All we are saying is give peace a chance

Dear True,
I was very interested to read the latest post from my valued friend, John Haluska, about the Homeland Security project. I am happy that we can talk in civilized fashion about difficult issues in our little town.
I agree with many of John’s views: that the federal government has (under the present regime) the power to impose its will despite local protests, that the cost of the project is inappropriate to the scope of work, that conflicts of interest need to be examined, and even that there may be some economic benefits to Grand Marais. I agree that Border Patrol has a legitimate purpose. I absolutely agree that Matt Geretschlaeger has acted with utmost fairness and integrity. And IF I were to grant the basic premise that the 10-acre, 34,000 square foot facility complete with holding cells and a helicopter pad and a chain link fence is simply an office building, well, I would have to concede that my “military outpost” premise is misguided.
But I am feeling as though John’s objections to my disclosure of deep mistrust of government hint faintly at the Rove-Rumsfeld argument that all criticism aids terrorists. I am trying to say that the Homeland project is overkill, that building walls and fences and listening outposts only generates more ill-will and insecurity, and that this little intrusion of 50 “highest quality” border cops does not bode well for amicable relationships with our Canadian neighbors, not to mention our BWCAW campers.
There are similar excursions into militaristic exercises going on all over the country, the worst probably being Divine Strake, but the live gunfire on Lake Superior is also adding to the climate of fear that the Bush administration fosters in support of its endless and limitless war on the Evildoers.
In short, my letter was about the effect that fear-mongering has in the lives of peaceable people. As dear John Lennon said, “All we are saying, is give peace a chance.”
Nancye Belding