You have been had.

I don't normally find an article so intresting that I feel it has to be reproduced in its entirety, but right now in our United States of America the general public has been had. I know some may not believe the following information to be true, but if you look outside your comfort zone for a minute it is more than plausible, it is the reality we're facing right now with our heads in the sand. I know deep in everyone's heart they have wondered how the "War on Terror" has been steered from catching those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to invading a country that has NO TIES AT ALL with any terrorist attacks on the U.S. I know people have also wondered how from 9/11/2001 until now we are in the middle of an emerging civil war in Iraq with no real remedy in sight. Now you have some insight on how the hasty, clandestine decisions of the Bush Administration have walked us into a place we should not be. Now you have a vantage point from a very astute political science professor.

Folks we have to remember a few things about our social responsibility as citizens in a democracy. First, we have to remember that there is nothing more dangerous to our prosperity than cultivating a society that thrives on willful ignorance and conscientious stupidity towards common sense and the truth. Second, we must realize that power hungry tyrants cannot take over a democracy unless we give them power and fail on our due diligence as citizens to uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights as the cornerstones of our society. Finally, we need to stop being a society that believes in the ends justify the means because installing "democracy" by bayonet is bullshit.

If you do nothing to stop the blatant abuses of power when you see them, than how are you any better than those that just dont care? Turning a blind eye is just an endorsement. Stop being mislead, stop being a pedestrian in the world of truth. Your vote is your only equalizer in this democracy. Do some research and question what you are being told by everyone, myself included, in your quest for truth. Let's find truth from David Michael Green.

Stop the Crime of the Century
By David Michael Green
May 15, 2005, 16:57

In Iraq, there is a crime of breathtaking proportions taking place. Breathtaking, but not necessarily surprising. We know from the historical record that governments will lie and deceive, and we've rarely seen one as immoral and venal as the Bush administration.

What has turned this crime into an astonishing demonstration of the depth of American democracy's decay is the complicity of the media establishment in hiding the original crime, and in thus doing so, ripping a gaping hole in the fabric of our political system.

Did you know that there now exists in the public domain a 'smoking gun' memo, which proves that everything the Bush administration said about the Iraq invasion was a lie? If you live in Britain you probably do, but if you live in the United States, chances are minuscule that you would be aware of this.

Think about that for a second. Apart from 9/11, has there been a more important story in the last decade than that the president lied to the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq, and then proceeded to plunge the country into an illegal war which has alienated the rest of the world, lit a fire under the war's victims and the Islamic world generally, turning them into enemy combatants, locked up virtually all American land forces in a war without end in sight, cost $300 billion and counting, taken over 1600 American lives on top of more than 15,000 gravely wounded, and killed perhaps 100,000 Iraqis?

Could there be a bigger story? "How Do Japanese Dump Trash?", perhaps, which ran on page one of today's (May 12) Times?

Of course not. But then how is it that this is not being reported in the American mainstream media? How is it that the two organs most responsible for coverage of political developments in this country - the New York Times and the Washington Post - have failed to splash this across their front pages in bold headlines, despite the fact that they clearly know of the story? How, especially, could these two papers sit on a story like this after both recently issued mea culpas for their respective failures to critically cover administration claims of bogus Iraqi threats during the period leading up to the war, thereby contributing to the war themselves?

From the Bush administration and the current generation of Republicans, I expect nothing but the most debased and vile politics. And, of course, ditto for Fox News and the rest of the overtly right-wing media. But I have been naive enough, until now, to believe that at least some of the American mainstream media has not climbed completely into bed with those destroyers of all that is decent about American democracy. Apparently I've been a fool.

Here is the story we are not being told.

Several days before their election last week (May 5), a patriot within the highest circle of British government leaked to the Times of London a memo, which proves the degree of deceit to which both the Americans and British publics have been subjected on the subject of the Iraq war. You were never supposed to see this document (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html). It is headlined in bold with this warning: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."

The memo provides minutes from a meeting of Tony Blair's most exclusive war cabinet, held in July of 2002. In the meeting, two of Blair's top officials report on discussions they had just held in Washington with officials at the top levels of the Bush administration.

Before describing the contents of the memo, it is important to note that nobody in the British government has denied to even the slightest degree the authenticity of this document. A highly placed American source has verified, off the record, that it is completely accurate in its recounting of the events described. And Tony Blair's only comment has been that there is 'nothing new' contained in the memo. This could not be more false. The memo proves beyond doubt the following:

* The Bush administration had decided by July 2002, at the latest, to invade Iraq. The memo says that "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action..." Later in the memo it notes that "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action". This means the claims that the president did not have a war plan on his desk at that time are now proven lies. It means that the whole kabuki dance of going to Congress, going to the UN, sending over weapons inspectors, pulling them out before they could finish their work, requiring Iraq to report to the Security Council on its weapons of mass destruction, then immediately rejecting their report as incomplete and deceitful - all of this - was a completely counterfeit exercise conducted for public relations purposes only. It also means that when former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former terrorism czar Richard Clarke reported that Bush had planned to attack Iraq from the beginning, they - rather than the administration which was personally savaging them as loonies - were telling the truth.

* The Bush and Blair administrations knew that the argument for war against Iraq was weak. As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw notes in the meeting, "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran". This is proof that Iraq was never anything like the serious threat it was portrayed to be before the war, and that both administrations knew that it was no threat, but knowingly and completely oversold the necessity for the war with their massive phalanx of lies and distortions.

* Because the case was thin, the war would have to be "...justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD". This proves that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't kidding when he let slip that the weapons of mass destruction argument was decided on by the administration for "bureaucratic reasons", meaning a rationale that all the leading actors within the administration could agree on as the most effective public relations device for marketing the war.

* Both the Bush and Blair administrations manipulated intelligence to get what they wanted in order to justify the war, and knew that they were doing precisely that. As the memo states, "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". This is the most remarkable statement of all, as it makes clear that the decision to invade had nothing to do with facts or any sort of real threat. Rather, it was simply a preference of the Bush administration (and probably just a personal one for Bush), which then became its policy, for which they then twisted and fabricated information and disinformation in order to sell the war to a rightly skeptical public.

* The war was illegal. Kofi Annan and the international community clearly believed that the war was a violation of international law. But we now also know that the British Attorney-General, who has to rule on this point (the question of the legality of launching a war is far less significant, unfortunately, in the American political tradition), "said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization [which was never ultimately obtained from the Security Council]. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might change of course." Yes, of course. Then, again, if it didn't, one could always just lie about it.

* Knowing that the war was neither legal nor morally justifiable, the American and British governments therefore sought to find a way to make the war politically acceptable by baiting Saddam. As the memo notes, "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force". And, "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors". And, "If the political context were right, people would support regime change".

* Well before the war was 'justified', even in the bogus sense of Washington's and London's inspections and UN resolutions game, it had already begun. The memo states that the "US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime".

* Finally, it is worth noting that, even putting legal and moral questions aside, the memo also substantiates the sheer strategic incompetence of the administration, a failure which has, of course, produced excessive loss of life. It states that "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".

Let's review the bidding here.

We now have definitive, verified and undenied evidence documenting a panoply of lies told to the American and world publics about the invasion of Iraq, a bloody war which was neither legally nor morally justified, despite overt attempts to make it so by those who wished to launch it.

On top of that crime, we can now also add that of America's fourth estate, which has completely abdicated its role and responsibility to present this crucial bombshell of information to the public.

It gets worse, however. Eighty-nine members of Congress have taken note of the items described above, as well as a separate secret briefing for Blair's meeting, in which it was agreed that "Britain and America had to 'create' conditions to justify a war", and have sent a letter to the president (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf), demanding a response.

And, yet, still there is no coverage from our press. It appears that demanding that the government respect the will of the people is no longer enough in American democracy. We must now also carry the burden of demanding that the media do its job and cover developments which are unfavorable to the national kleptocracy of which these giant media corporations have become a part.

That noise you hear? It's the sound of America's Founders spinning in their graves. And well they should, for this scenario is precisely the massive concentration of power they most feared. All branches of the government are now in the hands of the same party (meaning, effectively, there virtually are no branches any longer).

The so-called opposition party facilitates Republican rule through the flattery of imitation, when it hasn't gone into hiding instead. The public is frightened and ill-informed. And now this. To this hall of shame list must be added a mainstream press which a week ago seemed only biased and intimidated, but now appears entirely complicit. We are now living precisely the nightmare of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest. It must stop. We cannot have a prayer of an informed public curbing the worst excesses of American government if, in fact, that public is not informed. Sad as it is, if we ever hope to reclaim American democracy, it appears we must now fight for outrageous news to be aired, if we ever expect that news to outrage.

Notwithstanding our worst horrors and fears these last four years, American democracy is in deeper trouble than we knew. Now is the time for patriots to act.

We must begin by demanding coverage of this explosive evidence by the leading organs of American journalism. If the American people remain too jaded or frightened to demand the heads of those who deceived them so thoroughly, they're entitled to inherit the consequences of their own failures. However, they cannot make that choice until they know the facts.

Please therefore, for the sake of innocent Iraqis, for the sake of American soldiers, and for the sake of American democracy, do two things 'write now':

* First, send a message to the New York Times and the Washington Post, demanding that they cover this most significant of stories. Top brass at the New York Times can be emailed at the following addresses: Executive Editor Bill Keller at executive-editor@nytimes.com, and Managing Editor Jill Abramson at managing-editor@nytimes.com. For the Washington Post, try National Editor Michael Abramowitz at abramowitz@washpost.com, and Associate Editor Robert Kaiser at robertgkaiser@yahoo.com.

* Next, forward this article on to everybody you know, and ask them to write the Times and the Post as well, and then to forward this article in turn to everyone they know. With some luck, perhaps we can achieve a critical mass which can no longer be ignored by these papers, with the electronic media then to follow.

In any case, we are evidently going have to take this country back ourselves, without even the benefit of a competent media to report the news.

Fortunately, we possess the greatest weapon of all, the truth.

David Michael Green (pscdmg@hofstra.edu) is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0513-20.htm

Hey Bush read this

I am sitting here today giving things some thought. In case you were wondering I'm not a fan of a lot of the things that have transpired during the Bush Administration. Tom DeLay is a moral liability for those who claim to be with the "moral majority". In a diabolical twist of opportunity meeting a chance of redemption, why don't DeLay and Bush team up and create a bipartisan "Summit of the Americas".

What is the Summit of the Americas going to be you ask? Well I'm still working out the details a bit, but taking a page from the recent Pakistan - India accord about softening the borders of Kashmir. Completely out of the blue sky, nuclear rivals India and Pakistan just developed an "irreversible peace process." Monday they agreed to open up the militarized frontier dividing Kashmir. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf visited New Delhi, India to finalize the exchange. President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said they were working toward a compromise in Kashmir to boost trade, travel and cooperation across the frontier.

In case you haven't been scoring this disagreement at home, India and Pakistan have been in a nuclear proliferation war for border supremacy to get the upper hand in negotiations for Kashmir for the last 10 years. The US even tried to fan the flames recently by selling Pakistan a bunch of F-16's, while allowing India to purchase a better set of planes from the litany of technology the US is willing to sell. The coup-de-gras of this landmark meeting between India and Pakistan was a cricket match between them. Pakistan won on Sunday.

Think about this, let's put Tom DeLay and his family's fundraising skills with corporate clients to use, and have the same litany of companies that donated money to Bush's Inauguration this year give some tax deductible greenbacks to this cause. The panderers who lined up for the Bush's Inauguration might be the only ones who could see the benefit of product placement before the world's most affluent decision makers. The donations could also underwrite part of the cost for researching these vital issues in a bipartisan way.

Since neither Condoleeza Rice, nor the UN Ambassador to be John Bolton have an iota of diplomatic skill, let's use the backdrop of the amazing beauty of all that is the United States of America. Bush could invite all of the world leaders of the G7 meetings, all the nations that hold the paper on our massive debt, OPEC and the member states we are on speaking terms with, and representatives from the world's poorest nations as well.

The people at the Summit of the Americas can look forward to a more relaxed Bush, and the refreshing attitude of Americans along the tour. We could promote all of the beautiful things that makes America an original. The summit will also be a recertification of the true American spirit that helped during WWI, and WWII. That attitude of helping hands uniting minds with optimism is the most valuable export the US has.

The country can be split into four regions and put to a vote all US citizens and visitors to come up with the most iconic America we all agree on. The 14 day summit will feature two days in each area with a baseball game at every stop, and a couple of travel days to see the places in between. The summit will also be the showcase of the US diplomacy and innovation. The summit will also address some of the most important issues that the world faces. World Debt, World Hunger, World Health, World Energy Comsumption, and World Air Pollution.

Our congress and president will have to spearhead commissions to research all of these issues. As it stands now, the rest of the world is concerned with the value of the debt it has financed on behalf of the US. The US economy is staving off inflation, but hasn't outpaced inflation in growth for wage earners in a few years. The congress and president will also have to address the laws made to protect wealth, and profitability of corporations, and personal bankruptcies because they come with the costs of lack of a clear overtime provision, predatory lending, lack of a future for the true middle class, and poverty and lifelong indebtedness for the other 99% of its people. Without people the rich and corporations have nothing.

All things considered we have to realize a true balanced budget. Instead of spending an reported $300-$350 billion US on the war on terror, and moving toward $1 Trillion in budget defecits in the last 3 years. Our economy will have to convince those that we owe the bond yields to that investing in America is good for everyone involved. The safest way to do so would be a balanced budget with investments in improving US infrastructure, or the world through a reasonable debt forgiveness plan for poor countries, and aid to other countries so the overall percentage of giving totals the recommendation of .7% of our annual GDP.

Here are the real numbers according to www.dw-world.de

"Meanwhile the IMF and World Bank appealed to industrialized countries to uphold their pledge of spending 0.7 percent of their Gross Domestic Product to support developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Agreed to in 1969 during a UN conference, only a handful of countries have met the target, including Norway and Sweden.

The United States, one of the world's strongest economies, currently spends less than 0.2 percent of its GDP on development aid. France put 0.4 percent of its GDP towards aid programs in Africa, and in Germany, the goal is to reach 0.33 percent by 2006.

On the issue of Iraq, the support for debt relief was even less resounding. Whereas the US has lobbied for forgiving 90 percent of the Arab nation's $120 billion (€97 billion) in foreign debt, other nations are more critical. Germany and France reject such a high percentage, saying 50 percent is more appropriate. Citing its extensive oil reserves, France has argued that Iraq should not be treated any better than considerably poorer nations.

On Friday, members of the G7 had concluded their meeting with the goal of agreeing to the framework for a debt reduction plan for Iraq by the end of the year."

The prosperity of a few at the cost of the futures majority is not a fair system for those without access to wealth to thrive. People are the lifeblood of our economy, and continuing to punish them at tax time stifles growth, and the opportunity to ever become self sustaining as a group of individual people. Flat taxes, repealing estate taxes, repealing of the dividend tax, and attempts to repeal the capital gains tax all benefit those who are affluent. Italy's government tried to pass similar legislation and were scuttled by a countrywide union strike. Until we solve those financial inequities inside our borders we as a people will never see the benefit of wiping out world hunger, disease, AIDS, or easing of the punishing debt of third world countries.

We have to see the benefits of having more opportunities for more people and sharing our wealth with other members of our immediate world, long before we will ever want to aid those half a world away. Debt, Health, and Hunger always walk hand in hand. Where there is one of those issues exists, all of those issues exist. The bipartisan group have a lot to figure out just to get that initiative moving.

The spiraling costs of energy have crushed out economy's actual rebound. We are at all time highs for gasoline. If OPEC and the rest of the world during this summit cannot reach an accord to improve on the Kyoto accord for air pollution, find more renewable energy resources, the world will be in peril. The US needs to get it's automotive manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles including more hybrid vehicles. The costs of fuel are in every area of our society.

The costs are figured into travel, groceries, consumer items, and almost everything else that gets transported from one place to another in the entire world. Bush and the bipartisan committee need to address our approach to renewable energies. The US is currently consuming 2% more energy than it can produce. That margin can be made up through a plan to find other renewable energy sources that don't violate the Kyoto accord for greenhouse gas emissions.

The most vital issues that we face as a world, World Debt, World Hunger, World Health, World Energy Comsumption, and World Air Pollution are all issues the US needs to be the leader on solving, if we don't than the solution will come at a great expense to the average American more than ever before. The world expects the US to lead, when we don't the rest of the world wonders if it can be done. Maybe we can't solve them all, but if Bush, DeLay and a bipartisan commission can see eye to eye on solving these issues then Bush can actually have a positive light in the legacy he is so concerned with. The backdrop of the recent success of the Washington D.C. sports scene could serve a similar purpose as the cricket match between India and Pakistan. An opportunity to get the world together to discuss major issues in an informal light in order to facilitate sweeping change for everyone's benefit.

Exxon Mobil's sordid past in Alaska

How many of us remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989? I remember the pictures of the devastation. All the aquatic life covered in crude oil. It was an abomination what happened to the Alaskan ecosystem there. I know anyone who made their living from salmon fishing, or the canneries saw their business come to an abrupt stop. For those of you who don't remember what happened, here's a synopsis from Online Wikipedia :

"Beginning 3 days after the vessel grounded, a storm pushed large quantities of fresh oil onto the rocky shores of many of the beaches in the Knight Island chain. In this photograph, pooled oil is shown stranded in the rocks.

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez incident U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, including a clause banning the Exxon Valdez from Alaskan waters. Exxon spent some 2 billion dollars cleaning up the spill with 11,000 workers, and a further 1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case. A lawsuit brought by fishermen, property owners, businesses and communities who claimed they were harmed by the spill is still in progress as of 2002. An award of $287 million for actual damage and $5 billion for punitive damages was awarded by an Anchorage jury in 1994. Exxon appealed against the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge Russel Holland to reduce the amount. On December 6, 2002 the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and not grossly excessive.

Exxon's company position is that no punitive damages are justified because the spill was an accident. However in court it was argued that allowing a "known drunk" to captain the ship was reprehensible. Exxon sent it back to court, to be considered in regards to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, resulting in Judge Holland actually upping the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest. Exxon is again appealing, some fifteen years after the incident. The case currently sits in the 9th Circuit appellate court. The Exxon Valdez damages assessment is also important in that it was the first, which assessed the existence value of the environmental resource in question an assessment which was done through the use of contingent valuation techniques.
…. On January 29, 1990 the trial of captain Joseph Hazelwood began in Anchorage, Alaska. Then on March 13, 1991 the United States Justice Department announced that Exxon had agreed to pay $1 billion for the clean up of the spill. In fact, Exxon spent approximately $2 billion cleaning up the spill, paid in large part by insurance. Exxon has also paid damages of $50 million from an insurance fund.

According to reports from the Survivors of the Valdez Oil Spill, Exxon has earned approximately 800 million dollars a year on the money set aside to pay the punitive damages fine, which as of 2001, equaled $6 billion dollars, more than enough to pay the damage award without impacting the financial standing of the company."

The most disturbing thing is that as of last year Exxon Mobil is the most valuable company in the US, with a market capitalization of $388 billion as of 2/19/05. Exxon Mobil also enjoyed a banner year of revenue to the tune of a record setting $298 billion. Exxon Mobil also had a profit of $25.3 billion, which is believed to be a record for a U.S. company after excluding windfalls from selling assets. So then Exxon Mobil in the interim decade of bill dodging had the opportunity to spend money to influence policy decisions. According to the Washington Post "Exxon Mobil, was the largest campaign contributor among energy companies in 2004. They gave $5.2 million to Republicans in the past decade. Bush personally received $2.5 million from oil and gas companies for his reelection bid alone. Exxon Mobil is a leading contributor to Arctic Power, a lobbying group formed to promote drilling in Alaska."

It has been estimated by the government that the new oil fields in the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could produce nearly 1 million barrels of crude oil a day by 2025. It is sad to me that Exxon Mobil gets to pander to drill more Alaskan oilfields in a wildlife refuge after killing so much wildlife in the first place. Exxon Mobil has the means to repay the citizens of Alaska, and repair the goodwill lost and they continue to put it off. Let's do a little math here. Imagine investing $4.5 billion in a modest return account for 11 years. Let's also say you believe the Survivors of the Valdez Oil Spill, who claim Exxon Mobil has earned approximately $800 million dollars a year off that investment. With a modest 17.78% return over the last 11 years Exxon Mobil has now made 195.56% on money they owe. Which means the interest on the original investment now totals $8.8 billion in addition to the $4.5 billion principal, and Exxon Mobil doesn't want to pay what is originally owed to the businesses of Alaska harmed by the spill. How does our government reward a company like that with any future drilling opportunities? What if they have another spill? Does anyone else outside Alaska care? I know I do.

High School Ignorance

how the hell can you be against the 1st amendment?
man some stupid ass high school kids just don’t get it
let me walk you through a world where it doesn’t exist
try to tell me you’d enjoy this sh*t

you’re now living in a world when you express your view
the government reserves the right to imprison you
for an indefinite period of time, or until you change your mind
living in a country with a single view
and most of the time it doesn’t include you
unless you’re a cog in the government approved machine

did you know speaking out against things that don’t make sense
is your responsibility as a citizen
we enjoy a freedom of thought that others don’t get
do you know what happened to when Mandela spoke out against apartheid
or are you on the wrong side?
living your life like a fascist siding with those who want to destroy freedom

freedom of speech, press and religion
cause that’s what I’m diggin
you can say what’s on your mind all of the time
have any faith you want to believe
and leave the press to investigate things

some people think the government should control the press
and edit what they present to us
we all know the government never gives full disclosure
without the press, who do you suppose will
ask the questions leaving no stone unturned?
presenting information to the people how it really went down

what about all the people that prey
what if they were all forced to do it the same way
and have the same religion no matter what they believe
so they have “unity” in thought
that is not at all what our forefathers taught us to want, nor believe
it would invalidate everything
including the entire reasoning for the revolutionary war

are you going to be responsible, or are you going to be a whore?
taking in everything you are given only if the government is giving it to you
handing out servings of bullsh*t, but in this world it’s all you get
no voice of the people
everyone in this example is feeble
powerless to institute change

the 1st amendment gives us the rights
only a fool would give them away
in exchange for “dissenters” being whisked away in the night some never to return
the only reason the government exists is to give boundaries
on what you should and shouldn’t do, but never the right to oppress you

America's apathy to the truth

it’s a crime what we allow to go on
submissive is our will as we defer to “the strong”
eventhough we know what they’re doing in our name is just wrong
those with the “will” to do what we won’t
supposedly wise enough to see what we don’t
our “ill-fated” guardians of public consciousness
ready to lie, cheat, steal, and kill anyone indiscriminately for us
why are we so willing to give them our trust?
when all they try to do is divide and control us

we have the power in the world’s hour of need
but all we do is sit and watch others bleed
to feed our need to overconsume
while the waistlines of our people continue to balloon
out of control
who stole our soul, and left us with this
while the rest of us are up to our necks in sh*t
those motherf**kers have no worry
in a scurry to buy the latest trend
the rest of us ain’t got sh*t
havin a fit, with no end in sight
that’s why it time to fight
end the blight, we’ve all suffered through
we need to burn the guardian down to the ground
and protect ourselves and start over new

who’s the victim
ain’t no victim till we let the guardian pick one
ruling us with an iron fist like a dictatorship
what’s up with that sh*t?
the guardians are a hot item handlers
while they pander on who’s gonna f**k us first
like we’re britney spears and they’re fred durst

with our tax money the guardians kill the innocent
so women in baghdad can get prescription valium for 22 cents
what is freedom? what is freedom worth?
when torture is the guardians celebrated sport
where’s the unrest? where’s the outrage?
or are you just going turn the page?
to the next section of news that’s easier to digest
because you digress, from reality to fantasy like
a late 60’s MIA alabama air national guardsman who shall remain nameless

don’t you find it funny that the guardians wants your tax money
and the right to tell you how they’re going spend it
since when is an elected official not a public servant?
we let them tell us a story littered with half-truths, misperceptions and lies
what about the cries of the parents who lost a child in the two headed quagmires
using the military to deliver democracy by bayonet is bullsh*t
why in the world do the american people stand for it?

problems to solve, people to save, and things to fix
some of our most beloved were lost in the mix
yet there’s no one to blame
I think that’s a shame
while soldiers are dying our president is lying to himself and the rest of the world
if he thinks the world is a safer place because anything he’s done

CU-Boulder has problems

What in the world is going on at CU-Boulder? In the last 12 months the school cannot remain out of the headlines. I know that good PR can help the school's attendance, but bad PR isn’t a good thing. No one can put out the multiple fires the school concurrently faces and consequently the appeal of a college education in Boulder is bound to drop. Double-digit tuition increases the last few years make it unappealing for out of state students already.

The CU football recruiting scandal made the campus seem like it was hostile towards women. My recollection isn't perfect, but the school has underserved all the victims who stepped forward with the allegations. They have allegations of sexual assault, which is a serious crime against women, and the school hasn’t really embraced them. Some of that may be because of the pending litigation, but it is no excuse for complete indifference. The women were students that were stonewalled and abandoned by the school in their time of need. I don't know a lot of fathers that want to send their daughters into a lion’s den protected by the school they send tuition payments to if it puts their child in harms way.

The ensuing circus in the CU-Administration that didn't follow most of the recommendations of the Co-Chair of the independent investigation came to light recently. The leaked grand jury report, which makes the CU Football and the Athletic Department look like they were more aware of events than they previously claimed, while at the same time maintaining a hands off relationship with the Administration. The report raised a lot more questions than were solved by the administration at CU. The CU-Foundation is now attempting to sue 9News and Paula Woodward because of the leaked report. I think the damage is already done, so why sue? The reputation of the school is already tainted. Why not solve the problem instead of trying to save face through litigation?

Moving on to the Ward Churchill situation that has been mishandled to say the least. The professor has the right to speak his mind. If the school was uncomfortable with what he said, why did it take them over 3 years to find his essay? He is on the campus to teach, why not evaluate his class once in a while. The school acted surprised when his teachings came to light. The sad thing is that this isn't their only issue with a professor.

Now environmental ethics instructor Adrienne Anderson has filed a federal whistleblower complaint against CU. Prof. Anderson found out that the environmental studies program was planning classes, and she wasn't going to teach any of them. She feels after years of informing students about the polluting ways of corporations and governmental agencies that her release is politically motivated. Now the courts will decide.

CU-President Betsy Hoffman resigned effective June 30,2005. I can't blame her for resigning. With all of these headaches on a national stage to be scrutinized down to the finite points, who wants the stress? Her only major mistake was trying to argue than the word “cunt” was a term on endearment at one point so its context never changed. I’m going to be the first to tell you that is one of the weakest arguments ever recorded.

Hoffman couldn't win for losing because she never could fire Barnett. The amount of incriminating evidence, and Barnett's conduct warranted a dismissal, but the school was never behind that. The football program bankrolls a lot of sports at CU. If the football program went south, the Athletic Department would have struggled. All those things aside, it is no excuse. She should have been able to fire Barnett without the school wondering if it would look like an admission of anything in their pending lawsuits.

Now the NAACP has been asked by African-American students to intervene on their behalf because of a growing hostility toward people of color on the campus. Some African-American students on campus have been subject to racial slurs. One event happened in a classroom when a white student dropped a 'N' bomb on an African-American student and a fight ensued. It's 2005 and there is no place for a student to have to deal with ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual orientation harassment or insults by another student. The student code of conduct needs to be changed to include such measures, or if they exist they need to be enforced.

Unhappy students = lower enrollment = lower revenue for the school. It’s a simple equation. Quick question. How is any educating going on with all of these distractions in the atmosphere of education?

Life Expectancy in Zambia is 31 years now because of AIDS

It's sad to hear such news. They are a people with a beautiful way to look at the world. This is their constitution.

Principles of Humanism -(Zambia)

1. Man at the center
"...This MAN is not defined according to his color, nation, religion, creed, political leanings, material contribution or any matter..."

2. The dignity of Man
"Humanism teaches us to be considerate to our fellow men in all we say and do..."

3. Non-exploitation of Man by Man
"Humanism abhors every form of exploitation of MAN by man."

4. Equal opportunities for all
"Humanism seeks to create an egalitarian society--that is, society in which there is equal opportunity for self-development for all..."

5. Hard work and Self-reliance
"Humanism declares that a willingness to work hard is of prime importance without it nothing can be done anywhere..."

Thanks Bill Owens

I find the fact that Bill Owens is demanding Ward Churchill's resignation is the peak of hypocrisy in a former stronghold of hate. Colorado has been aptly labeled " the hate state" for a good reason. Not that all hate started here, but a group of people set out to make it legal. The cross on Lookout Mountain people see as a tribute to christian faith used to be the rallying point for our state's own massive Klan rallies in the past.

Who really defines the parameters of hate speech? Is hate speech only seen when the voice projecting it is inciting problems? Or is it when someone makes an unfair assessment? Or when it becomes legal to discriminate against people you don't like? We live in a state that passed an amendment to our state constitution that wanted to make discrimination against gays and lesbians perfectly legal. Yet somehow it took the US supreme court to declare the amendment unconstitutional before everyone realized the problems with it. Focus on the Family, and Colorado for Family Values were seen as alright because they were religious organizations. In case you don't remember Amendment 2 here are some of the hate highlights:

"Repeal all existing municipal and country ordinances, state laws, and Executive orders, school board policies, library policies, etc. which protected persons from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation."

"Repeal any regulations which protected homosexuals or bisexuals. This is a theoretical possibility, because no such regulations are believed to have existed at that time or exist today."

"Prevent any new regulations from being passed and implemented that would have protected anyone from discrimination because of their orientation."

"Allow regulations to be passed and implemented which gave special privileges to heterosexuals."

To most that would appear to sanction discrimination, hate speech in action, and preferential treatment to those who are persecuting another group of people. Yet the voters still passed it in this state by a 7% margin. The amendment was sold to the voters as a way to prevent "special rights" given to gays & lesbians in our state, which didn't exist contrary to the paranoia. WE all should have known better, but no one took the time to research whether the amendment had any validity in its accusations. Fortunately for the sane people in our state who voted against it saw it for what it really was, an opportunity to discriminate against an identifiable class of people to deprive them of their due process rights because of an unfounded paranoia based on someone's religious beliefs.

Owens now contends that "But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under the banner of the University of Colorado. Ward Churchill besmirches the university and the excellent teaching, writing and research of its faculty." Maybe I missed something here but didn't sate taxpayer money assist the placement and ratification of Amendment 2 to our state constitution in 1992?

Now we have Ward Churchill who has a style some would try to describe as inflammatory. I took the time to read the entire essay and the reference to the "technicians", and "little Eichmanns" was a single sentence in about a 3-4 page stream of consciousness essay. Although I don't agree with every assertion that Churchill makes in his essay "Some People Push Back", he has a right to believe and express his views in any way he sees fit. That's one of the beauties of the 1st amendment.

From my eyes the essay tries at best to explain why people would be motivated to enact the attack on the world trade center for the second time in a decade. He brings to light a lot of the suffering the Iraqi children have suffered at the hands of the U.S. military, and UN trade sanctions for the last 12 years. How that is a pretext for the largest innocent civilian casualty attack on U.S. soil I'm not sure, but in his series of facts and metaphors his idea of how is pretty easy to follow what he thinks. Churchill never asked anyone to see it from his eyes, but it is easy to follow for those who read the entire essay.

Genocide and theft is how America has been able to grow and thrive since 1776. Some may argue that it goes back to Jamestown in 1606, and in a lot of instances I agree. America would have failed without the benefit of almost 100 years of free slave labor, and killing the Native Americans and taking their lands to gain all of the natural resources. The negotiations with the Native Americans were transparent because the US government went back on its word and killed them to take all their newly agreed reservation lands, oil, gold, silver, timber, and actual homes. Yet no one was ever responsible because America rationalized the need to take these things because of Manifest Destiny instead of fair compensation. How is the oil & land grab in Iraq today any different? What happened to the 40 acres an a mule promised to the newly freed slaves after the Civil War? White America waffled at its cost, and parity for Black America had to wait another 100 years for equal rights and equal opportunity to be legislated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Throughout the CU football recruiting scandal Owens didn't have much to say. The only thing i remember him saying is that if CU didn't look into the scandal properly he would. He didn't recommend Coach Gary Barnett, President Betsy Hoffman, or Athletic Director Dick Tharpe to resign. Well I can say there are no real changes made to the way things are done at CU. Since Barnett won the Big 12 North Division and got to a bowl that made the school money, all is forgiven and aptly swept under the rug. No recruit, athelete, or coach was reprimanded, or prosecuted for the alleged sexual assaults, and the women who came forward including a former athlete on the football team are still waiting for justice to be served on their behalf. Owens never recommended a course of action to replace anyone involved in the scandal, but he comes out of hiding to get involved in an intellectual matter at CU.

Owens is too busy sucking up to the Bush administration to do anything useful as our governor. Does Ward Churchill threaten the facade of war the american people were not told about pre invasion? I think the fact that Churchill presents information contrary to the snow job the corporate american media and senior members of the Bush administration presented makes Churchill a threat. Does anyone remember the fact this war started out as a hunt for now non-existent weapons of mass destruction, biological & chemical weapons? What issue is more important ? One man's opinion, or the web of lies and deceit of an entire administration?

Can you name anything Owens has done to improve anyone's quality of life since elected to office? Yeah neither can I. Yet somehow when Churchill's essay has a single sentence that people disagree with, he want's Churchill to be whisked away. When a person of color makes a statement that somehow isn't accepted by White Americans, they all call for his/her head, but when the shoe is on the other foot people of color are told they're being too sensitive and they should wait their turn. What a country.