in Aspen," July 9 news story.

Skeptics. I'm sure that's the word your reporter and his editor were reaching for, but failed to grasp. Karl Rove, the ultimate cynic, faced an audience of skeptics - not cynics - in Aspen. The words are not synonymous. It is very important for our nation's future that we all recognize and understand the difference.

Skeptics are willing to listen to facts and sound logic, but are not easily swayed by weak arguments or blatant fabrications. Cynics are persons with an agenda, for whom the ends justify the means and for whom arguments are for bludgeoning enemies, not to persuade.

This intellectually, morally and ethically bankrupt administration is just wandering aimlessly, awaiting the end of the lamest of lame-duck terms. We are all the poorer for it, as the other two arms of our federal government seem unable or unwilling to take up the considerable slack.

Harry Doby, Denver

That letter prompted a local activist, Jim Dale, to contact me about getting more politically involved. He gave me a research paper on the effects of No Child Left Behind. I was shocked that this piece of legislation could do so much damage by setting our schools, and our children, up for failure. That prompted this letter, also published in the Denver Post:

No Child Left Behind

Re: "Next up: 'No Fad Left Behind,"' Aug. 24 Debra Saunders column.

The problem with the original No Child Left Behind bill is that, like so many other pieces of legislation emanating from the Bush administration, its practical effects have been the opposite of the bill's title. The goal of 100 percent literacy is laudable, and garnered much bipartisan support in 2001. However, if that goal can be achieved only by forcing higher dropout rates or playing games with testing standards, what has really been achieved?

What we need are smaller classrooms, more teachers with time and proper materials to teach with, and fewer federal bureaucrats armed with draconian sanctions micromanaging the curriculum. Oh, and maybe we could afford a little more in the school maintenance and security budget, too?

The holes in NCLB are too large and numerous to be patched. Perhaps the best thing we could do is to let it gently slip beneath the waves.

Harry Doby, Denver

My fourth letter (number 3 is the one on blogging that opened this blog 2 months ago), took on the Republican party's near-implosion over Senator Larry Craig's bathroom misadventure. While I don't condone Senator Craig's, or any other politicians', extracurricular sexual escapades, I do think they should be judged only in the light of their ability to do the job for which they were elected. The Rocky Mountain News (read by more Republicans than the Post) printed it.

Let Idahoans decide Craig’s fate

Monday, September 17 at 12:01 AM

Neither my wife nor I are gay. But we love and respect our friends, whether gay or straight. We even support gay marriage. But I draw the line at creeps prowling bathroom stalls looking for a “date.” Nevertheless, I believe the voters of Idaho should have the final say in whether or not Sen. Larry Craig’s behavior warrants being turned out of office.

The speed with which Craig’s party dumped him for essentially a morals parking ticket (which, dear readers, is not to be confused with the moral equivalent of a parking ticket) speaks more to the sorry state of the Republican Party than anything else. The timbers from which the party was built have slowly rotted to the point where one woodpecker seems close to bringing it down to the foundation.As a lifelong Democrat, I take no joy in that. Heaven knows we Democrats need a worthy opponent to challenge us to do our best, not our worst.

I ask my Republican friends to think long and hard about how and why they arrived at this point. Our country needs a vibrant two-party system if our democracy is to survive.

Harry Doby, Denver

Tuesday, October 16 at 11:09 AM One letter writer listed in just a few sentences, all the mistakes of judgement by President Bush and his cronies. He was mercilessly attacked by bloggers, none of whom would identify themselves. I think that's pretty cowardly, so I wrote the following, which was basically more chum in the water:

Harry Doby of Denver writes:

Steven Shelton’s letter published today has managed to neatly summarize nearly everything that has gone wrong with the Bush Administration and the GOP in the last half-dozen years. That he made his point with wit and style illustrates the power of words, and the intelligence required to wield them effectively. It’s one of the better justifications for having a “letters to the editor” section.

Most of the responses on your blog, however, were in sharp contrast — vicious, unreasoned and in some cases self-deluded. It makes me wonder if the anonymous posters ever bother to read the rest of the newspaper where the essence of Mr. Shelton’s letter has been on clear display for many years.This letter has not been edited.

A recent case in Denver should give pause to those who feel we need tougher laws, bigger prisons and fewer legal protections, all in the name of being "safer".

Lessons to be learned from Masters case

By Harry Doby, Denver

Thursday, January 31, 2008

There are several lessons for all of us to take from the Tim Masters case ("DA will not press murder charges," Jan. 26 et al.).

First, prosecution witnesses need to remember that the oath they took included telling "the whole truth," not just the "convenient truth."

Second, the jurors need to remember that reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit - in fact it is an imperative. When there is not a shred of physical evidence in a brutal crime linking a suspect to the victim, no amount of circumstantial evidence is likely to overcome that hurdle. A cynical prosecution needs skeptical jurors if the system is going to work.

Third, jurors apparently felt that "It is better to be safe than sorry," probably because of the fearsome portrait of a budding young monster drawn by the prosecution to overwhelm any juror's doubts.

I wonder how many of the captives at Guantanamo are there out of unreasonable fears, simply because someone decided that "It is better to convict a hundred innocent men, rather than let one guilty man go free"?

Thank goodness for the attorneys who have dedicated their time and skills to freeing Tim Masters, and all the attorneys currently working to redeem our system of justice from the excesses of our post- 9/11 paranoia.

The Guantanamo reference really got the "America Can Do No Wrong" crowd up in arms. I can't/won't reprint their comments here, but I will attach the response I posted to their comments about my letter, and let you decide.

Posted by HDoby on January 31, 2008 at 9:20 p.m.

"There are several lessons for all of us to take from the Tim Masters case "

I began my letter with that statement for a reason: we seem to have forgotten the lessons our history has taught us from the days of our founding fathers through the last "just" war, World War II (ok, I'll give Gulf War I a pass as well). It's not a conservative vs. liberal issue in my mind.

My point is, even though Tim Masters got his constitutionally protected Day in Court in 1999, our system of justice can still fail when some of the participants don't put forth their best efforts, or lacking that, simply follow the rules -- all of them.

So what does this have to do with Guantanamo? The Rules, of course.

The Constitution is a great place to start for guidance on how to deal with accused criminals (enemy combatants, POWs, or your neighbor). But even for non-citizens, we have international laws, and the Geneva Convention to prevent us from doing more harm than good. The rules are there more for our protection than it is for theirs. That our current leaders choose not to follow them should concern you very deeply.

As with the Masters case, the standard of evidence for the Guantanamo captives can be pretty low when you are in a hurry, or you tell yourself "better safe than sorry".

Sure, many may have been captured in actual combat, or were known enemy leaders. Others were rounded up in villages where insurgents were common -- but now it starts to get a little trickier. The real problem is that some are there simply on the word of some "trusted" tribal leaders -- even if they just wanted to get rid of an enemy, or someone they didn't want around for any reason (dating his daughter, coveted his yaks, or whatever).

There's the rub -- for those that choose to comfort themselves that everyone at Guantanamo deserves not only to be there, but also should be subject to any form of "treatment" our government chooses to administer -- think again of the Tim Masters case.

With our crumbling constitutional protections, it is folly to believe that it's ok to treat others cruelly, and strip them of any rights, in the belief that it could never happen to you.

All it takes is a harried prosecutor taking a few shortcuts, looking to close a particularly nasty case, and you just happen to be the first viable suspect. Citizenship is irrelevant at that point.

The Colorado caucuses were a few days later, and the Denver Post decided to "make history" by endorsing their Democratic and Republican favorites now, rather than wait until after the nominees had been formally announced next Fall. This was my pithy reply:

RE: "We're making history" Feb. 3, 2008 Editorial

by HDoby on February 3rd, 2008, 10:32 am

No, actually you're just making a mistake. Neither of the yet-to-be-determined nominees have had to directly face each other to refine their actual positions. Primary positions will inevitably shift once the general election campaign begins next August. Endorsements are premature, at best. If this is an attempt to influence Tuesday's primary, then given the Board's history with endorsing George W. Bush, perhaps this will be just the boost my favorites, McCain and Obama will need to put them over the top in Colorado. I hope to see an Obama/Clinton ticket to face McCain/Lieberman. With his Kennedy-esque vision and smarts, I think he'd make a great leader. Clinton also draws parallels with LBJ -- a slightly tainted background, but someone who has true concerns about the welfare of our citizens and can do the backroom negotiations to get things done. The Republicans appear set on awaiting the Second Coming to anoint their "perfect" candidate. I'd much rather see a clean race built on principles. I hope McCain wins their nomination so that we can have a real debate about the direction America wants to choose for the next generation.

One of my latest letters is probably the most controversial -- campus shootings, and Gun Control. The letter was printed in the Post and published online at the Rocky. I've been in discussions with some of our local representatives to see what, if any legislative action might be taken. I'm not holding my breath, though...

Aftermath of NIU shooting: 3 letters by DP Opinion on February 24, 2008

Re: “A rapid-fire assault, chaos,” Feb. 15 news story.

Once again, a disturbed young man has proven that as long as guns are cheap, so is life. When disaffected students with little income other than their allowance or minimum-wage jobs can afford to buy high-powered weapons, even the NRA should feel ashamed.

The perceived absolute rights granted by the Second Amendment may not let us ban guns completely, but it says nothing about guaranteeing easy and affordable access to guns of all shapes, caliber and killing power. So I propose a local, state and national excise tax on guns, much as we do for cigarettes. And I’m not talking about a few cents or a couple of dollars per weapon. Considering the estimated $100 billion annual costs associated with gun violence in America, the tax should be in the hundreds of dollars for most handguns, leading to several thousand dollars for assault weapons and the like.

For the committed hunters, I would allow a cumulative, incremental break based on their record of hunting permits over the years, and then only for hunting rifles. No AK-47’s for shooting Bambi! And no city slicker “born-again hunters” buying up licenses the week before going to the gun show. For youngsters just starting out hunting with their dads - guess what, they can borrow Dad’s guns for a few years - I’m sure the family will have plenty to choose from.

Harry Doby, Denver

The Post printed an angry letter (that I probably can't post) in response, but suffice to say, the letter writer was "offended" and thought that my logic was flawed. So, naturally, I defended my reasoning on the newspaper's blog (no one noticed that I got his name wrong -- not even the author who also posted his follow up on the same blog):

It appears that Eric Lusk’s only argument in support of easy and cheap availability of all guns, including assault rifles, is so that private citizens have the chance to get into a gun battle with robbers that might invade their home. That’s not an argument that he’s likely to win. Guns in the home aren’t even a deterrent, since the robbers probably don’t know (or care) if you have any. Bruce Willis fantasies aside, they would be more than happy to turn your gun on you.

On the off chance that the homeowner will be able grab a loaded and ready weapon and surprise the robbers, the reality is that he is 22 times more likely to have his own gun used on himself or one of his family. It is a sad fact that when people get angry or depressed, they often lash out at themselves or their loved ones. When a gun is available, that anger can turn into murder or suicide. Not to mention the times a child accidentally shoots themself or a friend while playing with this interesting “toy”. An inexpensive burglar alarm system is a lot more effective, and a great deal safer, at warding off burglars or robbers.

It was unfortunate that The Post edited the link out of my original letter supporting the statistic about the $100 billion economic cost of gun violence in America. You don’t have to take my word for any of this — please take a look at the Brady Campaign web site: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/

Mr. Lusk also disputes my point that the NRA should be ashamed for defeating the assault weapons ban, plus any other meaningful attempt to limit the spread of guns in America. Unlike automobiles, guns are intentionally designed to be effective killing machines. They serve no other purpose. Effective law enforcement has reduced automobile deaths due to drunkeness to half the rate just 20 years ago. Gun violence is not as easily prevented, and unfortunately is on the rise. As someone said recently: The argument that arming everyone is the way to prevent these campus tragedies is like saying when confronted with a plague of locusts, the solution is to add more locusts. The chances of friendly-fire deaths in those situations is far too high given that even trained law enforcement officers frequently miss their targets as well.

I believe the point of my letter was obvious: to offer a practical solution to the continuing tragedy of disturbed young students, who simply buy a semi-automatic pistol and/or assault rifle to commit a very public suicide, taking along as many unwilling victims as they can manage. As there are few other solutions that appear forthcoming, making the guns just a bit harder to get would seem a pragmatic suggestion. That there are about 200 million guns in America simply boggles the mind. That definitely puts them into the “more harm than good” category. If Mr. Lusk feels safer with a personal weapon, that is his choice. But if guns were more costly, then as with all economic decisions, you might consider other options.

Finally, I forgot to include in my tax proposal that it would be even more effective to place a stiff tax on ammunition.

Guns and Death — neither should be cheap nor easy.

Comment by Harry Doby — March 1, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

My most recent letter, printed today, is on yet another sad topic -- the milestone of 4,000 American soldiers dead in Iraq. Since I am old enough to remember Viet Nam (I drew a high number in the draft lottery, and so didn't have to serve), this Iraqi misadventure brings back memories of that awful time, and is something I would have hoped George Bush would have considered as well.

President Clinton is impeached for a fling with an intern. President Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 4,000 brave Americans and is considered a hero by 30 percent of Americans. When did our priorities get this mixed up?

Harry Doby, Denver

So to close, I'll attach my blog post to PBS Frontline regarding the episode "Cheney's War". It kind of sums up my concerns that we need to start thinking critically, be more skeptical and not just accept that our leaders automatically know what's best for us.

Dear FRONTLINE,

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." -- James Madison

I wish President Bush had spent more time in college studying history instead of the bottom of a beer mug.

Harry DobyDenver, CO