Light His Fire

In response to Jim Beattie's March 8 glowing letter of approval for illegal acts (eco-saboteurs burning down "trophy" homes in Phoenix):

What's the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? A developer wants to build homes in the desert; an environmentalist already has his home in the desert.

Consistent with liberal standards (by which I mean liberals that I've met have no standards; their truth is relative rather than absolute), Beattie exposes what I feared most: The Left will stop at nothing, not even laws, to accomplish their agenda. Beattie opines: "[The environmentalists] must fight for the land in whatever way we deem appropriate to the situation." Now, contrast that with his statement "[taking the law into your own hands] is the philosophical basis upon which the nation was founded." Beattie ought to read the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents. In our republic, we are governed by laws that don't (and can't) shift meaning from instance to instance. I don't recall environmentalism being a cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence. Something called life and liberty was a little higher on the totem.

Logically, environmentalism doesn't even make sense. How are humans supposed to live on the earth? The Left decries the Right as "extremist." Doesn't the "by any means" eco-view count as extreme? In my view, balanced stewardship of the land makes better logic. Take from the land but leave it better than when you found it. And in a state where nearly 90 percent of the land is owned/protected by government entities, what better do you have to do than coddle criminal arsonists against legal landowners?

Would Beattie support the opposition's effort to stop eco-saboteurs at any cost? The opposition might even suspend habeas corpus or impose martial law, because they must fight in whatever way they deem appropriate. Right?

What would Beattie think if one of his fires got out of control, à la New Mexico, and destroyed the desert he seeks to preserve at any cost? What if lives are lost? Are these costs he's willing to bear? Would you be willing to explain to a little child that their mom or dad had perished in a fire because they legally built a non-PC home in the desert?

I'm certain history will prove the Left to be the truest enemy to the republic of the United States, rotting the system away from the inside while their ideological brethren (Agenda 21, Sky Island, the United Nations, et al.) attack externally. Jim Beattie's letter merely helped to shed the light of day on their designs.

--Eric Schnupp

Subjugation Theology

I read in Margaret Regan's article on the San Xavier Mission ("Statuary Rape," February 22) that they have replaced the heavyweight historical adobe finials with lightweight fiberglass "accurate" copies.

What's next? Lightweight plastic domes and bells? Papier-maché sahuaros? Simulated adobe vinyl siding? Autographed photos of Padre Kino?

The article said that Bishop Henry Granjon, the French born bishop of Tucson, replaced the original Spanish finials with a French design in 1906 "because he was homesick." The finials look very phallic to me, so I doubt if it was France that he was really missing.

Margaret Regan is to the Weekly what Bill Buckmaster is to KUAT--clueless, conservative and supportive of the social status quo. May I suggest that you permanently send Margaret to Channel 6 where she can join Bill and "little" Jim Griffith and the other lackeys whose job there is to falsify history, focus public attention on Padre Kino's horse, the "white" dove of the desert (San Xavier) and other trivia, and never expose the appalling role played by the Catholic Church historically and currently in Native and Latin America (including Tucson)? The church continues to be there--blessing the conquest, pacifying the work force, supporting the government (or the military dictatorship as the case may be), and justifying the socio-economic system that rewards the rich and tells the workers they will get theirs in heaven.

Such brainless journalism serves to miseducate the poor and the middle class and to increase the sympathy for the Church, the "patronato" and the most conservative forces in Tucson. Regan's provincial reporting on the "cultural" scene is predictable in a low-wage town like Tucson where workers are more likely to pray than to organize.

The Weekly can do better than Margaret. Don't count on her to ever point out the strong cultural parallel between the fiberglass "golden arches" soaring above McDonald's junk food and the fiberglass finials now soaring above the San Xavier Mission.

--Debra Sixkiller

Note: The finials being replaced are 1970s concrete copies, not adobe originals.